A friend calls to mind Wordsworth's sonnet "London, 1802:"
MILTON! thou should'st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a Star, and dwelt apart:
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life's common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
33 comments:
I think we should ban the British government from visiting the UK. After all, they clearly allow all sorts of British people in, while Wilders is a foreigner. No government has any right to keep out any foreigner. A leftist told me so it must be true. And as we know, all foreigners are utterly helpless, utterly innocent, and have an infinite right to move to Britain (or visit) whenever they choose. Clearly the British government is a bunch of racists.
Also, I'm pretty sure the (poor, helpless) Dutch were oppressed by the British at some time in the past, so I think all British people should be required to wear wooden shoes. Anyone who disagrees is anti-free speech (guaranteed by the First Amendment to the World Constitution), and should be hung from a windmill until they've bloody well had enough.
That is all.
Looks like the individual who decided Wilders was not on the guest list for the highly exclusive Commie Club is quite a piece of work. Restrictions on the right to take photographs? Seriously?
Oh, and when she first got elected, she had been selected from an all-female shortlist - illegal at the time.
Some theories as to why Smith didn't let Wilders in:
1. Not down with the combed-back blond 'do - it's just so [other decade].
2. Jealous of all the attention he fawned on Pamela Geller.
3. Politicians are, like, so grody.
4. Wilders is a Thatcherite. How many times to Labour defeat Thatcher?
5. The Labour Party would never, ever, even toy with the idea of letting foreigners with controversial political positions into Britain, at least not if those foreigners were from the pork-eating, not-praying-five-times-to-Mecca set.
I watched, at a ISteve.blogspot commenter's suggestion, the documeturary, "A Very British Gangster" that examined life amongst a criminal English family in Manchester, England.
That country is in serious trouble.
The welfare laws reward young women who get pregnant, giving them a little place to live and taking care of them. Its made men "redundant" and they attempt to out-thug one another to attract females. Petty crime is becoming de riguer, and "chavs" and hooligans are the male archetypes that are in fashion for young teen males to aspire to. Its a social disaster. Throwing Muslims on the fire wont help at all.
If we had an honest media here in the states, many of the Obamessiah's policies that emulated England's failed one's could be examined and shown to be failures before we implement them here. England is becoming a cautionary tale. I hope Tony Blair gets the judgement he deserves from God in the next life.
Let's talk more about the thousands of people in Europe who have been jailed and fined for criticizing Jews and non-Western immigrants and for questioning the official holocaust story and racial equality.
It's interesting to note how so many people who never spoke out when Jean Marie Le Pen was fined or when John Tyndall(the founder of the British National Party) was imprison are now whining when people who criticize Muslims are getting in trouble. Who's interests are being protected by this? Do these people support free speech or just certain kinds of speech?
"Let's talk more about the thousands of people in Europe who have been jailed and fined for criticizing Jews and non-Western immigrants and for questioning the official holocaust story and racial equality."
Thousands? Methinks you exaggerate. A lot.
Go back to Majority Rights.
Ne panique pas, mes amis Americains.
There's hell to pay for this. You have no idea how furious the British people are at this sodomising on our freedoms, tradition and society.
Geert Wilders is something of a national hero at the moment, and this vile, repugnant little government is going to get a kicking at the next election like no government in history.
We will have our country back.
Thousands? Methinks you exaggerate. A lot.
So how many is it? I remember reading something recently that referred to the number and I was shocked by how high it was. The number implied (to me anyway) that we only hear about the famous ones.
Limey prig (is that hate speech?) defends exclusion of Wilders:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/02/13/geert-out-of-here/#comment-4389
I have to admit to being shocked when he mentioned that UK citizens of the Muslim persuasion have been deported by by NuLabor from their own country. Yet more evidence that NuLabor (despite its ultra-PC, anti-white, Multicultist ideology) is even more Hitlerian than the W regime was.
"Let's talk more about the thousands of people in Europe who have been jailed and fined for criticizing Jews and non-Western immigrants and for questioning the official holocaust story and racial equality."
Thousands? Methinks you exaggerate. A lot.
Thousands fined? I doubt that's an exaggeration. Probably only dozens jailed for the ultimate heresy of "Holocaust denial" though.
Still, it's enough to make the self-styled free speech crusaders who complain about suppression of anti-Islamic speech seem ridiculous - how many of these frauds have said a word in support of the right of Ernst Zundel or Germar Rudolf to free speech?
The readership of this blog consists of a large number of careful critical thinkers and a small number of knuckle dragging anti semites.
The anti semites seem to have the time and inclination to post frequently, however.
Speaking to the anti semites, i would say the following. If you wish to reduce the flood of violent muslim immigrants in to Europe and in to the USA, you are going to have to build a coalition. Please consider that the coalition is likely to be bigger and stronger if you welcome jews in to it. Already you can count on Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight , Marcus Epstein, and others to join you in this coalition.
Even the leaders of the BNP, who i am sure in their hearts have no love for the jewish people, have realized that they need to form a coalition and as a result have welcomed jews to their movement.
So I say to the anti semites on this blog, you have to set your priorities. If your main priority is reducing muslim / jihadi immigration, then forget the anti semetism for a few years. Build a coalition.
If your real interest is complaining and being forever a failure, then pick multiple fights at the same time and ignore coalition building
Hugh Oxford said
We will have our country back.
That sounds like n-n-na-nat-nationlism! Do you have permission from George Soros and Abraham Foxman to say that?
The authorities may have to search you on suspicion of terrorism, old boy. They shall start in the kitchen. Knives and all that sort of thing, you know...
Anonymous said
Thousands? Methinks you exaggerate. A lot. Go back to Majority Rights.
Yeah, it's only a couple hundred a most. Nothing to speak of. Move along.
They'd stop Milton at the border, too. Too whitebread, you know. Goyishkopf. Not contructive for New Britain.
Besides, what contribution could he realistically make to Britain's economy? That's the important thing.
Thousands? Methinks you exaggerate. A lot.
You're wrong. Snarkily wrong. Learn a little German. Look around government websites. Prosecutions of "right wing" offenders are in the tens of thousands. So if you're concerned about making some big boy social statement, that's cool, but google's never far away if you want to do a little digging and find statistics.
Sorry, Hugh, you labor under the white liberal-conservative conceit that elections in "democratic" states magically change things.
Last time I looked, every two-legged creature under the sun that managed to creep into old Albion was allowed to call itself British. So who are you talking about when you say the "British people" are furious? Ethnic Anglo-Saxons? That's what I presume, and if that's the case, and your anger's rooted in race, and race is the biggest political taboo in Britain for biosocial reasons, how is an election going to help out?
I'm not being hostile. Just curious.
I read Wilders said he's going to show up and dare the British government to arrest him and put him in handcuffs. Good man.
"It's interesting to note how so many people who never spoke out when Jean Marie Le Pen was fined or when John Tyndall(the founder of the British National Party) was imprison are now whining when people who criticize Muslims are getting in trouble."
Yes, it's veeery interesting. Perhaps you should find one of these people and give them a good tongue-lashing.
I don't think you'll find many advocates of the European anti-free speech laws on this site, however.
And if you're reaction to the outrageous Wilders situation is merely to point at some other, distantly analogous event and sputter, I would suggest your priorities are out of whck.
First off, the action is illegal under the EU treaty, as Wilders is an accredited parliamentarian from a signatory member: the Netherlands.
So the action is illegal.
It was done to curry favor with Muslims, and Muslim voting blocs.
Next, all sorts of anti-Semitic speech and actions, including arson of synagoges, murder, and so on are tolerated by the authorities all over the EU ... as long as they are Muslims.
Muslims hold the violence veto: "don't make us angry or we'll do horrific violence." The deeply feminized, PC EU responds by cowering down and banning people who speak out like Wilders.
This leaves people at the street level who are "Stuck" and cannot leave the EU for the US with only native organized crime figures to fight back against growing Muslim intimidation: the Camorra, the Mafia, other native criminal gangs facing street level annihilation by Muslim gangs.
As the authorities collapse, showing to all that whoever can intimidate the most gets all the political power.
There is not any military to speak of in the EU, nor much police. Living off the US defense umbrella for decades has its cost.
This will not end well.
As for the Holocaust denying laws, given that much of Europe had the history of active collaboration, for no other reason than hatred of Jews who posed no threat whatsoever, in carrying out the murder of about 6 million Jews, it's understandable.
The laws date from the immediate post-War period, when Holocaust Denial was intricately linked with living ex-Nazis and collaborators who plotted some sort of "restoration" European wide of the Third Reich and it's general principles. That this was a fantasy with American and Soviet troops occupying Europe and having a Nuke Duopoly was no matter, the reaction was emotional.
After all, much of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Eastern Europe, basically all of Europe excepting Italy and Bulgaria, actively sought out Jews for extermination, for no real material reward whatsoever.
It's worth noting that the "exemption" that Muslims get for Holocaust Denial is quite striking. It's common for nearly all Muslim preachers and speakers to both deny the Holocaust and promise another one on most European street corners, and suffer nothing. While European non-Muslim lunatics doing the same are promptly arrested.
As Glen Reynolds of Instapundit, Mark Steyn, and others have noted, this is a guarantee that violence works. So we can expect more of it.
[Tactically and from a perspective of rule of law, it would be better to imprison as many Muslim speakers as possible for Holocaust Denial, rather than simply legalize it, as it would only reward violence. And since most of the Muslim speakers advocate a broad range of treasonous demands, it would be good to put them in prison on general principle anyway. Like getting Al Capone on Tax Evasion.]
Apropos of the contemporary situation:
Agreed that the reaction to Holocaust denialism is practically hysterical. (If my people reacted that way to the MSM coverup of black-on-white violence, we'd never get any work done.) No reason you can't debate the exact number of civilians shot, gassed, and starved to death by the National Socialists, but just because the other guy guesses a lower number than you doesn't make you God's Gift to World Jewry.
The answer is more attention paid to the Nazis, not less. Teach about how Hitler quoted Marx. Teach about how many Slavs Hitler killed. Teach about how more Jews escaped through "fascist" (conservative Catholic) Spain than "pacifist" Switzerland.* Teach about the similarities between how National Socialist rhetoric treated banks and Jews, and how international Socialist rhetoric treats banks and the bourgeoisie.
* I have known quite a few leftists who think that, because Switzerland is neutral, "they don't have an army". (Some of the same ones think that, because Costa Rica doesn't have an army, it is neutral!) Nowadays I just chuckle at them when their back is turned.
The government should worry less about the tender sensibilities of Muslim immigrants and focus on rebuilding moral fibre in our native slackers - I'd say "working class" - but the ones I'm referring to don't work. If this country wants to survive, let alone thrive, this is important.
Islam has huge problems of its own: moderates vs extremists; Shia vs Sunni; the treatment of women; etc. Debate should be welcomed. It is a disgrace that Wilders was banned from the "mother of parliaments".
It's time the third raters running Britain (Ed "Balls", Jacqui (or however she spells it) Smith, David "Banana" Milliband and Gordon "Mr Bean" Brown") were removed from office.
As for the Holocaust denying laws, given that much of Europe had the history of active collaboration, for no other reason than hatred of Jews who posed no threat whatsoever
No threat whatsoever? testing99 aka evil neocon is spreading manure again.
Jews played a large role in the organization, finance and staffing of the Marxist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. This is a legitimate subject of historical discussion among modern Jewish intellectuals, as long as the discussion is kept relatively quiet. But gentile interest in the subject is obvious evidence of Jew hatred and essentially Thought Crime.
True or false: Many Jews were aggressively attempting to export the Russian Marxist revolution to Germany and other European countries. The correct answer is that you shouldn't be talking about it!
American students do not know anything about the Marxist revolutionary struggle that was waged across Europe before WWI, and in the period between the wars (Weimar and pre WWII). They don't anything about the Jewish role in that struggle. Americans are taught that the Nazis sprang out of nothing but irrational paranoia to a phantom menace. Americans don't know anything today about the communist movement in Germany because they aren't supposed to know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany
"Through the 1920s the KPD was racked by internal conflict between more and less radical factions, partly reflecting the power struggles between Zinoviev and Stalin in Moscow. Germany was seen as being of central importance to the struggle for socialism, and the failure of the German revolution was a major setback. Eventually Levi was expelled in 1921 by the Comintern for "indiscipline." Further leadership changes took place in the early 1920s, and Party members accused of being Trotskyites were expelled; of these, Heinrich Brandler, August Thalheimer and Paul Frolich set up a splinter Communist Party Opposition."
It is no mistake that Americans know nothing about the Weimar Republic. It is no mistake that Americans don't know who the hell Rosa Luxemburg was. The actual ethno-political struggles behind the greatest events of the 20th century have been deliberately expunged from the public consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemborg
"Anonymous said...
Please consider that the coalition is likely to be bigger and stronger if you welcome jews in to it. Already you can count on Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight , Marcus Epstein, and others to join you in this coalition."
I think you are right. However, this does beg the question: Why is it absolutely necessary to get such a small block (only 3-4% of the population) on our side in order to restrict immigration? Why is that one group so important? And does this one group effectively exercise a veto power over our desire to regulate the composition of our own country? To answer that question is to begin to know what motivates some anti-semites.
My answer to Mr. Anon is:
What is it that makes liberal Jews think the immigration restriction camp is against them?
If it is recent rudeness about Jews, or Holocaust denial, by people in the anti-immigration camp, then the denialists need to be pointed out so the immigration patriots can read them out of the movement.
If it is decades-old rudeness about Jews, or Holocaust denial, by people in the anti-immigration camp, then the anti-anti-Semites need to explain why this is so much more important than the direct incitements to murder Jews that are being spouted by Muslims - not isolated cranks, but masses of street demonstrators - all over the world.
If trash-talk about Jews in past decades is less important than "KILL ALL JUICE" signs carried last month by men who show every willingness to do just that, it would seem logical for Jews to mend fences with some fairly politically incorrect immigration critics to try to maintain a number of safe homelands for dhimmis.
Given that the total number of non-Muslims in the world exceeds the number of Jews, these homelands will have to be rather bigger than Israel. Areas where the economies are too bad to attract any immigrants (Russia, Latin America) don't count; there is no reason for dhimmis to be forced to abandon the healthy economies they have made. That would just create another wave of immigration later, as the Muslims would again flee the economies they cripple.
Blode, you are 100% correct when you say
*** it would seem logical for Jews to mend fences with some fairly politically incorrect immigration critics ***
Of course you are correct, and the more rational and logical among the jews (see the Kvetcher) are already rushing to mend these fences.
The immigration restriction movement contains some "white supremacists" The immigration restriction movement also contains some evengelical christians that are strongly pro israesl. The immigration restriction movement also contains some jews.
For the immigration restriction movement to prevail, it will need to make itself inclusive.
If you are a jew who believes that the most important thing for the future of America is restricting the immigration of muslims, you need to hold your nose and make common cause with the "white supremacists"
My message to the white supremacists is, why not tone down your anti jewish rhetoric for a while (as the BNP has done) just in order to win the immigration battle? Once the immigration battle is won, then you can cross that off your list of priorities and go back to jew-baiting.
My message to jews is to ignore the past anti semetic work of the white supremacists. Focus on what they are doing now. Once the immigration battle is won, then go back to battling the white supremacists.
If you want to build the immigration restriction coalition, you will all have to walk on eggshells a little.
And in the spirit of building coalitions, let me say the following
The majority of the non ghetto black folks in America know that 90% of employers prefer to hire immigrants from south of the border instead of hiring black folks.
You don't have to be a Harvard PHD to understand this.
non ghetto black folks want their sons to be able to get a job of some sort and they know that their son won't get a job if immigration from south of the border continues.
Plenty of responsible black folks are interested in the immigration restriction movement. But needless to say the "white supremacists" in the movement make blacks feel a little shall we say unwelcome in the movement.
What you need to understand is that if there were a few black faces front and center at each anti immigration event, a few articulate blacks giving interviews and speeches on this topic, the anti immigration movement might attract millions of more white people -
seeing blacks in the movement would make more whites see the immigration restriction movement as non racist.
Hell, with enough blacks in the vanguard of the movement you might even attract some SWPL type whites to it
So think about a coalition and doing what it takes to build a coalition in order to win
Steve, you've been holding my comment and I'm not sure why. I would like to believe that you're fair and all but I'm starting to believe that you hold some of my comments on account of the fact that in their vociferous response to the antisemites they imply that there are more antisemites here then you would like people to believe that there are. I would guess that you also restrict quite a few antisemitic comments for that reason. On the whole that would appear to me to be a dishonest thing to do. I believe that my response here to the Jew-haters is worthy of being heard (and close to the time when it's written) even if it engages in the same level of passion that it's responding to.
mnuez
in the spirit of coalition building steve should block the posts with bile and emotion and keep the cold blooded rational posts.
only by ignoring the crazies can a coalition be built.
think - the coalition in favor of immigration has some strange bedfellows that put aside their differences in order to win in 65
take a hint
only a coalition has any hope of overturning what happened in 1965
"Anonymous said...
And in the spirit of building coalitions, let me say the following
......non ghetto black folks want their sons to be able to get a job of some sort and they know that their son won't get a job if immigration from south of the border continues.
.....Hell, with enough blacks in the vanguard of the movement you might even attract some SWPL type whites to it."
In response to the points you make:
1.) You are right that there are many blacks who aren't especially fond of mexicans in general, and illegal aliens in particular. These blacks also voted in overwhelming numbers for Obama, who is likely to open the taps on immigration as soon as he's able.
2.) It's in the interest of law-abiding blacks to police their own people, to put black criminals in prison for long stretches, and to not glorify the rap/thug culture that has come to characterize them as a people. But, by and large, they don't. Sometimes - often even - some people just don't do what's in their own best interest. And whites should not rely upon them to do so in the matter of immigration restriction.
3.) Any participation by them in the coalition you speak of would come at a price, such as the continued existence of affirmative action.
4.) I don't think that white people should need the leave of anyone, even hip, imaginary black friends, to fight for their own interests. I don't care to give any other group veto power over whatever course of action is in our interest.
Mr. Anon,
I agree with you completely when you write
****
don't think that white people should need the leave of anyone, even hip, imaginary black friends, to fight for their own interests. I don't care to give any other group veto power over whatever course of action is in our interest.
*********
No one is suggesting that you give african-americans, hebrew-americans, swpl-americans or any other group veto power over what you do.
But you are not going to win this fight all by yourself. And even if you could get every white race realist in america on your side, you would still lose.
If you really care about winning, you should at least make an attempt to get some other groups on board.
Look, the muslim immigrants firebombed a jewish school in 2006. Then they firebombed a jewish community center in 2007. This was in CANADA - That is bound to get a few American jews to take notice and get on board.
The immigrants from South of the border have ethnically cleansed african americans from much of South LA. That is bound to get a few african americans on your side.
Do you want to win this thing or just act as a lone wolf and lose with nobility?
I respectfully think that in order to develp this further Steve should give this its own thread
"Anonymous said...
Do you want to win this thing or just act as a lone wolf and lose with nobility?"
My point is that enlisting these groups won't help us win. That's the problem with multi-culturalism; the various groups don't trust each other, and won't pull together toward a common cause - one of the reasons that many of us traditionalists oppose all this diversity-mongering in the first place.
If whites cannot by themselves reassert their own majority status, then it probably just won't happen at all.
"Look, the muslim immigrants firebombed a jewish school in 2006. Then they firebombed a jewish community center in 2007. This was in CANADA - That is bound to get a few American jews to take notice and get on board."
Mmm, that's what ordinary people would think. Hasn't worked out that way in France and Germany so far, for whatever reasons. Seems whitey is even worse than the Muslim aggression. I guess Israeli's are used to Muslim aggression and not really scared of it. They seem to fear potential Anti-Semitism in European nations far more, even if it is currently almost non-existent.
I'd say the evidence points against your theory of wanting to join hands with other groups.
I'd say the evidence points against your theory of wanting to join hands with other groups.
The "joining hands" proposition doesn't seem particularly workable right now, but I would give it a few more years, partly because the "gentile non-Hispanic whites alone" plan doesn't seem particularly plausible either. White gentile males from certain demographics are more likely to get behind Ilana Mercer or Marcus Epstein than one of their own. Those aren't the only demographics but we may find they are the most important.
Most important because they are more decoupled from Slim and NPR and The Nation. Most plausible rosy scenario, IMHO: nerds visiting nonleftist sites create a snowball effect of people questioning leftist dogma. White gentile nerds can communicate with East Asian and Jewish nerds in important ways the rest of the community may not understand or care about.
I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just saying it's more likely than the white gentile nerds somehow being comfortable doing what they've been taught is Evil since they could stand: communicating and collectively acting in a monoethnic lily group.
blode said
white gentile nerds somehow being comfortable doing what they've been taught is Evil since they could stand: communicating and collectively acting
That's being taken care of among the smarter white gentiles, young and old. But thank you for your sincere concern.
Post a Comment