Tuesday, 16 September 2014

As I mentioned in the previous article, the empathy or lack of empathy arising from ethnic difference significantly affects political behaviour, often subconsciously. This is one reason for the Jewish embrace of multiculturalism in modern Europe. It isn’t necessary to postulate malign intent in order to explain it. They simply lack empathy with the people and culture that surrounds them, with countries their families have often only recently arrived in, and this makes it much easier for them to contemplate radical and disruptive political change to places where they lack roots or any deep sense of belonging.

Similarly, I’ve noticed that many of the loudest pro-immigration voices at the Telegraph newspaper, for example, are from Scots. Tony Blair (technically at least) and Gordon Brown, the two prime ministers who presided over the recent upsurge of immigration into Britain, were both Scots. Occasionally, in the comment sections, you will see accusations that this is some dastardly Scottish plot to get revenge on the English. This is fantastical, as are some claims of a Jewish conspiracy. But it is not necessary to postulate conscious malevolence to explain these patterns of behaviour. It is enough to say that when you see your own country and city and neighbourhood - where your own ancestors have lived for generations - being transformed by immigration, it affects you much more deeply at a visceral, emotional level than it does when you see someone else’s country, city or neighbourhood being so transformed.

Like considerations may apply in Belgium, where Brussels is the city worst affected by immigration and is rapidly transforming into a Muslim colony. I don’t follow Belgian politics as closely as I do French politics, but my understanding of it is as follows. (Belgian readers, please correct me if this impression is wrong.) Left-wing parties are mainly supported by the Walloon (French-speaking) part of Belgium. These parties are strongly pro-immigration, yet the immigrants, in practice, tend to come to Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of the country. Again, it is not necessary to suppose that this is an evil scheme by the Walloons to destroy the Flemish. It is enough to suppose that the French-speakers are just not as bothered by the prospect of the Dutch-speaking areas being transformed by immigration as they would be if it was their own ancestral homeland. A reduced degree of empathy, occasioned by ethnic difference, is enough to explain it. And some instinctive sense of this in Flanders no doubt acts as a driver of Flemish separatism.

To take another example, we have seen Catalonia adopt strongly pro-immigration, even pro-Islam positions in recent years. As a result, Catalonia is now the most heavily Islamised part of Spain. Part of the reason for this is Catalonia’s wish to differentiate itself from the Castilian part of Spain. Latin American immigrants are fairly common in Spain because the Spanish government offers them  easier access than immigrants from anywhere outside of the EU. Catalonians fear that, as Castilian speakers, they would reinforce the Castilianness of Spain and of Catalonia if they came there. So they embrace Muslim North African immigrants instead. It’s crazy, but it’s happening.

These are just a few examples to illustrate my more general point that ethnic differences within states tend to act as drivers of the European Genocide, sometimes inspiring indifference on issues that ought to incite strong emotion, at other times creating strong emotions over trivialities that occlude rational judgement on more important matters. So the (usually subconscious) empathic biases that ethnic difference gives rise to act in ways that ultimately facilitate the repopulation of Europe by non-Europeans.

The class aspect of the genocide is also worth considering in this respect. Immigration could be considered a form of class warfare in that it tends to make life more difficult for the lower classes through wage competition and the actual physical and often threatening presence of the immigrants in their neighbourhoods, yet benefits the upper class by providing a cheap and readily available supply of menials for service roles. How does this relate to ethnic difference? Well, class systems often originate in or are accentuated by ethnic difference. The Norman Conquest in England, for example, created a brutal apartheid-like system in England in which an alien ruling class presided over a country of conquered serfs. Of course, these differences attenuate with time but this experience is probably still what accounts for the intensity of the class system in England, even compared to other parts of Britain. So class difference, to some degree at least, is actually a distant echo of ethnic difference. And this, too, creates subconscious empathic biases that make it easier to contemplate political change that disrupts the traditional way of life of the ethnic, or class, “Other”.


To sum up, the boundaries of states should be drawn up according to the felt sense of self of the people. When any other arrangement exists, when different peoples are forced to live together in the same political unit, the empathic gap between them creates a gulf from which, sooner or later, unpleasant things are bound to emerge. And, in modern Europe, those unpleasant things will usually have brown skins and be carrying Korans.

8 comments:

  1. Personally I assume the Scots have a lot to gain and very little to loos when they will decide to depart from Britain. The most important they will gain, is the feeling of being independent after 447 years under the rule of the British Crown. Ever since Queen Mary Stuart of Scotland was removed by forece in 1567 of her crown, Scotland was, as a matter of fact, an occupied territory.
    The Scots are highly intelligent folk and are capable of handling their affairs alone. When they will leave Britain, they have not to start from point zero. The country has good infra structure and stable economy. The Irish had far more difficulties in any point of view when the Irish Republic had become independent in 1922. It had happened after a bloody war that had cost lot of lives and damaged severely the country.
    a) Scotland has gas and oil in the North Sea. When the country will become independent, it will not have to share the profit with Britain,
    b) It will be able to manage it’s own international- and home affaires alone.

    EU
    It the Scottish politicians will be smart enough not fall in the trap of the EU, they will not be compelled to:
    a) flood the country with tsunami waves of Third World refugees,
    b) will be able to kick out the ones who are already there
    c) keep their borders safe and clean of intruders from eastern Europe.
    d) they will not be compelled to spill their money on corrupted EU institutions,
    e) they will not be compelled to obey 'Verordnungen und Befehlen' from Brussels and Strasbourg. People like Martin Schultz, Cecillia Malmström, Claude Juncker etc. will have no authority in Edinburgh. The EU had have already - in every way - proven to be incapable, unreliable and totally useless when ‘shit hit the fan’. Take for example the situation in the Mediterranean Sea; especially by the Italian island of Lampedusa and Malta. The Italians and Maltese’s have to combat the situation all by themselves. It concerns the Trojan horses who are coming like swarms of rats in small vessels and bringing ‘the soldiers of Allah' from Arabic countries and (Muslim) niggers from Africa’ to Europe in the disguise of “refugees”. It is more than obvious that foul Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates (especially Qatar) are financing the “refugees flotilla’s” in order to establish the Islamisation of Europe in due course. The Italians and Maltese’s get no aid - what so ever - from the EU. At the other hand they are NOT ALLOWED to tackle the situation the way a country at war is entitled to do. In this case guarding the naval borders of 25 sea miles of the country by military force.

    I WISH THE SCOTS LOT OF LUCK AT THEIR REFERENDUM.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alex Salmond has just announced that Scotland will need at least 24,000 more "immigrants" than it now receives, after "independence", in order to support its ageing population of Scots. Now where have we heard that line before...?

    As for Scottish politicians staying "independent" of EU's diktats (and its lucrative gravy train), that is highly unlikely; they have probably already been well-paid by the EU in Brussels for their breakaway movement. The latest poll shows that at least 700,000 Scots would consider "emigrating" from Scotland if it goes independent. There is no way Scotland's natural resources would escape EU control and that would quickly impoverish the Scots, as it is doing to the Ukranians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Annoymus
      Did Alex Salmond also mention what does he exactly understand under "ïmmigrants"? Does he mean high qualified Scandinavians or Dutch professionals or does he mean gangs of Gypsy's from Eastern Europe, Eastern European raiders, hired assasins and thives or people who are bringing veiled women with a buggies and man who's only talent is worshipping their monster god Allah, produce as many as possible children by their women who will live on the costs of indigenous. Children that will be exactly the same as their parents and rape gang indigenous women and girls (some beneath 10 yers old) in their free time? I am very curious what his answer is.

      Delete
  3. When you hear that EU politicians are speaking on benefit of the EU, keep a pace of 100 meter from them. They are not cherishing the EU on our benefit, but their own bankaccount. EP members are earning on average € 14,000 a month by doing NOTHING. They assemble 4 x a month, talk a lot about nothing and ride away home with their bling bling Mercedes (on costs of tax payers). If they are sleazy enough and handy, they go into contacts with benefectors from Arab OPEC countries and help them to pass legislations that will enable more tsunami waves of Muslim immigrants, refugees and asyloom seekers (what ever you want to name it) into Europe. The bonus is very high. If they do it well they can after 5 years of service become tax-free millioners. For them goes the adage: Sun shine is for nothing; for the rest VISA MASTERCARD and BAHNHOFSTRASSE. If you want to have a little insight in EU affairs please watch the following video's (one is German of RTL4 the second was made by a Dutch channel) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVfwuFrJ-5E and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iK8ue7-Shpc

    ReplyDelete
  4. They should keep the Trident nuclear weapons. That would be a great way to maintain independence. Also, I heard a referendum on EU membership was in the works. Don't know if that's true or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. South-Central European18 September 2014 at 05:04

    I would like to begin first by saying a few words in defense of the Catalan nation.

    Yes, Catalonia deserves its independence from Madrid. It shares a rich history and a unique identity, much like other nations like Bavaria, Tuscany, or Gascony which, today, a part of these fake nation-state constructs like France and Italy. Catalan culture developed separately from those on the the Iberian peninsula like Portugal, Castille, etc. but together with those of southern France(Occitan). In fact, Catalan is a variant of the Occitan language family. True Catalan speech, uncontaminated with Spanish pronunciation, as spoken in the Perpignan region(in catalan area of south of france) is quite unintelligible with Spanish.

    Like Occitans and Central/North Italians, Catalans have their share of high quality wine, olive oil, cheese and cured meat products.

    Catalans are a free-thinking people with entrepeneureal tendencies, again, clustering with other South-Central europeans(a term I like to use often) in this regard. It's unusual to find religious people there and most would not object to cracking a joke or two at the pope. The Cathar religious movement, strongly associated with Occitania and its identity, was also prevalent in Catalonia.
    Notably, it was one of the first areas of southern Europe to undergo an industrial revolution.

    The original Catalan stock/(race?) is medium-to-tall stature, Dinaric and Alpine, predominantly brunet, but with a relatively high freq of blondes. The average spaniard, however, would have no trouble fitting in with local Algerines. This does not however, stop them from bragging and claiming genetic superiority over northern Italians(due to a supposed stronger Near eastern component in the latter0) from a few falty genetic studies that sampled Castilian sub-populations otherwise not representative of the whole picture. :-)

    Unfortunately, Catalan spirit has been politically and economically strangled for a long time under Spanish suzerainity. A large influx of Spaniards from Andalusia and other parts of Spain over the centuries had done a lot of damage to the demography and genetics of the region, too. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  6. South-Central European18 September 2014 at 05:26

    part two

    Inter-ethnic rivalry is not necessarily a bad thing.... In fact, like the famous Novelle Droite philosopher Alain de Benoist, I believe in a federalized Europe of many nations and identities with their own unique anthropology, language, etc occupying their own various geographic enclaves:

    Not Germany but Bavaria, Alsace, Swabia, etc.
    Not France but Tourraine, Gascony, Poitou, etc.
    Not Italy but Tuscany, Emilia, Liguria, etc.

    In fact, the establishment of fake nation-state constructs like Italy, France, and Germany and the resulting erosion of local identities, was a stepping stone for further melting-potism and, thus, current multicultization mess Europe's going through.

    Following the establishment these nation-state constructs, the internal migration of Terroni from, say, Calabria to, say, Milan and of Armenians, Jews, Greeks, Berbers, etc. to Provence, Lyon, and Paris weakened and conditioned Europe and its populations for wave 2 we're witnessing now.

    NEVERTHELESS, I am saddened to see that many of today's separatist movements in Europe are at least in some ways pro-immigrant and DO NOT STRESS the importance of the maintenance of GENEOLOGICAL STOCK that goes along with any REAL nation. In other words, separatism for a set of right reasons, but also for a few wrong ones.
    No, I don't wanna see Abdul Rahmans or Samil Qureshis in the ranks of Scottish separatists. No, I don't wanna see Sami Zidanes become the standards bearers of the new Catalan state.

    And, if I didn't imply it already, I may believe in the separateness and diversity of European nations, but I also believe, just as strongly, in our solidarity. Occitanians and Langue-d-Oil people, Emilians and Romagnoli, Bosniaks and Croats. All different, but all bros. :-) So let's not conspire with Turks, Algerians, or Latin American immigrants or what-have-you against one another.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The vote for independence based on a threshold of 50%+1 is not a good thing at all.

    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
    John Adams

    ReplyDelete