Archive for the 'Fjordman' Category

Re Vlaams Belang Thread at Jihad Watch

November 16, 2007

The thread at Jihad Watch, started by Robert Spencer, has a lively discussion on BNP, Vlaams Belang, Fjordman, Brussels Journal, Paul Belien, Filip Dewinter, Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs, LGF, etc. Spencer has said he doesn’t want to pour gas on this fire but see it go out in effect. The thread has terms like Nazi, neo-Nazi, white nationalist or nationalism, white supremacist or supremacy, etc. Spencer says he thinks most people involved want to save Europe. He also says we should try to avoid this fight getting out of hand, which to some extent it has. I agree with Spencer on this and applaud him, as well as Charles Johnson for their work and contributions. The thread, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson, and all that”:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018805.php

Many have commented on this debate including Vanishing American, Lawrence Auster, New Sisyphus, Vdare, Gates of Vienna, Winds of Jihad, etc.

So how do we think about this or discuss it? One way is to take assertions, make them hypotheses and then try to test them. Its usually best to have several hypotheses that conflict to test them against each other. Most assertions in this form are false, and so we have to choose among several false hypotheses which is most useful, none of them being true. Or they are uncertain and we have to consider probabilities that are difficult to estimate.

Most posters would agree there is an unacceptable risk of a major downgrade in the level of civilization in the West. This includes a loss of personal freedom, physical security, and some form or another of discrimination or persecution directed at those posting on the board or others they identify with.

Persecution in the form of affirmative action is already happening in most Western countries, and in non-white countries is sometimes directed at white minorities. Examples are in Zimbabwe and South Africa, which both have affirmative action against whites. (How do whites fight discrimination against whites except by banding together? Are they supposed to just quietly watch others receive the hit and do nothing?)

Most posters at Jihad Watch want some form of immigration restriction that would include Muslims but possibly others. When in Western countries have their been substantial restrictions in immigration? Who made the restrictions and for what reasons?

Most posters likely agree that if the current immigration laws are continued, the results will be unacceptable. So they want them restricted. How can that happen? That gets us back to when and why has it actually happened in Western lands. Or we might look at non-Western lands as well for this.

A transition from allowing immigration to not allowing it is rare? The US did it in the 1920’s. Aside from minor restrictions, when else has a Western land gone from heavy immigration to substantially restricted immigration?

The transition from high immigration to low is not something that has happened often in the West. So its wise to consider when it happened in the past and why it succeeded, and why it has failed to happen in so many countries, even though the people want it.

Why don’t people resist immigration more? Do people think they gain from immigration? Or do they think they are harmed? Polls seem to have a wide dispersion of results on what people believe on this.

Is immigration beneficial? We can test that by looking at median wages. Median wages for men have not changed in the U.S. since 1973. Women’s median wages in the U.S. are the same as men’s were in 1960.

Who is going to vote for this immigration restriction? Without the support of whites can it happen? Why will whites vote against immigration? What do they get? What other groups are needed? What support will it get among such groups?

One concept is that the effort should be stated as stopping Muslim immigration, but not any other type of immigration. Would that work to avoid persecution, loss of freedom, etc? Since those are happening now as Enoch Powell predicted in his Rivers of Blood speech, we are in fact already experiencing persecution, loss of freedom, and discrimination.

Will the public support a stop only Muslim immigration position? Or is that less likely to work than a stop all immigration position? Experience to date suggests the elites find it very difficult to tolerate any discussion of stopping the immigration of one group but not the others. Its also not clear that this would achieve much. In fact, its a math theorem that it will still lead to genetic replacement, and thus the almost complete extinction of whites.

So we have lets call it the PC counter jihad position:

Proposed: to stop only Muslim immigration.

Lets consider as alternative stop all immigration.

Proposed: to stop all immigration.

Which of these proposals will the left, public, mainstream elites, etc. call nativist, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, white supremacist, Eurocentric, etc? The reaction to Virgil Goode and some others suggests that the proposal to stop Muslim immigration only will get the bigger reaction of calling those proposing it names.

Those who have gone along with a total halt of Muslim immigration include Lawrence Auster and it appears also Robert Spencer. So this proposal is possibly more likely to get them called names than a total ban on immigration.

What sort of alliance can be built to stop only Muslim immigration? With whom? As compared to stopping all immigration?

What is the chance to do this without a lot of luck and help from all those inclined in this direction, even for their own reasons? Very low. It will take building an alliance of many and they will have many motives. Survival of what they cherish will surely be part of it.

What is the chance that those pushing this won’t be called bigot, racist, nativist, xenophobe, white nationalist or white supremacist if white? Or being called neo-Nazi, Nazi, fascist, Hitler, thug, etc. whether white or not? The chance of escaping these names is likely zero, whether the effort to restrict immigration succeeds or not.

Traditionally, in the US, third parties push an idea until a major party adopts it. If that is the formula for success, then third parties like BNP, Vlaams Belang, Swedish Democrats, Constitution Party in the U.S., etc. are the main avenue of success. They need to get a critical level of votes to move the major parties. This might be as low as 5 or 10 percent. It only has to be the difference between the votes the two major parties get. That is usually less than 10 percent and often less than 5 percent.

This is a doable level in most Western countries using the existing third parties. So far, no major Western party has embraced a total ban on Muslim immigration. Neither has one embraced a total ban on immigration. So at this point, the best play according to history is to get behind third parties that already exist on this issue and support them until a major party switches.

Getting 10 percent of the vote for such third parties is a reasonable target. We can hope that this will be enough. But it might take more. Ten percent is quite doable with the existing third parties. All of that vote could come from whites. So an appeal to whites who will vote that way consistently may be enough to succeed if we use the history of 3rd party platforms in the U.S.

Opposition to illegal immigration amnesty has already been achieved in the U.S. The people stopped the 2007 amnesty in the Senate by a call-in campaign. That is a major change. They then stopped several follow on efforts in October 2007.

During those debates, the issue of Muslim immigration was never a major part of the debate. Thus the proposal to advocate stopping Muslim immigration only, according to this evidence, was not a winner compared to opposing a more general category of immigration, illegal immigration. In fact, it might even have been counter-productive to advocate a ban of all Muslim immigration at that time.

There are many arguments against legal immigration besides those against Muslim immigration. China is spying on the U.S. Chinese spying can only be stopped by stopping all immigration from China. The same applies to know-how transfer to nuclear states like Pakistan or budding ones like Iran.

Reversing the median wage stagnation in the U.S. since 1973 requires training Americans in college instead of non-Americans. So this economic argument supports stopping all immigration not Muslim immigration only.

Hypothesis: A proposal to stop Muslim immigration only has little chance to succeed. In that case, counter-jihadis advocating this approach only are really advocating defeat. Their position is self-indulgent self-destruction. But its also destruction of the West. So its really no different than leftism, if we accept the relevant assumptions or hypotheses.

If BNP gets 10 percent of the vote at a general election in the UK for parliament, this might be sufficient to tip the Conservative Party in the UK to propose a ban on all immigration. This would be a major shift. At that point, many voters would switch to Conservative. Or they might subtract enough from Labour to elect the Conservatives. The BNP Ballerina supported the BNP, despite her partner being non-British and non-white. She did so not as a counter-jihadi but for reasons of British nationalism.

This is the motive for many people opposed to immigration, including in countries that currently restrict it, i.e. the entire non-white world. So if we look at history or countries that currently restrict immigration, reasons of race, ethnicity, nationalism in a traditional sense, etc. are the reasons everywhere and always we might hypothesize. If there are exceptions, they are not many.

The end of Western civilization would be a calamity. It would certainly be one for whites. They would likely suffer greatly and be reduced to a small minority with some probability. The overall picture presented by the third world today is that third world rule is bad for the people living under it. So its something to be opposed.

Opposition that actually stops Muslim immigration only is highly unlikely to succeed it appears at the present time. So for short term success, stopping all immigration is a better route. This, according to US third party history, may only require a consistent 10 percent vote for it in general elections. That can come from whites alone.

The 2007 call in suggests that non-whites support immigration restriction, but are not going to make calls. The call in in 2007 was likely mostly white. But the non-whites didn’t call for immigration they simply sat back and let the whites do the calling. This suggests non-whites would be quite comfortable for a BNP party to do the public pushing for ending immigration. They may call them white supremacist at every stage, but would be quite happy to let them succeed without opposing it.

People living in the West from the third world came here to escape the third world. They are quite willing to let whites stop new immigration and to maintain the existing high level of society. The left will call any effort to stop immigration white nationalist, white supremacist, xenophobic, etc. However, the US Senate 2007 call in shows that non-whites are quite willing to let activist whites stop immigration and preserve the West as it is and not let it turn into the third world.

All that is necessary is for enough whites to consistently call in to their reps and vote this way in elections, make contributions, blog this way, post comments at WaPo, UK Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, etc. and it will happen. The left will call these whites, white supremacist. Non-whites are quite happy to let these whites stop immigration completely.

Then the West can continue on as it is for a longer period of time. The above appears to be the only plan grounded in empirical reality. This plan means getting a critical mass of whites to call in, post, etc. This group can be motivated by anything, as long as they want to stop all immigration, legal and amnesties, asylum, student, etc. its enough to save the West. The more motives allowed, the more who will call in. The non-whites and other whites are willing to sit on their hands while this white minority makes it happen. They too want the West to stay the way it is.

The non-whites who are willing to sit on their hands while motivated whites call in, include Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, blacks, and Native Americans. Whites who didn’t call in to the Senate in 2007 in the U.S. include leftists, liberals, business people, university professors, green card holders, new citizens, etc.

Everyone who supposedly is ready to call the whites calling in names, and who might in fact do so, are willing to sit on their hands while the motivated whites do the calling for ending immigration. The vast majority of whites and non-whites just want it to happen. They don’t want to do it themselves.

So we just need a committed consistent group of whites to stop all immigration, who are willing to call, contribute, and vote for third parties to succeed. We are actually pretty close to this in many Western countries. BNP is one of the best of third parties for this, as is Vlaams Belang. So we are quite close to getting somewhere.

There are many pro BNP comments at UK Daily Telegraph and UK Times. Many people commented at UK Daily Telegraph that Nick Griffin of BNP should be in the top 100 conservatives. Many at UK Times suggested British mottos that were very anti-immigration.

This is a train that has arrived. The counter-jihadis just need to get on board and stop calling the whites who want to stop all immigration white supremacist and white nationalist. The PC counter-jihadis are doing more against their cause than they realize. They are a little like leftists who want it to happen, but don’t want to take responsibility and do what is necessary.

The way to convert major parties is to get the 10 percent vote for BNP and Constitution Party and others. This is quite doable with the existing third parties, blogs, issue groups, etc. We just need to pour it on. So we should stop calling each other names, advocate for all immigration to stop and make our phone calls, vote third party, contribute, and post at WaPo, etc. for ending all immigration including all legal immigration.

Stopping illegal immigration doesn’t work for counter-jihadis since that allows legal Muslim immigration. The only route for counter-jihadis to stop Muslim immigration is to make sure the anti-illegal immigration movement expands to stop all legal immigration in the US context. They also have to make sure that other countries also stop all immigration including student visas, guest workers, asylum, and family reunification.

The only way to stop all Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration. That requires a 10 percent third party support. The counter-jihadis can fill out part of that. This is their best realistic chance.

A list of rules to consider:

  1. Don’t attack what the US Department of Justice says is already true, e.g. “racial differences exist“.
  2. Don’t attack what the New York Times has already said, e.g. differences in the frequency of socially desirable traits may be genetic between groups.
  3. Don’t attack what Nobel Prize winners for DNA work say that is on our side.
  4. Don’t attack science or science papers that are on our side.
  5. Don’t attack what you actually believe yourself, or those saying it.
  6. Don’t attack people on our side because others do.
  7. Don’t forget to make your calls to your senator and reps asking them to stop all legal immigration including student visas, asylum, guest workers, H-1B, family reunification, diversity, and no amnesties.
  8. To stop all Muslim immigration requires stopping all legal immigration, asylum, student visa, family reunification, diversity, guest worker, H-1B, etc.
  9. That means you have to oppose all those types of legal immigration in your calls to your reps.
  10. Contribute to organizations like NumbersUSA, Fairus or BNP that oppose any and all immigration, or Vdare or Jihad Watch, American Renaissance, etc.
  11. Don’t attack people on the right who are pushing for what you want.
  12. Don’t repeat what leftists say.
  13. When you want to attack someone on the right, pick someone on the left and attack them instead. Those who make millions from immigration are always good ones to attack.
  14. Consistently criticize any politician or candidate who favors a category for immigration for that support. You can still vote for the least of evils if you want, and should vote for someone, but make it known everywhere you can including the candidate, that you oppose their support of legal immigration in any form. Especially do that with those you vote for. If you vote for someone, but oppose them on a position, write to them about it and tell them you voted for them despite their position in favor of some type of legal immigration, or because they were the least of all evils, but this is your most important issue.
  15. If you are white, you will be called Nazi, neo-Nazi, racist, bigot, fascist, and yes white nationalist and white supremacist. The left has learned we are most afraid of being called white nationalist and white supremacist. This means they will use those to stop us until we treat those names the same as bigot and nativist. Learn to list this whole list as what we are called, and don’t call others these names. Don’t call yourself these either. Treat their use by anyone ever as joke words that make that person ridiculous and non-serious. This has to be a united front. The words Nazi, fascist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, and even white nationalist and white supremacist have to be treated as non-serious words that make the person using them a joke if they are attacking with them.
  16. The left will use any word we are afraid of. They will find a word that makes us afraid. We have to learn, not to call ourselves that, and to list it as a word that automatically disqualifies the person using it as non-serious, at least in that instance. If they are on our side, we can forget it as we go forward.
  17. Anyone on the right using white nationalist or white supremacist to attack others on the right is saying this a serious word to use against the right. That gives the left a weapon against us. We must not use white nationalist or white supremacist as serious terms to attack anyone. We must not refer to ourselves using these words. We must treat them the same as the words bigot and nativist, joke words.
  18. The recent LGF debate over Vlaams Belang has empowered the left to call us white nationalist and white supremacist. These are the new words to make us afraid. We have to make these words into non-serious words the same as we have bigot, nativist, and racist. If there is any word we fear to be called, the left will find it. If we call ourselves that in attack, they will be able to figure out what word we are currently afraid of. They will then use it to silence us and make us fight against our own beliefs and positions. They will make us make the humiliating abject apologies they delight in. This we must never do. (Only those facing prosecution can be excused for such an apology.) We must go on the attack and make jokes about their most powerful words of attack against us.
  19. We must never use the words the left calls us against each other as serious. We must treat everyone of them as a joke word that discredits the speaker.
  20. This is a strictly school yard fight. The other kids know which words get to us. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but being called white nationalist and white supremacist will never hurt me.
  21. We are playing on a school yard by school yard rules. This is a fight without adult supervision. The other side are full of bullies and we have to fight back with school yard rules. The other side is a gang. We have to win.
  22. The other side doesn’t really want to win, as shown by the lack of call ins in 2007 for amnesty. No one called for amnesty, not even professors. I asked the Senate staffers and they said no one at all was calling in for amnesty. Not even the most extreme liberal. This was in Virginia. None of the leftists and immigrants living in Northern Virginia called in for amnesty. No one who works for Washington Post who lives in Northern Virginia called in for amnesty to Virginia senators. No one who works at the Civil Rights Division of DOJ who lives in Northern Virginia called in to their senators for amnesty. Or it was very few. But staffers did tell me at times, it was zero. The senators figured this out. The most extreme people who testify, the millionaires and billionaires, the petty bosses, the farmers, etc. none of them called in for amnesty. PC neocons who live in Northern Virginia didn’t call in for amnesty. People on TV for it didn’t call in. The Senate figured that out, they live here too. The left doesn’t want to win. They don’t want to live in the third world, they want to live here. They want us to call in and to call us names at the same time. They want to be hypocrites. Let them, don’t be them.
  23. Now that we have used the words white nationalist and white supremacist, and white nationalism and white supremacism to attack each other, the left knows that these are words some on the right will use against each other. Its not a secret, its on the internet. That means all of us will be inundated with these words. The other kids know we are willing to use them on each other on our side of the playground, so they know some of us are afraid to be called these words, those using them to attack for sure. That means we will be inundated with these specific words until we show we don’t care. We have to treat white nationalist and white supremacist the same as we treat Nazi, bigot, racist, nativst, xenophobe. By using them against our own side, we guarantee the left will pile these on all of us until we treat them as non-serious words whoever uses them. That is how the playground works. The kids on the other side figure out the words we use on each other we are afraid of. Now we have to show them we are not.
  24. Note that it doesn’t matter what the words mean. All that matters is we called kids on our side these names. The kids on the other side know we are afraid of these words. So they will taunt us with them until we show we don’t care. This is how the playground works.
  25. Those who have used the words white nationalist and white supremacist to attack others on the right are guaranteed to have these words used against them until they show they treat them like the words nativist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. Those who have been called this should regard this as satisfaction enough. You don’t have to do anything more. The leftist bullies will use these taunts until those on the right who used them will turn on these words and not care about them. This will happen no matter how much emotion anyone on the right has right now about what has happened. Everyone on the right should cool off and realize that under schoolyard rules, those who use these terms as serious will be called them until they aren’t serious. The left knows they are called fascist and Nazi back and that these words stop people listening and discredit the speaker. We have now arrived, because we used the words seriously on each other, at the point where white nationalist and white supremacist are the new fear words. Get used to being called them, whether you used them or didn’t.

==

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/11/15/vlaams-belang-charles-johnson-and-all-that/

Robert Spencer, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson and all that”:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018805.php

Leon the Pig Farmer, one of my favorite posters at Jihad Watch, supports BNP at the above site and so did one or two others. Charles Johnson picks up on the above thread:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27922

Lawrence Auster on the LGF thread.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009233.html

New Sisyphus, says why can’t we all unite:

http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2007/11/popular-front-of-right.html

Frank Purcell says patriotism isn’t nationalism.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/real_patriots_dont_hate/

Vanishing American picks points out some problems with the Purcell and New Sisyphus approaches, as well as Charles Johnson’s attempted purge of the right in neocon fashion.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/nationalism-and-patriotism.html

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/unite-on-right.html

The following has many links to many posts on the LGF Charles Johnson Vlaams Belang controversy.

http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/11/10/list-of-posts-on-vlaams-belang-and-sweden-democrats/

Keep America .x White is Racist for all x?

November 1, 2007

Is there any x such that Keep America .x white is not racist in the view of the critics? What value will satisfy their demands? Is it always a little less than the current value?

When x was approximately 9, so .x was .9, Kennedy said it had to go down. That was in 1965. For Kennedy, immigration quotas intended not just to preserve .x as .9 for whites but also preserve white ethnic group percentages was unacceptable. Well that issue is now gone.

Although .x is not yet below .5, Bill Clinton has already said he wants it below .5. When it is .45 will Clinton want it below .4? When its .35 will he want it below .35? Will Clinton say when its .45 that we have to stop non-white immigration to keep it from going below .4? Will SPLC say that? Will Charles Johnson say that at LGF? Bush? Hillary Clinton?

Will the RINO 4 say that? The RINO 4 are Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudi Giuliani. Giuliani has already called Tancredo a know-nothing for opposing any restrictions on legal immigration below what they are now.

Isn’t that the formula? Whatever it is now, restricting it from that is racist, nativist and Nazi? Which means when it was less in the past, it was racist, nativist and Nazi?

Where you draw the line is Racist Hypothesis.

Any thing bad for whites or any harm to whites that you say is the limit will be called racist, Nazi, bigoted and unacceptable to the liberals. This applies to white birth percentages, immigration quotas, white percentage in society, etc. There is no point you can make a stand that they won’t call white nationalist.

White Zeroist Corollary

If we aren’t called white nationalist, the white percentage will decline to zero.

Proof.

It takes an effort to stop the excess immigration, affirmative action, ER and welfare mandates that are substituting non-white births or immigration for white births. (See other articles on this.)

At any level the positive effort is made to halt the decline, those doing it and supporting it will be called white nationalist, Nazi, white supremacist, and bigot. (Especially if its a measure that works instead of a band aid for votes that doesn’t work.)

What works hypothesis, name calling as bad as what doesn’t.

If we pursue policies that actually retain the white ratio above 0, then we will be called racist, Nazi, white nationalist, white supremacist etc. as much as if we pursue policies that in fact simply slow the approach to zero, but don’t alter the convergence to zero.

==Vanishing Survival Example

Assume US population at 300 million was the maximum. If people live 75 years, then 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter then births = 4million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

The ratio of births to deaths is 2/4 or 1/2. The time from birth to parent is roughly 25 years. So in 50 years, one has 1/4, and in 75 years 1/8 of the starting genes.

Even if population went to 450 million, deaths per year are 6 million. With even one million entrants that gives a survival ratio of 5/6. So the number left after 25*n years is (5/6)^n which goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

It goes to zero rapidly in fact. Note that we can substitute an onshore source group for immigration if its fertility is pushed above replacement by affirmative action in education and employment, welfare, ER mandates, permitted verbal and physical violence against whites, etc.

==

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070524_nd.htm

Edwin S. Rubenstein

The number of non-white Americans exceeded 100 million for the first time in 2006, according to a just released Census Bureau report.

According to the latest figures, non-Hispanic whites accounted for 66.4 percent of U.S. population on July 1, 2006. Minorities were 33.6 percent of the total. As recently as 1990, 76 percent of Americans called themselves non-Hispanic white. In 1965, the American population was 88 percent white.

In 2006 white, non-Hispanics accounted for:

bullet 56 percent of persons 9 and younger


bullet 60 percent of persons 10 to 19


bullet 67 percent of persons 20 to 64


bullet 81 percent of persons 65 and older

Based on 2004 fertility rates (the latest available), non-Hispanic white women will have 1.847 children; non-Hispanic Black women, 2.02 children; and Hispanic women, 2.82 children.[PDF]

In 2006 45.9 percent of live births were to minority mothers. That was up from 45.0 percent in 2005.

By 2021 more than 60 percent of births will be to minorities (Table 2.)

Of course, if immigration were completely cut off now, the date at which minorities would become the U.S. majority would be greatly postponed—probably into the 22nd century.

==The Wright Island Model Theorem

In population genetics, the case of one way migration is often treated in what is called the “Island Model”.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

==Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

This adds to and is actually easier to understand than the Wright Island Model papers.

This is draft and preliminary. Although whites used, the same applies to all genes in the country at any point in time. Comments welcome. This is offered as science and math related to reform in US legislation on immigration, affirmative action and welfare transfers. This is subject to revision. All other disclaimers apply.

Amnesty and legal immigration expansions are going on all the time at Congress. Stopping it once doesn’t stop it. Please keep up to date.

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter

==Added

“Keeping America White” at SPLC. Comments on Peter Brimelow and Vdare whom SPLC doesn’t want to Keep America White or Keep America .x white for any x greater than zero?

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=152

==Asymptotic Zero

Immigration bounded above zero does not produce a mixture of genes present or arriving at any time and later genes. The result is not a mixture, its asymptotic extinction of every gene at any point in time, and any gene arriving in any year. There is no mixture of genes now and genes to come. Immigration is a genetic graveyard, all genes that are here or come here go extinct.

The extinction isn’t pleasant for the people here or coming here. Every one is subject to wage and economic pressure and uncertainty to eventually substitute immigrants for births. This is why men’s median wages are what they were in 1973 and headed down for the last several years. This is why women’s wages are lower than men’s in 1960 and headed down for the last several years. See page 16 for the graph of men’s and women’s median wages since about 1960:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Going extinct in America isn’t pleasant for all but the rich. But even the rich are frogs in the water, slowly being cooked without knowing it. Millions without health care, oppressive bosses, repetitive motion injuries at work, lack of workplace dignity and security, lack of bargaining power, out of work relatives, loss of dignity for men, loss of meaning for men, crime and drugs, failing schools, know-how transfer to competing or enemy states, etc. are all the means by which the theorems are achieved.

This happens for more and more people, not just whites. All but a thin wedge at the top suffer this. More and more families find that Thanksgiving and Christmas are meeting places for the unemployed, discouraged, underemployed, and fearful. Men lack dignity and women lack men with dignity. This is what its like to live in a genetic graveyard, for all but the very rich and those with tenure at Harvard or think tanks or wealthy public interest law firms. In the SPLC version, Martin Luther King’s dream is we all go extinct together in a genetic graveyard, miserable and fearful and afraid to speak out.

This is speculation, hypotheses, opinion or tentative debate or analysis points. This is subject to revision. All comments welcome. All statements should be restated as questions. All criticism is rhetorical and to be restated as hypotheses or questions. All other disclaimers apply.

==Added 4:31 PM 1 Nov 2007

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/caucasophobia-accepted-racism.html

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2613

Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”

Some of the inventors of Whiteness Studies have stated their goals quite openly: “Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”

Vanishing American’s March of Truth

November 1, 2007

Vanishing American has had a great series of articles attracting many comments at her site in important thread discussions where people come out for forbidden truth. These are an antidote to others giving into PC and denouncing others for unPC at some sites.

(Note this is also Fjordman’s March to Truth, and Lawrence Auster‘s March of Truth, and Sheik Yer’mami‘s March for Truth, and Paul Belien at Brussels Journal, and Gates of Vienna, Atlas Shrugs, many of them linked to below. These are all in response to what might be, although I have not followed him enough to be sure, Charles Johnson at LGF’s march from Truth. I am hopeful LGF can simply drop this line and we will have been strengthened and enlightened by this dialogue as good debate colleagues who can get past moments of excitement in discussion.)

One of the recent ones VA Posts is here:

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/discussion-on-recent-thread-provoked.html

My own comment at the thread on becoming more unPC is:

I have become more politically incorrect just as part of the process of commenting at sites or blogging. Each time we speak the truth against the establishment, it becomes easier to do. Also, truth builds on truth. As we speak more truth, we see more truth.

There are also fear resistance levels. There are taboos that are harder to break as you march through telling truth. James Watson went through one of the high resistance levels, and was attacked for it. The MSM are desperate to preserve their control on public speech. Each time we speak out to say an obvious truth it changes us and also makes it easier for others.

I agree with you that we are reverting to normality. The liberals think that as well. This is why they stage these attacks. The worst is to condemn others for speaking out. This kills us inside more than anything. This has been a great series of articles VA. Its having an impact.

==Circular Firing Squad at LGF continues:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27764_Wednesday_Night_Link_Depot&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27758_Vlaams_Belang_and_the_US_White_Supremacist_Cesspool&only

With comments exposed at Little Green Footballs

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27758_Vlaams_Belang_and_the_US_White_Supremacist_Cesspool#comments

==Antidotes

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/10/nationalists-and-neocons.html

Above has 40 comments on the comment thread as of 1 Nov 2007 10:25 AM.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-everywhere.html

Racism is human nature.

To claim it occurs only in Whites is absurd.

University of Delaware is making students say that. We are allowed to comment about it.

To claim that you are not a racist will only help doom you and your kin to oblivion.

The left disagrees with this, not the dooming, just the implication whites have a right to stop their “rightful” doom.

“Racism is human nature” seems to be generally believed. Liberals believe this, and their response is either self-hate or to manipulate it for self-wealth. SPLC and Wall Street are examples. Eduardo Mestre is the investment banker who did M and A, presumably American job destruction, and chaired the CSHL board that “let” Watson retire. Scientists believe this when they model and study human populations. Historians believe this when they write about history. The older the events, the easier it is to accept racism as part of the story and to just deal with it. The left has perfected the manipulation of self-hate about racism for its own ends, many of which are openly racist such as at Delaware University, covered in the VA threads.

Link from VA

http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2006/07/tdl-gaming-world-series-of-victimhood.html

The above deck of victimhood cards should send the message that LGF is on the wrong track by attacking anti-immigration groups. Its ineffective at best to be anti-Islamofascism and for immigration.

Steve Sailer at Vdare linked to this:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

More antidotes

http://reflight.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration

The best antidotes are to write comments, write emails to your Congressman, go to the Numbers USA Fax site or Fairus and fax against legal immigration. Does LGF think that everyone who called their senator in June 2007 is a racist who should be exiled from civil discussion? Does LGF think that fighting jihad means Muslim immigration to Europe and America?

Maybe Charles Johnson has opposed this immigration, I don’t follow him. But to attack Peter Brimelow and others who oppose immigration as bigots, if that is what he is doing, undermines whatever action he proposes or intends to fight jihad. Does he intend others to do the “racist” things that win the fight, while he stays above it all, and earns income however he does from holding back? I have not followed his comments closely enough to know what his views really are. But there is a trend in this direction.

Perhaps there is a new definition of neocon, although its wider than that group. A neocon is someone who incites others to do “racist” things that the neocon believes have to be done, while the neocon stands back and pretends to be above it and makes money safely. This is, of course, older than neocons.

Quite often, its a corporation engaged in intentional racist exploitation and democide for profit that is paying the neocons or liberals or flack hacks. Why do we let corporations engage in democide and pretend they are PC? It seems a valid statement that those engaged in democide for profit denounce others as racists. This is how the liberals, neocons, MSM, universities, think tanks, speaking fees for hire, etc. seem to earn their money.

Those who advocate for war against Islam or Islamofascism and call Virgil Goode a bigot or racist for wanting to end Muslim immigration are hypocrites. War is racist, and if its not, its damn close. Racism will be opposed by racism seems like a law of human physics. The left simply wants to charge a fee to each side of the transaction for transgressing.

The left says you can have your racism, but only if you pay an indulgence. Universities and think tanks are in the racket of handing out indulgences for racism. The left might be called the Race Indulgence Complex. The universities attack whites for racism, because whites have more money to pay for a “race indulgence”. Charge racism where the money is if you want to become rich.

This is draft and preliminary. This is not meant to criticize Charles Johnson or LGF, just to raise some issues for further discussion. This is subject to revision.

==Added 851 AM 1 Nov 2007

Following is from links at Little Green Footballs

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27764_Wednesday_Night_Link_Depot&only

Another smear and jeer site for dollars:

http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/Articles/Building_Democracy_Magazine_-_April_2007/Vlaams_Belang_in_the_USA_200703311075/

On February 22, Vlaams Belang leaders held a meeting with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the oldest and most influential anti-immigrant group in the country. The next evening they also spoke at a forum organized by the “Robert A. Taft Club” in the Arlington, Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C.

Given the VB’s reputation, FAIR’s decision to meet with its representatives should tell us something about the American anti-immigrant lobby. Despite its origins in the den of white supremacist eugenics, FAIR executives have made a great deal of noise pretending that race, culture and the continued hegemony of white people are not on their agenda. FAIR gives money to candidates, supports and opposes legislation and other wise acts as if it is just one more D.C.-based political lobby. But VB is explicitly about race and white dominance, and the meeting with FAIR is one more piece of evidence linking the American lobby to white nationalism.

From this its clear this group is advocating white minority status everywhere. That is their clear agenda. This is implied by their statements. We need to wake up to their racism. By the way, its usually considered racist to eliminate a group, not to preserve it. But they have defined it as racism for whites to perpetuate themselves.

..

The Virginia forum, on the other hand, openly gathered an amalgam of Buchananites, proponents of scientific racism, and white supremacists from the Council of Conservative Citizens. The event was organized by 23-year-old Marcus Epstein, the executive director at both The American Cause Foundation, founded by Pat Buchanan, and the Team America PAC, where Pat’s sister Angela (Bay) Buchanan serves as chair.

Its time to stop denouncing our own so that this group can make money from its donors. We are supposed to denounce our own so they can get money for calling us racist and then making us call our own racist?

Among his many literary accomplishments, Epstein wrote his own eulogy of Sam Francis for the white nationalist website VDARE, declaring that, “like so many Southern leaders before him, Sam Francis ‘took his stand’.”

They just said that white majorities are racist and have to be eliminated everywhere. Wherever you take your stand, they will call you a racist, Nazi, confederate, Klanner, Duker, Buchananite, CCCer etc.

Epstein seemed to do everything except whistle Dixie in his prose.

Lincoln didn’t condemn Dixie, why should we condemn Dixie to please and profit this group?

And so he had the pleasure of introducing the two Vlaams Belangers to a crowd of about thirty-five white nationalists.

Notice how he is saying that preserving the white race is only a fringe supported activity. We are supposed to condemn everyone doing it or advocating it is the suggestion, because its fringe, and we will lose our job if we don’t denounce.

Its time to wake-up. This is hate that they are spewing. This is openly proclaimed democide and ethnocide and racecide. They are saying preserving whites is racism and you will lose your job if you advocate it. Time to listen to what they say.

This is an organized attack on the entire immigration restriction movement. They are attacking FAIR, Vdare, Buchanan, James Watson, etc. They are doing this for money and to destroy us.

It doesn’t matter what you say, they call you a racist Nazi white nationalist white supremacist. Even if you agree, as at U Delaware they call you that. All whites are white nationalist Nazis to the left.

Brentin Mock wrote an SPLC article about

All blacks are on green light no matter where” to be killed in LA county by Hispanic gangs.

One green light leads to the other. We can wordsmith this to

All whites are on green light to be called white nationalist Nazis no matter what they actually say or don’t say.

As University of Delaware said, it doesn’t matter what whites do or say or don’t do or don’t say, they will be treated the same in this war. As the Sultan said in the 19th century, “All wars on infidels are but one.” So to the left, “All wars on whites are but one.”

All whites are white nationalists to the left. Silence is not a defense for whites. All whites will be called white nationalists no matter what they say or don’t say.

This is not hyperbole. They say openly that no land will be a white majority land. They say openly anyone who calls for the survival of the white race they will destroy. What are these but an open proclamation of unending war and annihilation? Why don’t we listen to them and take them seriously?

LGF links to this as a normal site. This Building Democracy site is openly calling for racecide and ethnocide of whites. LGF links to it the same way it condemns the Muslim Brotherhood being condemned. How can LGF link to both approvingly? The only answer is money?

LGF wants an audience for anti-Islamofascism and thinks that linking to white democide and racecide sites will help it keep the money flowing? This is not to assert this as a conclusion, just to raise this issue. Didn’t LGF get started as just a random website trying to make money and then it latched onto anti-Islamofascism after 9-11? Someone at one of the VA threads linked to the early pages of LGF showing this was its evolution.

This is draft and preliminary. These are hypotheses and speculation. All statements should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

==9:42 AM 1 Nov 2007

The neocons engaged in torture and many have defended it. They have waterboarded Muslims. Some have at the same time denounced Virgil Goode as a bigot for saying stop Muslim immigration. The only reason to waterboard Muslims is Muslim immigration. If we had no Muslim immigration after the WTC 1993 attacks, we would not have tortured any Muslims. Its irrational to be for torture of Muslims and call those who say stop their immigration bigots.

As others have pointed out, they engage in this open hypocrisy to show their power over us. Our staying silent before it is meant to show us our powerlessness to change our fate. We die inside when we stay silent in the face of such hypocrisy and lies. That is the point. They want us to die inside, so they can make us die outside. That’s the whole point of the Democide Industrial Complex.

==The Wright Island Model Theorem

In population genetics, the case of one way migration is often treated in what is called the “Island Model”.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1213928

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

==Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

This adds to and is actually easier to understand than the Wright Island Model papers.

==Immigration is Whitecide, Its a Theorem.

The immigration process inherently leads to the extinction of all whites. Not just their genes for skin, all their genes are wiped out. This is a program of democide and racecide. Its published in science journals. We see why they are anti-science. They are engaging in whitecide and they don’t want scientists who know these papers to speak up like James Watson did.

==Sheik Yer-mami Winds of Jihad points out LGF’s error

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/31/little-green-canniballistic-lizards-update/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/30/little-green-canniballistic-lizards

For millennium wars were fought by alliances. Hitler allied himself with Muslims, the allies united against Hitler with communist Russia, the US allies itself with any despot or dictator that is useful to her, including Islamic Turkey, African despots and South American dictators. And the same US sees Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as allies against the misnamed ‘WoT’ – yet the lizard army is clinging to a moral buraq that is so high up in the stratosphere that the oxygen bottles explode.

Excellent comment thread. To paraphrase Zionist Younger, we can’t be to critical of those in the foxhole with us shooting out, especially when we aren’t even in the foxhole and they are.

==”When Friends Attack”

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/10/lgf-and-cair.html

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27653_When_Friends_Attack#comments

==Earlier OA articles keying off of VA’s discussion:

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/re-va-on-nationalism-and-neocons/

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/neocons-and-anarchists/

Search neocons anarchists

Results 1100 of about 599,000 for neocons anarchists.

Neocons seem to lack an inner consistency that undermines everything they touch. They don’t really understand that we have to preserve a civilization. This means preserving the people, and yes that includes preserving the whites and the white majority status of Western lands.

A non-white West is not the West. Why does that sound so racist? Does it sound as racist to say a non-Asian East is not the East? A non-Chinese China is not China? But a non-British Britain is not Britain. Why does that sound racist? Who made it sound racist? When?

A third world West won’t be the West. The neocons are so short sighted, and so worried about being called racist and losing their funding, that they undermine the fight they are in and turn on those who are doing the actual “racist” fighting that they act as voyeurs for. Victory in war is ugly and brings out ugly emotions. Those who call for war should have more internal reflection.

Those who call for torture of Muslim immigrants but call Virgil Goode a bigot for saying stop Muslim immigration are irrational and can’t see themselves. This is an ugly fight we are in. We didn’t choose it. We were going along with multiculti PC, despite our doubts, until we realized its a racial train wreck not racial harmony.

== Fjordman at Gates of Vienna has commented extensively on Charles Johnson and Vlaams Belang. Fjordman has extensively defended the idea of defending whites at LGF and forced out an important admission from Charles Johnson.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/little-green-footballs-and-racism-in.html

he (Charles Johnson) reluctantly replied that yes, Europeans have the right to resist being turned into a minority in their own countries.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.