Archive for October, 2007

Ron Paul Spam aka People

October 31, 2007

What is Ron Paul Spam? Its like Numbers USA Fairus spam that clogged Senate offices in 2007. Its like Buchanan Perot spam that clogged ballot boxes in 1992 denying daddy Bush his re-election.  This is why Fox hates it.
For this humiliation, baby Bush swore everlasting enmity to the Buchanan Perot Base.  Bush had 2 revenges that dominated his mind.  One was Saddam.  The other was the Buchanan Perot Base. Saddam is dead.

When did Ron Paul Spam start? Some say it started in the 18th century with Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson. Some say it started with Sam Adams and the Boston Tea Party. Others look back to the Pilgrims. Others look back to Athenian Democracy. Seems hard to get rid of that Ron Paul Spam.

How do you get rid of RPS? Trotsky couldn’t do it. But Stalin could.


Neocons to Blame for Iran Nukes

October 31, 2007

The neocons did the following:

  1. Delayed after 9-11.
  2. Have never had a sense of the urgency of time in war or even competition.
  3. Underestimated the problem and didn’t have a draft.
  4. Advocated immigration in time of war, thus convincing the public we are not in war.
  5. Called the portion of the right base against immigration, the Buchanan Perot voters, bigots. This fractured the party.
  6. Deceived Bush and the RINO 4, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Rudi Giuliani, and Mitt Romney that legal immigration doesn’t matter to Republican voters.
  7. Alienated the base in 2006 and 2007 again.
  8. Called the base bigots from at least the time of Buchanan Perot in 1992.
  9. Vented hatred of Buchanan, the leader of the Buchanan Perot part of the base.
  10. Done the same to Tom Tancredo.
  11. Done the same to Vdare and other thought leaders of the Buchanan Perot base.
  12. Continued to alienate the Buchanan Perot base by advocating H-1B, asylum and refugees, family reunification, and Muslim immigration.
  13. Told the RINO 4 to ignore the Buchanan Perot base on legal immigration.
  14. Advocated for China and India to control university physics departments and Silicon Valley.
  15. Advocated for transfer of our factories by Wall Street M and A types like Eduardo Mestre during time of war. We didn’t transfer any factories outside the U.S. during World War II. Why are we doing that if this is really World War III? Why are foreigners in our physics department as grad students, faculty and department chairmen if this is WWIII? The neocons say its war, but act like its surrender and we lost.
  16. Have proclaimed Islam as the sign they go to the Middle East.
  17. Have built mosques at Quantico.
  18. Put Muslims in charge of Gitmo and used torture, instead of deprogrammed from Islam in parallel to how we did WWII handling of German prisoners of war.
  19. Failed to build a large military to negotiate from a position of strength.
  20. Failed to negotiate so as to build a case for war.
  21. By all other means, sent message not a real war, but a phony war.
  22. The neocon phony war comes from their being phony conservatives.
  23. They are the neo-nepotists.
  24. They never turned down a speaking fee in exchange for betraying the Buchanan Perot base.
  25. They have turned off the Lou Dobbs Democrats, aka Reagan Democrats the same way as they turned off the Buchanan Perot base.
  26. They have never missed a chance to help Wall Street sell us out in what the neocons say is time of war.
  27. They torture prisoners at the same time they turn our university physics departments over to Russia, China and India. Which is it? We are in desperate danger and need to torture, or we can turn over our know-how to our major adversaries or competitors?
  28. Neocons say its time of war against Radical Islam, but time of submission to Islam, Russia, China, India, and Mexico. Despite it being time of war with Radical Islam, Pakistan is our ally and bin Laden is Pakistan’s guest. Saudi Arabia can do anything it wants in neocon land.
  29. When it comes to  Islam, Immigration, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, India, and Russia the neocons are surrender monkeys.  Want our know-how? Take it.  Want to assassinate your enemies in our capitals?  Do it. Want to attack the Pentagon through proxies?  We will pay you money and get your people out of the country.  Want to run our university physics departments, physics societies, and companies?  They are yours.
  30. Neocon, thy name is disloyalty.

Why are trains left-wing, and cars conservative?

October 31, 2007

Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail in an article of this title tells how in the 1960’s, the UK ditched its train system in part. The same happened in the U.S. This includes urban trams as well as city to city train lines in the U.S.

Why did the left get rid of trains and trams in the 1960’s while pushing immigration? It doesn’t matter whether the left called itself conservative or not, it did the same thing. Why can’t the left make the trains run?

The left doesn’t do logic. The left does emotion. The left exists to hate the people. That is why it doesn’t help them. You don’t help who you hate.

Vanishing American has a long piece, “Its Everywhere” on University of Delaware requiring all white students to say “All whites are racist.”

Just stop listening to PC is what VA recommends. “They have as much power as we are willing to give them, and no more.” Just say what we think. Don’t apologize for it.

The lesson of the train systems in the US and UK is that the left destroys what it is given. The reason is because it hates us. If we give power to what hates us, we destroy ourselves. This is a paraphrase of Nixon’s farewell.

Nixon said

…always remember others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.

We can wordsmith that to:

Always remember others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you agree with them, and then you destroy yourself.

The left is about destroying Western civilization. That is its mission statement. The left is hate. It doesn’t make things work, because it wants to destroy the people. It removed the train lines at the same time it pushed mass third world immigration. It has destroyed the schools.

Why did the left attack Watson for saying IQ is in the genes? Because third world immigration is low IQ. If IQ is in the genes, then it doesn’t make sense to have third world immigration. That would expose the left as liars once again. That is why they turned on Watson with such fury. That was the fury of hate.

Don’t give into hate means don’t give the left power over us. We give them power over us when we let them censor us. Don’t be the operative of the left is what VA says in her post. Don’t search out conservatives to call racist. This is what some on LGF were doing. This is giving into hate, because its adopting leftism. Adopting PC is giving into hate.

read more | digg story


James Watson Cold Springs Harbor Hostage?

October 30, 2007

Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory owns the land on which James Watson’s house is built. In Watson’s emailed resignation letter he mentioned that he would be allowed to stay where he lives. Because CSHL can evict Watson from his house, they have additional leverage.

“That the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is now one of the world’s premier sites for biological research and education has long warmed my heart. So I am grateful that its Board now will allow me to remain along my beloved Bungtown Road.

I have been much blessed.

James D. Watson

One Bungtown Road

Cold Spring Harbor, New York

October 2007

Note that Watson paid for the house, but CSHL owns the land. This adds to the difficulties and dependency of Watson’s position. If CSHL wants Watson to leave, and they don’t have an agreement, then Watson might have to pursue legal action to try to get any payment for the house he built.

Presumably, there is some legal agreement on what happens to Watson’s interest in the house. This might be substantially less than fair market value. Even if that is specified, getting it from an employer that has turned hostile may or may not be difficult. To avoid making that employer become more hostile, Watson feels pressure to keep quiet.

Larry Summers was also living in a house that Harvard owned as President of Harvard when he was forced out. This also weakened his position. He, however, may have had other concerns.

Lawrence Auster (Oct 18 and Oct 29), Steve Sailer (Oct 21 and Oct 28 ), and Pat Buchanan have all pointed out that James Watson and Larry Summers both caved and caved easily. In both cases they were not just employees but also tenants. In both cases, they were employees and received some continuing financial benefit from their employers. In Watson’s case, that includes continued residency for himself, and likely his wife, who is younger than he is.

Larry Summers was made institute professor at Harvard, which has a high salary and no duties. Watson is being allowed to continue to live in his house. During the negotiations, both were living in houses to some extent owned or controlled by their employer. In Watson’s case, he had lived there for a substantial length of time.

Eduardo G. Mestre is head of the board at CSHL. The board quickly issued a statement distancing itself from Watson. Watson’s interview was published Sunday Oct 14, 2007 and the statement from the board condemning him was Oct 17, 2007 and he was suspended Oct 18, 2007.

That may be consistent with the Chairman pushing it. Mestre is an investment banker who knows how to handle employees in dismissals and hostile takeovers. He understands what leverage he has in a negotiation and how to use it. He may know how to undermine the other person’s sense of well being or take advantage of it if he senses it. Whether that happened here is for the investigative journalists to find out.

“While we honor the extraordinary contributions that Dr. Watson has made to science in the past, his comments show that he has lost his way,” Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, said yesterday in a statement. “He has failed us in the worst possible way. It is a sad and revolting way to end a remarkable career.”

==Discussion Threads on James Watson

Vanishing American discusses the Watson case, and there is a comment thread afterwards. October 18:

Oct 27, 2007

There are comment threads at Steve Sailer’s blog on the Watson case.

James Watson

==CSHL Press Releases on Watson

Dr. James D. Watson Retires as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
October 25, 2007

Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, Ph.D. Regarding Dr. Watson’s Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007
October 18, 2007

Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, Ph.D. Regarding Dr. Watson’s Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007
October 18, 2007

Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, Ph.D. Regarding Dr. Watson’s Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007
October 17, 2007


Does CSHL stand for Cold Springs Hostage Laboratory? Are they hostage takers? Has liberalism taken our entire society hostage? Or at least LGF? The Watson case is liberal pecking, a process by which all liberals keep all conservatives in a state of fear. (This is a paraphrase from a comment in a Buckley Firing Line debate from decades ago. We are more liberal pecked now than we were then.)

Sailer discusses how East Germany, according to Sailer’s sources, suppressed a scientist, Volkmar Weiss, for similar science as James Watson was. Weiss was definitely a hostage of East Germany. They did control his house, his job, his research, and this extended to his family.

CSHL has all those levers over James Watson. CSHL is led by an experienced investment banker, Eduardo G. Mestre, who has been involved in extensive M and A, which means layoffs and unhappy, departing employees.  Is Watson just one more hand laid off in a long line of Americans losing good jobs they will never see again?
This is hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply. All statements should be restated as questions.


Buchanan defends Watson

October 29, 2007

The Recantation of Dr. Watson
By Patrick J. Buchanan

From the time of Tiberius to the 17th century, men gave up their lives rather than renounce a belief in God. Others gave up their lives rather than renounce a disbelief in the Church. Why could Watson not stand up for his disbelief in the ideological myth of the inherent equality of all men, cultures, creeds and civilizations?

When we defend those who tell the truth, we defend ourselves.  If we don’t defend James Watson now, who will we defend later?  If James Watson can’t speak on genes, when can we?
==The following comment was posted at VA

The only way to defend the right not to be PC is to not be PC. Only if we use it can we keep it. First we became afraid to say non-PC things and now we are losing the right to say them. This is further along in Europe.

It now takes real courage to say the truth in many cases. But as we cede each ridge and valley of truth by not saying it, we lose that land. In the end, we have nothing left. At whatever place we choose to make a stand, we will be called bigots, Nazis, and racists.

A related issue is the party Vlaams Belang and its right to be taken seriously. That is also the right of any of us to be taken seriously about anything that matters.


Senators: Immigration replaces inbred

October 29, 2007

Do senators feel that their constituents are inbred morlochs who need to be renewed if not replaced by vital and vibrant immigrants? Do senators feel they, the senators, have overcome their inbred past but that their constituents have not? Senators know best?

Search senators immigration inbred

Results 1100 of about 34,800 for senators immigration inbred.”

The Senate immigration reform proposal introduces a dramatic change to the legal immigration system by eliminating visa categories that allow U.S. citizens to petition for their families to reunite with them on American soil. The immigration bill instead creates a points system for visa distribution that prioritizes work skills over family connections.

Last night during the Senate floor debate on immigration, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced an amendment that called for sunsetting this points system method after 5 years to reevaluate its efficacy. The mild amendment provoked a furious outrage from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Graham took to the floor after Obama spoke, and began gesticulating wildly and screaming in anger. “This is why we can’t work together,” Graham said. “Some people on the left and right consider [the bill] heresy, and we’re giving in if we pass this amendment.” Shaking the amendment in his hand, Graham added, “This amendment says that bipartisanship doesn’t have the ‘bi’ in it. .. You’re gonna destroy this deal.” Watch it: (at original site)

Reacting to Graham’s hyperventilation on the Senate floor, Obama said, “It’s a matter of too much coffee and people being on the floor too long.” It also reflects the fact that right-wing opposition to the bill is cracking the conservative base.

Graham’s furor is better directed at his right flank, who have fractured the bipartisan coalition on immigration reform with cries that it is amnesty. Graham said Obama’s amendment would undercut “everybody over here who’s walked the plank and told our base, ‘You’re wrong.’” It appears Graham is cracking under right-wing pressure and is blaming it on the left.

Search Lindsey Graham immigration inbred

“Results 1100 of about 9,100 for Lindsey Graham immigration inbred.”

Graham has a career C and a 2005-2007 grade of D.

Search Lindsey Graham bigot

Results 1100 of about 98,700 for Lindsey Graham bigot.”

“Lindsey Graham: South Carolinians Are Bigots” is title of video below:

bob8184 : Graham said during the Senate push on amnesty, he didn*t care if he lost the election, this was bigger than him.

Lindsey Graham “tell the bigots to shut up”

Graham addressed this saying “We are going to solve this problem. We’re not going to run people down. We’re not going to scapegoat people. We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up, and we’re going to get this right.” [2] He has also compared critics of the bill to anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish bigots [1]

Graham was born in Central, South Carolina, where his father, Florence James Graham, owned a liquor store. Graham was the first member of his family to attend college…

(Following from earlier post) Lindsey Graham was born in Central, SC which is in Pickens County which is part of the South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments. Lindsey Graham comes from Appalachia. He was born there. His father owned a liquor store there. These are the people who sent him to Washington, DC.

Lindsey Graham has not just forgotten the people who sent him there, but is ashamed of them. Graham calls them bigots. Graham is ashamed of the people he comes from.

The town of Pickens was founded in 1868 and named for the Revolutionary War hero General Andrew Pickens. Scottish-Irish settlers were the original inhabitants of the Pickens area, with a few traders who lived among the Cherokees. When the new Pickens was being created, Elihu Griffin offered 40 acres of his land for the courthouse; it was this land being offered for sale in the 1869 handbill.

Much of the City’s past is present today, giving a glimpse of its rich and fascinating heritage. Pickens County is proud to have the most Medal of Honor recipients per capita in the nation. This mixture of past and present is one of the factors which makes Pickens a place of historical interest and significance

Is the reason that Lindsey Graham supports immigration so much is because he thinks the people he is from are inbred hicks who are genetically malformed? Is Graham ashamed of the way they look? Does he feel uncomfortable in his own skin? Does he want all of that “renewed” or just swept away by immigrants?

Sweden, Britain, Norway, Ireland, Italy and Spain are also corners of Europe. The leaders of each of those countries have pushed immigration. Do they also feel that their people are in inbred morlochs who need to be renewed and replaced?

Does Teddy Kennedy feel he is from an in-bred group of morlochs who need to be renewed and replaced? What about other leaders? Do they feel they come from in-bred groups that need renewing?






The South has been the target of a relentless campaign by leftists and other ignorant people, who want to depict the Southron cause as being driven by ‘hate’, and who caricature Southron people as backward, inbred, and bigoted.


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

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:

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.


Blair was born at the Queen Mary Maternity Home[5] in Edinburgh, Scotland on 6 May 1953,

Gordon Brown was born in Govan, in Glasgow, Scotland,


Neocons and Anarchists

October 28, 2007

Are the neocons heirs to anarchism? The neocons are a leftist splinter group that moved to the right adopting some elements of economic conservatism along with anti-communism, but not adopting a belief in the self of the West identified with European peoples. The neocons are universalists, not Westerners in this sense.

The neocons as a splinter from leftism are descended from 19th century leftist movements. This includes the anarchist movement. Anarchists were, like neocons, a universalist, anti-nationalist movement.

Anarchism was difficult to identify on what it really stood for. It was easier to say what it was against. The neocons are the same. When the term neocon became known to the public, it was difficult for the public to know what it meant. In fact, that is still the case. The anarchists and neocons are both against the traditional West including its identity with European peoples.
The neocons supported Muslim immigration before 9-11 and after 9-11. Thus it was a neocon policy that led to the September 11, 2001 attacks from within the U.S. by Muslim immigrants. The neocons have continued to advocate and implement the same immigration after 9-11 thus taking ownership of 9-11.

Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist and born here in the U.S. to immigrants, shot President McKinley on September 6, 1901. The anarchists supported immigration before and after this attack. They too attacked those for immigration restriction as nativists and the rest.

The anarchist bombings and attacks didn’t stop on September 6, 1901. They continued on September 16, 1920 in the Wall Street bombings.

These were a continuation of other bombings and incidents from before the McKinley assassination. This included the attack on Frick.

On June 2, 1919, there were coordinated bombings by anarchist leftists. These included on the house of the Attorney General Palmer. The left only remembers the Palmer Raids, not the bombings.

The neocons have taken ownership of the immigration that led to 9-11 but also to the anarchist bombings. They link them together themselves by calling those for immigration restriction during the time of the anarchist attacks, nativists and bigots. They use the same terms for those against immigration now during the Muslim attack on the West. That includes multiple incidents in the U.S. and Europe. Let’s not forget the 1972 Munich Olympics, as Vanishing American reminds us in her article on Nationalists and Neocons. See the article before this one here for more on that article and the discussion thread at VA’s site.

If we look at the consequences of neocon policies, its always anarchy. Iraq is the great work of neoconism. So is Afghanistan. Both are in anarchy. The neocons have an indifference to reality and to the consequences of the people of a land of their policies.

This neocon indifference applies most of all at home in America. The neocons brought the 9-11 immigrants after the 1993 World Trade Center attack. They are the ones who took ownership of the 9-11 2001 attacks by continuing the same immigration after the 1993 attack and the 2001 attack.

It was Bush’s policy before 9-11-2001 to end profiling of Muslims and Arabs as Steve Sailer pointed out on 9-11. That was what led one security person to let Atta through. The person said if he wasn’t a terrorist who would be? But let him through. That was Bush policy to let Atta through.

The 9-11 2001 attack is the direct descendant of the 9-16-1920 Wall Street bombings and 9-16-1901 McKinley assassination. The neocons are the direct descendants of the anarchist leftist movements of the 19th century. They consider those who were for immigration restriction during the anarchist bombings to be nativists and bigots, and say the same of those for immigration restriction from the 1993 World Trade Center attack through today to be nativists and bigots.


The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported World War II, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman[citation needed]. A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA[citation needed]. In this way neoconservatives claim to be compassionate to the people they govern by serving them and looking out for their best interests.

Max Shachtman (September 10, 1904November 4, 1972) was an American Marxist theorist. During his lifetime, he evolved from being a Leninist associate of Leon Trotsky to an anti-Soviet social democrat.

Trotsky became involved in revolutionary activities in 1896 after moving to Nikolayev (now Mykolaiv). At first a narodnik (revolutionary populist), he was introduced to Marxism later that year and was originally opposed to it. But during periods of exile and imprisonment he gradually became a Marxist. Instead of pursuing a mathematics degree, Trotsky helped organize the South Russian Workers’ Union in Nikolayev in early 1897. Using the name ‘Lvov’ [3], he wrote and printed leaflets and proclamations, distributed revolutionary pamphlets and popularized socialist ideas among industrial workers and revolutionary students.

Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869May 14, 1940) known as ‘Red Emma’, was a Lithuanian-born anarchist known for her writings and speeches. She was lionized as an iconic “rebel woman” feminist by admirers, and derided as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution by her critics.[1]

Goldman played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in the United States and Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. In particular she incorporated gender politics into anarchism which, if at all, had only been hinted at by earlier anarchists. She immigrated to the United States at the age of seventeen and was later deported to Russia, where she witnessed the results of the Russian Revolution. She spent a number of years in England and in Southern France where she wrote her autobiography, Living My Life, and other works, before taking part in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 as the English language representative in London of the CNT-FAI.


In New York City, Goldman met and lived with Alexander Berkman, who was an important figure of the anarchist movement in the United States at the time. The two became lovers, and remained close friends until his death in 1936. With the influence of anarchist writers such as Johann Most, Berkman and Goldman became convinced that direct action, including the use of violence, was necessary to effect revolutionary change (see propaganda of the deed).

Goldman was widely believed by the authorities to have been involved in the planning stages of the Frick assassination attempt, but Berkman and the other conspirators refused to give evidence against her, and she was not charged in the indictment. Her defense of Berkman after the attempted assassination and her later attempts to win his early parole made her a marked woman and highly unpopular with the authorities who regularly disrupted her lectures. Berkman (or Sasha as she fondly referred to him) was released on parole after fourteen years in 1906.

In 1921, repression by the Red Army (under the direct leadership of Leon Trotsky) against the striking Kronstadt sailors left Goldman and other anarchists keenly disillusioned with the Bolsheviks.

===Hypothesis: Immigration always leads to anarchy.

We can make this hypothesis more explicit in the following form. Every large immigration movement leads to anarchy:

  1. The break down of social trust
  2. Failure of traditional institutions
  3. Violence
  4. Actual failure to perform duties of office or employment
  5. Actual failure to perform civic duties appropriately, such as jury duty.

There is a Pew poll that almost everyone in the world opposes immigration into their country because it disrupts their society and culture. People recognize the breakdown of their traditional society. They know its bad. It means they can’t rely on the promises made by society for civil order. Thus immigration leads to anarchy.

The things that anarchy is neocons make direct policy objectives. Neocons want the breakdown of tradition and of bonds between people based on ethnicity. These are targeted by neocons. Thus neocons are trying to create anarchy as their objective. That makes neocons anarchists.

World Publics Welcome Global Trade — But Not Immigration

Released: 10.04.07

In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed express the view that there should be greater restriction of immigration and tighter control of their country’s borders.

Thus neocons are against all people everywhere. Neocons are for global anarchy. They are against traditional society and all it brings for people everywhere. For themselves they can synthesize a traditional society using the wealth of the institutions they control. For neocons, traditionalism is something you have behind the closed doors of a think tank, investment bank, the top floor of a government office building, or the iron fence of an estate.


re VA on Nationalism and Neocons

October 28, 2007

The is a great article and great discussion going on at Vanishing American on Nationalism and Neocons: 

Comment posted at Vanishing American discussion:

Great article VA and also great discussion.  The neocon philosphy breaks down by ignoring the issue of continuity of self of the West.  After the article linked to by  John Savage, I wrote on traditionalism from an econ perspective, which you were kind enough to comment on VA.  Let me quote from Wiki:

“In the context of behavioral economics, time inconsistency is related to how much each different self of a decision-maker cares about herself and all of the selves that will then follow her, relative to each other.”

Traditionalism is, at least in part, about maintaining continuity of self. Society won’t honor its promises if it is too inconsistent in identity over time. Immigration, especially third world, disrupts the continuity of self of the West.  If there is not ethnic continuity, there can’t be continuity of self.  This is what the neocons don’t recognize for America or Europe.

The trouble with neocons is neocon inconsistency or lack of loyalty to the people, self, of the West.  The neocons don’t identify the people of the West as the self of the West.  They say that explicitly.

As VA points out, the neocons say the West is a proposition nationality or place, not a people.  They identify those who see the West as a people with Hitler as Vanishing American further points out.  The neocons are really opposed to the continuity of the self of the West as a people or ethnicity or nation.

Neocons are against the nation, if the nation means the people.  They are not just universalists, but anti-nationalists.  They are against the survival of the nation, defined as the people.  Thus neocons identify with the barbarians to use a Rome analogy.

For neocons to stop the barbarian invasion is racism and bigotry.  The neocons don’t identify the people of Rome as being Rome or the carrier of the civilization.  Neither did the Roman government.

In this sense, the Romans adopted neoconservatism, and declined and fell.  Neoconservatism can be viewed as the ancient and tried and true method for the suicide of the West. They are now applying it in America, Australia, Canada, and Europe.

Neocons identified with anti-communism, i.e. the opposition to another universalism, as opposed to the defense of the self of the West identified as the people.  Neocons don’t accept a conflict with Islam in some cases, but they definitely don’t oppose immigration from Muslim lands, just some variant of Islam.  As VA points out, the neocons identify more with the immigrant Muslims than the self of the West as the European peoples.

Anti-nationalism can be seen as part of the universalist leftist movements of the 19th century including anarchism.  Anti-nationalism by immigration does lead to anarchy.  The neocons are attempting to replicate 19th century European immigration with third world immigration.  The neocons are still the descendants of the same movement of anarchists and leftists of the 19th century.  They fail to recognize the costs and problems in 19th century immigration.  They then fail to recognize those costs and hurdles are substantially greater for third world immigration.

Difference in IQ is a major factor in that, but it is behavior in general that is different, both in the third world and after they come here.  Difference in IQ was not the problem in the 19th century, making it viable in the end.  But this is not the case with third world immigration.  This means third world immigration must break the self of the West. 

The above is draft and preliminary and subject to substantial revision. These are hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.


Putting British interests first sounds so radical

October 27, 2007

By Iain Martin “Which leaves those of us who do not consider appeasement of the jihadist menace a sensible option looking for a more realistic way forward after the departures of Blair and (bring it on) Bush. That is why a speech by David Cameron in Berlin on Friday would repay scrutiny.”

The West needs to put its interests first. End all immigration including students, family reunification except within the Western community, asylum and temporary workers. Stop know-how transfer. Remove Iran’s capability and Pakistan’s. Tell Putin to stop killing people in our countries and being a trouble maker in the Middle East.

read more | digg story


UK Educates Iranians in Nuclear Physics

October 27, 2007

Its not just Iranians. We, the West, need to stop giving away know-how.

From The Sunday Times
October 28, 2007
Iranians study nuclear physics in Britain
Jack Grimston
THE Foreign Office has cleared dozens of Iranians to enter British universities to study advanced nuclear physics and other subjects with the potential to be applied to weapons of mass destruction.

In the past nine months about 60 Iranians have been admitted to study postgraduate courses deemed “proliferation-sensitive” by the security services. The disciplines range from nuclear physics to some areas of electrical and chemical engineering and microbiology.

Additionally, figures obtained by David Willetts, the shadow secretary for innovation, universities and skills, show that in 2005-06, 30 Iranians were doing postgraduate degrees in subjects covering nuclear physics and nuclear engineering.

A. Q. Khan, Pakistan’s nuclear chief profilerator, got his Ph.D. in Belgium in the 1970’s. Its not just the current hot country. We have to stop this training completely for non-Westerners. That includes those born here from the third world, because some will take that knowledge back. Abdul Salam was educated in physics in the UK and started Pakistan’s nuclear program in the 1960’s.

%d bloggers like this: