Silence Means Violence: How Censorship Leads Inexorably to Dead Whites
Another day in Brave New Britain, another Muslim rape-gang is convicted and another set of ugly, alien, melanin-enriched faces stare out from news-reports. But not for long. As Douglas Murray spotted in 2018, the leftist media are now determined that these stories should disappear as soon as possible. After all, in 2017 a White idiot called Darren Osborne drove a car at worshippers outside a mosque in London, killing one man and injuring twelve others because he had been “radicalized” by Tommy Robinson and angered by a BBC drama about Muslim “grooming gangs” in the Lancashire town of Rochdale.
The ugly, alien, melanin-enriched faces of a Muslim rape-gang from Rotherham
That, for leftists, was proof that the choice for society is clear: it’s either silence or violence. Either we cover up Muslim imperfections as much as possible or evil, bigoted Whites will rise up and kill Muslims. The Sudanese-British journalist Nesrine Malik has laid out the official line in the Guardian and attacked “The myth of the free speech crisis.” According to Malik, free speech must be used only for “challenging upwards,” not for “punching downwards” and “attacking the weak and persecuted.” She asserts that “Our alleged free speech crisis was never really about free speech. The backdrop to the myth is rising anti-immigration sentiment and Islamophobia. Free-speech-crisis advocates always seem to have an agenda. They overwhelmingly wanted to exercise their freedom of speech in order to agitate against minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims.”
Nesrine Malik Is Punching Up At You
So shut up, you White male bigots! If you criticize non-Whites, you’re punching down and should be silenced. If non-Whites criticize you, they’re punching up and should be celebrated. What could be simpler? But I see a big flaw in Nesrine Malik’s arguments on behalf of “minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims.” Although she is definitely on the side of Muslims and immigrants, I don’t think she is on the side of women. Darren Osborne, who came from the White majority, killed one Muslim from the non-White minority. But it’s clear that non-Whites are far more likely to kill and otherwise harm Whites than vice versa.
“Groomed” at 12, murdered at 17
Non-Whites are a particular danger to White women. As the judge at the most recent rape-gang trial has said, the Labour council and police in Rotherham “had been aware vulnerable teenagers in [Rotherham] were being targeted for sexual exploitation more than a decade ago.” The council and police decided that silence and censorship were the best responses to the flourishing rape-culture of Muslims. And so a White girl called Laura Wilson was “groomed” for sex at the age of 12, then brutally murdered by two Muslim men at the age of 17. She was stabbed repeatedly, then thrown into a canal to die.
In Telford, another small English town heavily enriched by Muslims, the same pattern played out. The authorities preferred silence and censorship about Muslim rape-gangs, not publicity and prosecution. And so a White girl called Lucy Lowe was “groomed” at 13 and murdered at 16 along with her mother and 17-year-old sister. They were burned alive when a Muslim called Azhar Ali Mehmood set fire to their house. Wherever Muslims and other non-Whites have emigrated in the West, they have murdered Whites and wrecked the lives of White girls and women. This has been going on for decades and the response of the authorities has always been the same: silence and censorship.
Rape-culture in Sudan
The internet began to change that, allowing Whites to discuss and challenge the pathologies introduced to their nations by mass immigration. But Nesrine Malik and other leftists hate that free discussion. They want silence and censorship to reign again. Yes, non-Whites must be allowed to criticise Whites openly and endlessly, but Whites cannot be allowed to criticize non-Whites. After all, I’m such a bigot that I think Sudanese immigrants like Nesrine Malik are bad for the West. And the only things I’ve got on my side are facts and endless stories of crimes committed by Sudanese people. For example, rape-culture is so bad in Sudan that both men and women were raped by security forces during recent unrest in the capital Khartoum. And it’s not surprising that Sudanese bring their rape-culture with them when they emigrate to the West. A Sudanese rapist left a woman with “horrific life-changing injuries, including a ‘shattered’ skull and bleeding to the brain” in the English city of Leicester in 2018. And three Sudanese “asylum seekers” committed a gang-rape in Huddersfield in the same year. In 2019, another Sudanese “asylum seeker” improved on that vibrant tradition by “savagely murder[ing] a 21-year-old [White] woman” in Leeds “after she refused to have sex with him.”
Nesrine Malik poses as a feminist, but does not discuss stories like that or explore the way in which emigration from Third-World countries with violent, misogynist cultures will inevitably mean raped, maimed and murdered White women in the First World. After all, exposing Sudanese rape-culture would be “punching downwards” and “attacking the weak and persecuted.” And let’s be fair: Sudanese culture isn’t just about rape. Steve Sailer has chronicled how Sudanese emigrants have enriched Australia with violent crime and gang warfare. And an enterprising Sudanese mother and son have defrauded Australian tax-payers of six million dollars. You can find lots more stories of the vibrancy Sudanese emigrants have brought to the West. That’s why I reach the bigoted conclusion that they aren’t good for the West and should go back where they came from.
Lucrative careers of anti-White agitation
Nesrine Malik won’t agree, of course. She doesn’t want to go back to Sudan because it’s what Donald Trump would hatefully — and accurately — call “a shithole.” The natives of Sudan have low average intelligence and the only things that flourish there are corruption, oppression and violence. Although Malik herself is from the right-hand side of the Sudanese bell-curve, she isn’t an original or interesting writer. Nor is Afua Hirsch, a half-Jewish, half-Ghanaian Guardian journalist who pursues the same lucrative career of endlessly criticizing Whites, blaming White racism for all non-White failure, and demanding that Whites be censored and silenced.
Half-Black, Half-Jew, Afua Hirsch Is Hating You
The White journalist Rod Liddle, a fearless anti-PC warrior and unashamed Islamophobe, has noted that many people “are sick to the back teeth of this egregious illiberal shite, this closing down of debate, this hair-trigger sensitivity.” But Liddle has never discussed where “this egregious illiberal shite” came from. To do that he would have to break a strict taboo of his own and criticize the only minority that he himself regards as sacred. But let’s do what anti-PC warriors like Rod Liddle and Mark Steyn never do. Let’s ask a simple question: Who wrote the anti-White script for unoriginal, uninspired non-White journalists like Nesrine Malik and Afua Hirsch?
Britain’s Chief Rabbi answered that question in 2007:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.
“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
Arch-Anti-Semite Jonathan Sacks with Tony Blair
“The progress began with Jews,” according to the arch-anti-semite Jonathan Sacks. He’s right. But it’s precisely because Jews are the originators of “this egregious illiberal shite, this closing down of debate, this hair-trigger sensitivity” that so few people will dare to say so. Jews devised and popularized “identity politics” for their own benefit: to undermine White society and to place themselves beyond criticism. Jews are a tiny minority who wield huge financial, political and cultural power. That’s why they want to place themselves beyond scrutiny and criticism. Power that can’t be discussed is also power that can’t be challenged. Jews believe fervently in minority-worship because they see themselves as the supreme minority.
A never-ending blood-tax
And by forcing Whites to tolerate the pathologies of Muslims and other non-Whites, they reassure themselves that Whites are passive and will not act in their own interests. To Jews, the deaths of Laura Wilson, Lucy Lowe, Mary-Ann Leneghan, Christina Edkins, Kriss Donald and countless other White men, women and children are a small price to pay for Jewish peace-of-mind. Indeed, they’re not a price at all, because Jews aren’t paying it.
To me those deaths are an intolerable price, a never-ending blood-tax on Whites who never voted for mass immigration and have consistently opposed the invasion and colonization of their homelands. As the hate-blogger Chateau Heartiste points out: “Diversity + Promixity = War.” Nesrine Malik would no doubt be delighted to learn that Heartiste was thrown off WordPress as part of the on-going purge of hate. But this is because “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.” And the biggest haters of truth are Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America, the Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain and the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA) in France.
Pro-White views are very bad news
It’s no surprise that those Jewish organizations are also dedicated supporters of mass immigration by anti-White, pro-censorship non-Whites like Nesrine Malik. Free speech is a rare and fragile phenomenon that was created very recently by White men in north-western Europe. It depends on a unique combination of intelligence, objectivity, humility and self-control. Unlike White science and White technology, free speech has never been successfully exported to the non-White world — not to high-IQ China and certainly not to low-IQ Sudan.
And when the non-White world comes flooding into the White world, free speech inevitably begins to die. With free speech, Whites can defend their own interests and resist the destruction of their nations. Without it, they’re disarmed and helpless. That’s precisely why those who hate Whites also hate free speech. Nesrine Malik is an obvious example, but she’s a symptom of the death of free speech, not a cause. For the cause, you need to look at the ADL, CST and LICRA. To Jews, pro-White views are very bad news.
“Dejar de ser Blanca”: Irlanda y el Activismo Radical Judío
“Cinco judíos llegaron desde el mar con regalos para Tairdelbach [Rey de Munster], y fueron devueltos nuevamente al mar.”
Anales de Inisfallen, 1079 d. C.
“Propongo una interrogación sobre cómo la nación irlandesa puede dejar de ser blanca (cristiana y estable), privilegiando las voces de los racializados y subvirtiendo no sólo las políticas estatales de inmigración, sino también las de integración.”
Ronit Lentin (académica israelí), De estado racial a estado racista: Irlanda en vísperas del referéndum sobre ciudadanía, 2007.
Preludio
Tairdelbach de Munster (Turlough O´Brien, 1009-86), quien fue para el año 1079, efectivamente, el Alto Rey de Irlanda, probablemente mantiene el record de la expulsión de judíos más rápida en la historia. Él dominó la escena política irlandesa; había aplastado el liderazgo vikingo de Dublín y poseía “el estándar del Rey de los Sajones.” Su hijo incluso había comenzado a incursionar en Gales y la costa británica. Lamentablemente, dado que los Anales de Inisfallen son flojos en detalle, sólo podemos conjeturar los matices de la reacción del septuagenario, ante la improvista llegada de ese puñado de judíos con regalos. La delegación seguramente partió desde Normandía, donde los judíos prosperaban bajo una relación financiera de carácter simbiótico con Guillermo el Conquistador. Guillermo, por supuesto, había introducido judíos en la Inglaterra anglosajona 13 años antes del acercamiento a Tairdelbach, dejando abierta la posibilidad de que hayan podido viajar a Irlanda directamente desde uno de estos nuevos enclaves judíos en Inglaterra. De todas maneras, es casi certero que llegaron buscando permiso para asentarse en los centros urbanos de Irlanda, establecer una relación con la élite irlandesa (el mismo Tairdelbach), e incurrir en prácticas explotadoras de préstamo de dinero entre los órdenes sociales más bajos. Éste era un patrón que hasta el momento había sido atestiguado en toda Europa. Y sin embargo, la reacción de Tairdelbach fue rechazar los regalos y expulsar inmediatamente a los judíos. Éstos no serían capaces de formar ninguna comunidad en Irlanda por varios siglos.
Probablemente no sea ninguna coincidencia que Tairdelbach haya sido considerado como un Rey bueno y cristiano. Él mantuvo íntimas relaciones con la Iglesia Irlandesa y con la Iglesia de Inglaterra, y fue el patrón de un número de figuras religiosas y de académicos. Fue casi sin duda un hombre letrado y bien educado, y su decisión de expulsar a la delegación judía puede haber estado basada en un cuerpo de conocimiento, en vez de puro instinto. Historiadores Aidan Beatty y Dan O´Brien comentan sobre esta expulsión:
Nadie en Irlanda había visto una persona judía antes de este incidente; sin embargo, los visitantes son descriptos inequívocamente como “cinco judíos” (coicer Iudaide), y el pueblo irlandés ya tiene una palabra para los judíos, Iudaide, una palabra gaélica medieval que claramente tiene sus raíces en las lenguas de la antigüedad clásica. Pero además de esa paradoja, aquí también hay cierto tipo de conocimiento cultural en funcionamiento. Los irlandeses medievales que no le dieron cabida a estos visitantes judíos “saben” algo sobre los judíos, o mejor dicho, piensan algunas cosas sobre los judíos: ellos “saben” que los judíos no son dignos de confianza, que los judíos trayendo regalos no deben ser recibidos. Y los judíos no son aptos para residir en Irlanda – deben ser expulsados del país.[1]
La impresión es, por lo tanto, que Tairdelbach fue un líder avispado y generoso, quien buscó el bien de su pueblo en vez del bien de su propia situación financiera a corto plazo.
La venganza judía, directa o indirecta, ocurrió un siglo después, cuando se terminaron los días de gloria de los Altos Reyes Gaélicos como Tairdelbach, gracias a la invasión normanda de Irlanda por parte de Ricardo “Strongbow” [Arco Fuerte] de Clare. Así como la invasión normanda de Inglaterra, Strongbow fue financiado por judíos; en este caso, el financista asentado en Inglaterra Josce de Gloucester. Luego de la invasión normanda, la élite normanda llevó a Irlanda un pequeño grupo de judíos, principalmente para desarrollar actividades financieras en los puertos, en vez de establecer asentamientos a gran escala. Una concesión fechada el 28 de julio de 1232 por el Rey Enrique III, y destinada a Peter de Rivel, le concedió el puesto de tesorero y canciller del erario público de Irlanda, de los puertos y de la costa del rey, y también “la custodia del judaísmo del Rey en Irlanda.” Estos pocos judíos sin nombre habrían sido dispensados después de la expulsión de Inglaterra del año 1290, y los judíos permanecieron ausentes de Irlanda hasta la época de Cromwell, quien también ocupa un lugar de notoriedad en la historia irlandesa.
Al seguir detrás a los normandos y a los ingleses, los judíos se han ubicado ciertamente en una dudosa trayectoria con respecto a los irlandeses. Pero quizá nada de lo visto en el pasado pueda compararse con lo que se ve en el presente. Porque es el globalismo lo que ha invadido ahora a Irlanda, y activistas judíos están formando el pensamiento y las políticas de la nueva cultura globalista imperial.
Migración masiva y adoctrinamiento
Entre 2002 y 2016, la proporción de la población irlandesa nacida en el extranjero se elevó del 5.8% a más del 17%.[2] Dada la relativamente pequeña población de Irlanda, si el ritmo actual de inmigración persiste, los irlandeses se enfrentan a ser superados en su hogar ancestral en las décadas próximas. El mayor incremento llegó bajo la forma de un número creciente de paquistaníes, gitanos rumanos, afganos (un incremento del 212% en el censo previo), y sirios (un incremento del 199% en el censo previo). Irlanda además se ha convertido en el hogar de una gran y rápidamente creciente población africana, que fue descrita como estando sumida en “tasas de desempleo excepcionalmente altas,” por el académico de la University College Dublin, Philip O´Connel. La población africana le ha presentado algunas nuevas dificultades a la policía irlandesa, que ha tenido que romper una red africana occidental de fraude en Dublín y Meath, lidiar con bandas negras atacándose entre sí con machetes en el medio de calles transitadas, lidiar con las consecuencias de violaciones en grupo de niñas adolescentes por nigerianos en Kildare, soportar varios ataques a la policía por bandas narcotraficantes nigerianas, lidiar con un caso de violación y asesinato particularmente horrible, de una joven madre irlandesa, por un migrante nigeriano, e intentar controlar una banda africana llamada The Pesties, quienes “han estado aterrorizando a la gente prominentemente en el oeste y norte de Dublín, llevando a cabo atroces asaltos sobre repartidores y taxistas.”
Choferes de taxi africanos y musulmanes también han estado detrás de un gran y creciente número de violaciones y asaltos sexuales (por ejemplo, véase aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí y aquí). De hecho, las ofensas sexuales en Irlanda se han incrementado en un 17% sólo entre el 2017 y el 2018. En términos financieros, el creciente proceso de asilo le está costando al gobierno irlandés más de €1 billón cada cinco años, y en el medio de una crisis inmobiliaria irlandesa, la inmigración está ejerciendo una presión inmensa sobre cada aspecto de la infraestructura de la nación.
Curiosamente, los medios irlandeses no han estado haciendo mucho de este aspecto de la complexión cambiante de Irlanda. En vez de eso, mucho debate se ha llevado a cabo sobre el hecho de que Irlanda no tiene verdaderas leyes contra los “delitos de odio,” con la excepción del Acto de Prohibición de Incitación al Odio de 1989, que ha logrado efectuar un total de 5 condenas criminales en los últimos 30 años. El Dr. Ali Selim del Centro Cultural Islámico en Dublín, ha dicho que “hay una apremiante necesidad de una legislación contra el crimen de odio. Hoy en día tenemos un amplio rango de diversidad y creencias, y eso incrementa la necesidad de tener legislación contra el crimen de odio.” En cierta manera estoy de acuerdo con el Dr. Selim, ya que diversidad equivale inevitablemente a restricción de las libertades de la población nativa. Más migrantes significa más leyes para proteger esos migrantes del criticismo.
Pero a pesar de las intervenciones del Dr. Selim, el origen de las concepciones irlandesas de “racismo” y “discurso de odio” no se remonta a la creciente población musulmana, sino a un pequeño número de judíos influyentes.
En 1969, unos 890 años después de que Tairdelbach expulsara a la delegación normando-judía, una joven socióloga judía llegó a Irlanda desde Israel. Ronit Lentin, la socióloga en cuestión, fue profesora asociada de sociología en el Trinity College de Dublín hasta su retiro en el año 2014. Desde 1997 hasta 2012, Lentin fue Directora de Sociología, y actuó como directora del programa MPhil en “Raza, Etnicidad, Conflicto.” Fue también la fundadora de la Trinity Immigration Initiative, desde la cual abogó por una política de fronteras abiertas para Irlanda y se opuso a cualquier tipo de deportación, además de involucrarse en activismo para liberalizar las leyes irlandesas sobre el aborto.[3] Como académica y activista “anti-racista,” Lentin formuló las que habrían de convertirse en algunas de las facetas de auto-recriminación irlandesa en cuestiones de raza, empezando por su definición de Irlanda como “un estado biopolítico racista.”[4] Según ella misma, antes de empezar su trabajo de suministro de culpa racial irlandesa, a mediados de los 1990s, “la mayoría de la gente no era consciente de que el racismo irlandés existía.”[5]
En cierto sentido, entonces, Lentin introdujo el concepto de racismo irlandés. Su primer paso en asegurarles a los irlandeses que ciertamente eran racistas, fue negar su existencia como pueblo. Ella declaró que los irlandeses eran meramente “teorizados como homogéneos – blancos, cristianos y establecidos.”[6] Exactamente quién había desarrollado esta teoría sobre los irlandeses, y cuándo, nunca fue especificado por Lentin; tampoco intentó mostrar que el status de blancos, cristianos y establecidos, de la mayor parte de la población irlandesa, fuera otra cosa que una cuestión de hecho y realidad. Parece haberle sido suficiente simplemente con afirmar que lo irlandés era sólo una teoría, y dejarlo ahí. Lentin se sintió particularmente agraviada por el hecho de que los irlandeses, aparentemente inconscientes de que son solo un invento de su propia imaginación, hayan votado (80%) por vincular ciudadanía con sangre (terminando con la ciudadanía por nacimiento), constitucionalmente diferenciando entre ciudadano y no-ciudadano, en un Referéndum de Ciudadanía del año 2014. Esta medida fue llevada a cabo principalmente para parar el “turismo de maternidad” africano y los “bebes ancla” de mujeres africanas, que se han vuelto algo cada vez más común desde comienzos de los años 2000s. Para Lentin, sin embargo, la medida fue simbólica del hecho de que “la República Irlandesa se había vuelto consciente y democráticamente, un estado racista.”[7] Ella concluye que cualquier idea de los irlandeses como víctimas históricas debería ser descartada, y que “la nueva posición de Irlanda como líder en el Índice de Globalización, su símbolo de status como el núcleo de la cultura “cool,” y su posición privilegiada dentro de una Comunidad Europea en constante expansión, exige que se reteorice lo irlandés como supremacismo blanco.” [Énfasis agregado]
Entonces, en la concepción de Lentin, lo irlandés no sólo es una ficción, sino una ficción racista, supremacista blanca. El consejo de Lentin a los irlandeses, si acaso se quisieran deshacer del delirio de identidad étnica, es que se involucren en celebraciones masivas de “diversidad e integración y multiracialismo, y multiculturalismo e interculturalismo.”[9] Lentin agrega: “Yo propongo una interrogación sobre cómo la nación irlandesa puede dejar de ser blanca.”
Manteniendo la tradición familiar, Alana, la hija de Ronit Lentin, se mudó a Australia hace algunos años, donde rápidamente se estableció como una igualmente virulenta promotora de culpa blanca, y se involucró en sucesivas críticas al “racismo” australiano. Ella es ahora Presidenta de la Asociación de Teoría Crítica de la Raza y de Estudios sobre Blanquitud, y tiene artículos redactados para The Guardian, sosteniendo que la identidad australiana es tan ficticia como la irlandesa, y exigiendo que Australia adopte una política de fronteras abiertas, así también puede dejar de ser blanca.
Si el activismo de Ronit Lentin puede considerarse como sabotaje cultural, entonces el de su co-étnico Alan Shatter, podría ser considerado como nada menos que guerra legislativa. Shatter, un judío nacido en Irlanda, ha sido discutido previamente en The Occidental Observer, pero no desde 2013. El impacto de Shatter en Irlanda ha sido extraordinario, y es difícil de exagerar. Sus primeros objetivos en el gobierno fueron la debilitación de los controles legislativos que ayudaban a preservar la familia (vía el Acto de Reforma de Separación Judicial y de Ley Familiar de 1989), y la erosión gradual de la altamente conservadora ley irlandesa de anticonceptivos (escribiendo el panfleto satírico de 1979 Family Planning – Irish Style [Planificación Familiar – Estilo Irlandés], mostrando ilustraciones burlescas, diseñadas por su co-étnico, el artista Chaim Factor). Él ha sido también un estridente activista pro-aborto desde al menos el año 1983, y un muy temprano defensor del matrimonio homosexual y de la adopción de niños por homosexuales (él fue esencialmente el autor de los dos proyectos de ley). Shatter fue también central en la fundación de El Comité Oireachtas (Parlamentario) de Asuntos Exteriores; algo que él utilizo luego como un vehículo para perseguir objetivos favorables al Sionismo. En el 2013, The Times of Israel reportó que “Puede que Israel finalmente tenga algo de suerte con los irlandeses” porque “Israel no podría tener un irlandés más comprensivo y confiable que Shatter, un colaborador incondicional incluso en tiempos de controversia. Ocasionalmente combativo, él ha sido sumamente crítico de los estridentes criticismos a Israel, de parte de los gobiernos previos, y no ha retrocedido ante el abuso subsecuente.” El artículo se aseguró de celebrar el hecho de que Shatter goza de “una posición excepcionalmente influyente en el gobierno irlandés,” tanto como ministro de defensa, cuanto como ministro de justicia, y notó que “fue particularmente activo durante los años 1980s y 1990s, abogando por el divorcio y los derechos de planificación familiar. Su origen judío urbano parece haberlo puesto en ventaja, liberándolo del equipaje que pesaba sobre sus colegas católicos.”
Alan Shatter
Pero fue en sus esfuerzos en el campo de la inmigración que Shatter demostró verdadero fervor revolucionario. Entre 2011 y 2014, Shatter transformó totalmente el proceso de ciudadanía irlandesa, brindándoles ciudadanía irlandesa personalmente a 69.000 ciudadanos extranjeros. En Agosto del 2013, tomó medidas para expandir el proceso de asilo irlandés, citando la Guerra Civil Siria como la razón, pero más tarde reconociendo que el número más alto de aplicaciones de asilo en realidad provenía de nigerianos y paquistaníes. De hecho, Shatter se mostró tan interesado en aumentar el número de africanos ingresando a Irlanda, que la tasa de rechazo de aplicaciones de asilo africanas, bajó del 47% al 3%, apenas asumió su cargo. Fue tan celebrado en África que ganó el Africa World Man of the Year Award en 2012. Muchos de estos solicitantes de asilo, principalmente nigerianos, han comenzado a aterrorizar y a asaltar a sus anfitriones, mientras otros han sido vistos masturbándose públicamente dentro de sus taxis en hora pico, mientras esperaban a los clientes. En 2013, Shatter propuso un nuevo proyecto de ley, que les otorgaría amnistía a los miles de inmigrantes ilegales acumulándose en Irlanda. Y, en contraste con la realidad de la inmigración masiva – crimen, recursos forzados, y la descomposición del sentimiento de comunidad – Shatter anunció en 2014, que Irlanda debía hacer más para “denunciar y combatir el racismo y la intolerancia a él relacionada,” porque:
Esta migración reciente… ha tenido un impacto transformativo en la sociedad irlandesa – y, para mejor. Personas de origen no-irlandés están jugando un papel cada vez más importante en cada ámbito de la vida, no menos en deporte, y han mejorado enormemente el entramado social, cultural y económico de nuestra sociedad. Es importante que Irlanda continúe siendo una nación que acoja a aquellos que ya se han establecido aquí y a los que lo harán en el futuro. Es igualmente importante que nos adaptemos a la naturaleza cada vez más diversa de la sociedad irlandesa.
Cuando Shatter fue forzado a renunciar en mayo de 2014, luego de una controversia policial, fue el incompleto estado de sus reformas migratorias, lo que-le dijo a la prensa-, representó uno de sus mayores pesares. Le dijo a The Irish Times que una de sus “grandes frustraciones” al dejar el cargo, fue el no haber logrado publicar “una muy exhaustiva” legislación en relación a la inmigración, residencia y asilo, y les explicó que estaba “muy desilusionado” por el hecho de que su colega de partido y sucesor, el Ministro de Justicia Frances Fitzgerald, parecía tender hacía un proyecto de ley menos revolucionario. Agregó: Lamentablemente, el proyecto de ley que pensé iba a ver publicado al menos hace 18 meses, estaba en segundo plano, esperando ser tratado… Había además mucha presión para tratar de fragmentar esa legislación y lidiar sólo con la cuestión del asilo, y no con las tan importantes reformas requeridas en el área de inmigración. Estaba preocupado de que si tratábamos sólo la cuestión del asilo, no veríamos nunca el proyecto de ley integral que era necesario. [El proyecto revisado] no va a tratar las reformas integrales de inmigración que son tan terriblemente necesarias.
Aunque Shatter fue obligado a retirarse tempranamente, mucho daño ya había sido hecho, y su legado va a continuar.
Y como si Shatter y Lentin no fueran suficiente, Twitter hace poco estalló, gracias a la reciente aparición de Laura Weinstein, una doctora de Nueva York que ahora vive en Irlanda y afirma ser experta en historia y cultura irlandesa. De todos los aspectos de la historia y de la cultura irlandesa sobre los que podría haber elegido focalizarse, la Dra. Weinstein decidió que está más interesada, como Lentin, en el “mito” de una identidad irlandesa homogénea y en el “nacionalismo irlandés de derecha,” y parece que utiliza su cuenta de Twitter en gran medida, para trolear figuras políticas irlandesas que se oponen a la inmigración masiva. Hace ya varios días, por ejemplo, respondió a un post del Partido Nacional — que señalaba que el multiculturalismo esencialmente resulta en una crisis de identidad para todos en la sociedad —, implicando que la oposición de Irlanda a la inmigración dejaría a los irlandeses como “neuróticos” “perros” “consanguíneos.” Escribió: “El flujo de genes como resultado de la inmigración previene el impacto negativo de la endogamia. Pero sigan adelante, restrinjan la inmigración y el flujo genético, si quieren crear una raza de humanos que refleje el neuroticismo de los perros “de pura sangre.” Sólo asegúrense de organizar un referéndum sobre endogamia primero.”
Ahora bien, yo he vivido en Irlanda durante largos períodos de mi vida, y les he mostrado el país a amigos norteamericanos, alemanes, fineses, y sudafricanos. Todos se mostraron fascinados por el paisaje, la música, la antigua historia, y la comida, pero a diferencia de esta señora judía, no puedo recordar una sola instancia en la que alguno de ellos se haya mostrado preocupado en absoluto, por la homogeneidad genética de los irlandeses. Y no sólo es la fijación de Weinstein demasiado extraña y preocupante; es también fantástica. Estudios genéticos han demostrado que Irlanda posee un diverso acervo genético en forma de clústeres genéticos de origen escandinavo, normando-francés, británico e irlandés. Éste es, por supuesto, un acervo genético considerablemente más amplio que el de los judíos askenazis como Weinstein, cuya población total desciende de un solo grupo de 350 individuos.
Obviamente, la Dra. Weinstein provocó una reacción robusta en Twitter por su respuesta al Partido Nacional, lo que a su vez la condujo a hacer la aún más extraordinaria afirmación de que “nadie ama a Irlanda más que yo.”
Podemos estar seguros de que Lentin y Shatter dirían lo mismo. Y quizás ellos realmente aman a Irlanda, pero no la Irlanda que fue y que ha sido por milenios, sino la Irlanda que está “transformándose” y que “ha de ser” — la Irlanda vencida por el globalismo, con una población internacional desprovista del “supremacismo blanco” de lo irlandés. Quizás ellos aman la Irlanda de los desfiles del orgullo gay y el árido hedor metálico de las clínicas de aborto. Quizás aman la Irlanda tocada por Nigeria, la Irlanda espolvoreada con mezquitas, donde jóvenes mamás blancas se ahorcan en desamparada desesperación, mientras los solicitantes de asilo son hospedados y alimentados a tan sólo unos metros de distancia.
Quizás ellos realmente sienten algún tipo de amor, y ven lo que han hecho y siguen haciendo, como si fuera traer regalos a Irlanda.
Pero la lección de Tairdelbach, de hace mil años, es que no tienes que aceptarlos.
[1] A. Beatty & D. O’Brien, Irish Questions and Jewish Questions: Crossovers in Culture (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2018), 1.
[2] S. Garner (2007). Ireland and immigration: explaining the absence of the far right. Patterns of Prejudice, 41(2) 109–130, 5.
[3] See Lentin, R. (2013). A Woman Died: Abortion and the Politics of Birth in Ireland. Feminist Review, 105(1), 130–136.
[4] R. Lentin, After Optimism? Ireland, Racism and Globalisation (Dublin: Metro Eireann Publications, 2006), 3.
[5] Ibid., 1.
[6] Ibid., 2.
[7] Ibid., 55.
[8] Ibid., 107.
[9] Ibid., 165.
A Race War Prophecy
Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War
Guillaume Faye
Arktos, 2019.
“A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves.”
Guillaume Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse
The celebrated French far-Right intellectual Guillaume Faye passed away in March, after a long battle with cancer, but not before leaving us a literary parting shot that deserves to be a bestseller. In his final book, Faye explores the demographic, cultural, political, and military degradation of France, drawing sobering lessons for the West as a whole. The book makes a number of stark and terrifying predictions that, when all current trends are taken into consideration, have an overwhelming probability of coming to fruition. Foremost among these predictions is that the West is now almost certainly destined to convulse with a savage and intense civil war (both civil and internal, both religious and racial) without parallel in the history of mankind. With all the dark candour one might expect from a dying man with nothing else to lose, Ethnic Apocalypse, or as it was published in French Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War), is perhaps the most brutally frank, bitterly scathing, and searingly honest accounts of the current trajectory of the multicultural West that I’ve ever come across. The reader searches the text for euphemism, finding none. There are no evasions here; no duplicity in nomenclature. Faye doesn’t speak of cultural differences, or religious incompatibilities. He has little time for talk of assimilation and integration. The problem, he declares, “is neither ideological nor even religious in nature, but, in fact, anthropological. And so is the solution. The coming war will involve people who have nothing to say to one another and who should never have been made to live together.”[1] A little over 50 years after Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Faye’s book is both a nod to Powell’s prescience, and a chronicle of the nascent ebbs and waves of a crimson tide that now seems fated to engulf us all. Read more
White-Latino Relations in America’s Southwest: Why a Paradox of Race Relations Is a Sign of Growing Political Polarization
Last year’s midterm election results were hardly unusual for a party holding the presidency. Similar electoral setbacks had occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But this one was portrayed as if it were somehow unique — an explicit rejection of President Trump’s nationalist and anti-immigration policies.
For some, the electoral losses in Orange County, California were particularly galling. “You want to see the future? Look no further than the demographic death spiral in the place once considered a cornerstone of the party,” wrote one GOP strategist.
In a state that had once launched the careers of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, Republicans had fought the rising tide of demographic change and were crushed, they said. Now the GOP was repeating the same mistake on the national stage.
Such arguments are not new. They have long been a staple of establishment Republicans who support the corporate open borders agenda. They also represent a fundamental misunderstanding what is happening in the American Southwest.
California, New Mexico, and the region’s other states are not trending left solely (or even primarily) because of Republican intransigence on immigration. They are trending left because of larger socioeconomic trends and migratory patterns that may lead to America’s eventual dissolution.
The Southwest Paradox
For any close observer of race relations, the politics of California and the Southwest must be puzzling. Extensive research on the 2016 election found close links between White attitudes toward race and immigration and support for Donald Trump. Other research has found a similar link between these attitudes and greater awareness of demographic change, with close physical proximity to Latinos playing an important contributing role.
Given the breadth of this evidence, recent general election results in America’s Southwest seem incomprehensible. These states — defined for our purposes as including California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — all have large and growing Latino populations, but their White populations have responded not by shifting right, but to the left.
Some observers, such as Ron Unz of The Unz Review, have noted this unexpected trend in race relations and concluded that those who argue that increased diversity will eventually tear the country apart are simply wrong. According to Unz, the Dissident Right has erred by treating White-Latino relations as if they are the same as White-Black relations. There is ample evidence that proximity to Blacks has produced a significant backlash among Whites in places like the old South, but there appears to be less evidence of a similar backlash to Latinos. Unz attributes this difference, at least in part, to lower Latino crime rates and greater mutual understanding once Whites get to know their Latino neighbors better.
“With such a large fraction of our immigrant population living in states displaying such negligible levels of nativist rancor,” he wrote, “the likelihood that today’s immigration controversy at the national level will produce any long-lasting negative consequences seems very low to me.”
Is Unz right? Will America’s Latino population simply follow in the footsteps of previous generations of immigrants by assimilating and contributing to America’s culture and growth? Are the Dissident Right’s fears irrational and unfounded, as the left and corporate elite keep assuring us?
The answer is no. The extensive research on this subject is not wrong. The Southwest Paradox is merely an artifact of larger socioeconomic forces.
Solving the Paradox
To understand why, first consider a related paradox. If one were to closely examine White voting patterns across the United States, it would be natural to assume — consistent with the experimental research — that Whites who live in highly diverse neighborhoods would be more likely to react negatively and become more conservative. But this is not true. Whites who live in diverse neighborhoods are not more conservative than other Whites, they are usually more liberal. The primary reason for this is uncomplicated: White flight.
The research on White flight has shown a common recurring pattern. When minorities first move into a White neighborhood, the reaction among Whites is only mildly negative at first, but after diversity rises above a certain tipping point — believed to be around 25 percent for Latinos — White flight begins in earnest. In general, the Whites who move first are the most ethnocentric and/or most likely to be adversely affected (often families with children). Their departure causes the neighborhood to become less White, which in turn causes more Whites to leave (and others to avoid moving in). This process produces a cascading effect that usually transforms the neighborhood within a few years.
After this process has played out, such neighborhoods will often retain a small White population, but it is usually one that is more tolerant of diversity or more able to protect itself through higher housing prices, gated communities, and private schools. The pattern is similar for Whites in gentrifying urban neighborhoods. In each case, the demographic profile of such Whites is fairly consistent — they tend to be disproportionately liberal, single, and childless. Depending on the neighborhood, they often have higher incomes and are more likely to have a college degree. These are the Whites who are responsible for the seemingly paradoxical result of Whites living in more diverse neighborhoods being more liberal.
The political effects of White flight and gentrification are reasonably well understood, but it is becoming increasingly clear that interstate migration is playing a similar role. This phenomenon was first noted in the popular press by Bill Bishop, author of an influential book on the subject called The Big Sort, which attributed much the nation’s growing political divide to differences in where we choose to live. Although Bishop’s methodology was criticized, his conclusions were substantially confirmed by other academic research. The only real disagreements were not over whether it was happening, but why.
Some, like Richard Florida, have focused on the migratory patterns of college-educated Whites — specifically what he calls the “creative class” — who are disproportionately moving to a select number of cosmopolitan regions and states for economic reasons. Others have cited the departure of more conservative working-class Whites from these same areas, often because of rising costs of living. Still others have highlighted more explicitly political reasons or other lifestyle choices that produce the same net effect.
Whatever the reasons (probably a combination of the above), the resulting demographics look a lot like those produced by White flight. Just like the Whites who live in more diverse neighborhoods, the Whites who live in more cosmopolitan cities and states tend to be more liberal, better educated, less religious, and disproportionately unmarried and childless. Nearly every state in America’s Southwest exhibits these same traits.
These demographic changes have helped nudge southwestern states to the left, but the trend has also been reinforced by another recent political development. The “Great Awokening,” a sharp left turn in the racial attitudes of college-educated White liberals over the past few years, has further accelerated the leftward drift of Whites living in the nation’s more cosmopolitan regions.
Given this increase in White wokeness, a final contributor is noteworthy for its implied hypocrisy. Despite the Southwest’s purported reputation for benign White-Latino relations, these states rank among the most segregated in the country. Racial segregation is growing not just in more conservative places like suburban Dallas, but also liberal cities like Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. According to a study by UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, the two states where Latinos are least likely to attend a majority White public school are liberal New Mexico and California respectively.
The Impact of Latinos on White Voting
Taken together, these trends suggest that the liberalism of America’s Southwest is not due to more amicable relations between its White and Latino populations. Instead, they are the accidental byproduct of larger social factors that have offset and concealed the negative effects.
To confirm this hypothesis, we turn to a large, publicly available survey data set housed at Harvard called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). This survey was administered to over 60,000 individuals in 2016, over half of whom voted and were White. Each survey respondent was also geo-coded, which allows the incorporation of state, county, and local (zip code) variables such as local levels of diversity and other demographics from the Census Bureau.
The full multivariate regression results can be found at the bottom of this article, but the top-line results are straightforward. In general, after controlling for a wide variety of other factors such as gender, marriage, religion, and education, the analysis finds that Whites who live in more diverse states were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, with proximity to Latinos having roughly half the impact of proximity to Blacks. (The effects of living close to Asians and Native Americans were statistically insignificant).
These effects are not uniform, however. As suggested by similar studies, Whites who live in heavily diverse zip codes (Black or Latino) tend to be more liberal and were thus more likely to vote against Trump. By contrast, Whites who lived outside of heavily Latino neighborhoods, either elsewhere in the same county or the same state, were more conservative and more likely to vote for Trump. These results demonstrate the variable effects of White flight.
Altogether, the combined effects — state, county, and zip code — shifted the White vote toward Trump by about one percent for every 6 percentage points of Latinos in a state’s population. In California, for example, where Latinos comprised 38% of the population in 2016, the model estimates that White Californians shifted right by about 6 percent from where they otherwise would have been based on their education and other demographic factors.
Importantly, however, these are average effects. A more detailed state-level analysis shows that in the Whitest states there were no county or state-level effects. The impact was strictly local, with growing local Latino populations causing Whites to become more conservative, a common pre-White flight result.
At the other end of the demographic spectrum in heavily Latino states, state level pro-Trump effects do not appear until a state’s Latino population approaches 20 percent. They peak at 30 percent (Arizona), and begin to decline after that (Texas, California, and New Mexico). This suggests that states with the largest Latino populations are starting to experience the same liberalizing White flight effects that are found in the nation’s most diverse zip codes.
The analysis also sheds light on why the politics of America’s Southwest are so different from the similarly diverse South. Whites in the South are conservative in part because of the presence of large Black populations, but they are also more conservative because their White populations are much more religiously conservative.
The migration patterns that helped make California and the Southwest more liberal are also having the reverse effect in the South. States like Alabama and Mississippi draw relatively few college-educated White liberals from elsewhere in the country. Unsurprisingly, the few exceptions to this rule (places like Atlanta or North Carolina’s Research Triangle) have politics that more closely resemble the Southwest.
Two Americas
If our analysis stopped here, the conclusions would be only mildly interesting. Yes, the seemingly benign White-Latino race relations in the Southwest are largely illusory, the incidental byproduct of larger interstate migration patterns, but so what? The politics of these states are still trending left, no matter what the cause. How does this change the conclusion that Trumpism is a losing political proposition in the long run?
The answer can be found by stepping back from a narrow examination of trends in the Southwest and instead looking at the nation as a whole. The Whites who flee or avoid moving to these states have not disappeared into the ether. They have simply chosen to live elsewhere and, in the process, made the rest of the nation more conservative.
The following map shows White voting trends from 2000 to 2016, two comparable election years when the GOP won the presidency but narrowly lost the popular vote. As expected, the map shows Whites in the Southwest and on the West Coast trending left over this period. But it also shows Whites in much of the rest of the country shifting to the right. This rightward trend includes the midwestern states that helped elect Donald Trump. It also shows a substantial rightward shift even in the liberal Northeast, where Whites in states like New Jersey, New York, and much of New England have also been moving sharply to the right.
This is a story that one almost never hears from the mainstream media. There are countless articles concern trolling the GOP for its losses in more diverse states like California, but there is almost nothing written about the rightward drift of the rest of White America.
These trends are two sides of the same coin and they point to a very different conclusion. This is not the story of Republicans or the Dissident Right waging a losing demographic battle. It is the story of a nation that is slowly, but inexorably, becoming more divided along racial and geographic lines. (See The Racial Realignment of American Politics).
To anyone even vaguely familiar with the larger literature on ethnic conflict, this pattern is completely predictable. The fact that there is not even a hint of the dangers in the mainstream media despite obvious lessons from conflicts in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Darfur only demonstrates the establishment’s control over the media narrative. The warning lights are flashing red all around us — and we are flying directly into the coming storm.
Patrick McDermott is a political analyst in Washington, DC.
Labour’s Fictitious Anti-Semitism Problem
A supposed problem
According to much of the British media, Labour has had an ‘anti-Semitism problem’ since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015. The more impartial headlines call it a controversy or a set of claims. Corbyn critics speak of a crisis while his supporters complain of a witch-hunt.
As with any claim of anti-Semitism, the accusers refer to one or both of two things: that the party is racist towards some or all Jews, or that it is critical of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, in ways that it would not be of any other country.
Why use that term?
For Labour to be racist toward Jews would be strange. One would think that such a tendency would alienate the Jews deeply embedded and strongly over-represented within Corbyn’s Labour. Three of the four founders of the Corbyn-backing Momentum organisation — John Lansmann (no stranger to denouncing people for racism), Adam Klug and James Schneider — are Jewish, as are prominent Corbynist activists like Max Shanly. Several organisations supporting Labour, especially since Corbyn became leader, are Jewish, such as Jewish Voice for Labour and Jewdas. None of these, nor any of the many signatories to public letters supporting Corbyn against his critics, seem to have found any troubling signs that they are in fact supporting a party that quietly despises them and all their kind, whether defined by faith, ancestry or anything else. Several Jewish leftists, not unconcerned with racism against their own group, have examined the claims in good faith and at great length and found no particular problem in Labour [1]. Soon after the controversy first ‘erupted’ (though we can fairly doubt its spontaneity) following a re-tweet by Labour MP Naz Shah in 2016, Jamie Stern-Weiner wrote an article exhaustively demonstrating the alacrity with which the party excluded those who showed actual racial antipathy [2].
Nor is Labour’s opposition to Israel based on the country’s Jewishness. In a book claiming to explain ‘The Left’s Jewish Problem’ but actually almost entirely concerned with leftist opposition to the Israeli state, Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust showed clearly enough why leftists like Corbyn oppose Israel — because they see it as an outpost of Western imperialism and capitalism which oppresses, displaces and kills Palestinian Arabs who, until the last century, had dominated the region for centuries. The leftist position is consistent with their worldview, and that worldview is not founded on racial hatred.
If they were only referring to racism against Jews, opponents of anti-Semitism would use a more rational term like Judeophobia or anti-Jewishness. But those who defend Israel know that they are defending actions which they would reject if carried out by other, genuinely Western states and thus find it politically useful to use one term, ‘anti-Semitism’, which enables them to conflate criticism of the state with attacks on the people it claims to represent. [3] Read more
TOQLive: Thursday, Sept. 12, 2:00 Eastern with Guillaume Durocher
We called it off for this week/last week because of technical issue. We’ll do/did it again on Thursday, Sept. 12, at 2:00 PM Eastern. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Here it is today, when you have the correct file showing from Youtube, it will be the full 1:25:30 in length.
youtube.com/watch?v=iUsDA_Io-JI&feature=youtu.be
Here it is today, when you have the correct file showing from Youtube, it will be the full 1:25:30 in length.
youtube.com/watch?v=iUsDA_Io-JI&feature=youtu.be
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
