Saturday, 18 March 2017

White Like Us?: David Aaronovitch vs White Racial Interests

It's a curious and deeply frustrating experience to see public intellectuals, journalists and academics chat among themselves about how you, your people, do not deserve to even constitute being ''a people'' with interests, rights, to be, in effect, removed from the discussion entirely. All you are left with is to watch, to peep through the window as the powerful and not so great decide your fate and the morality within which your group should exist.

 Such were my thoughts this week when a fellow patriot sent me a message alerting me to a discussion taking place on Twitter between three Jewish men, David Aaronovitch, a far left Zionist who writes for the Times and the Jewish Chronicle. Jonathon Portes, who works for various Big Money think tanks and Globalist outlets, he was the architect of Tony Blair's mass immigration project and now spends his career developing economic based arguments for mass migration into Britain and Europe in general. The third is Eric Kaufman, a professor at Birkbeck University, London.

The story begins with the Financial Times publishing an article by Professor David Goodhart, Goodhart works with Kaufman at a think tank which has been, quite correctly, coming to the conclusion that the recent surge in ''anti-politics'' and ''populism'' are an expression of white racial self interest. Goodhart, and an upcoming book, contend that policy makers will have to accept that white people have racial interests and will warp the politics if those needs are not being met. In the Financial Times Goodhart writes:

 The question of legitimate ethnic interest is complex. Multiculturalism is premised on the rights of minorities to maintain certain traditions and ways of life. But liberals have usually been reluctant to extend such group rights to majorities.
They have justified this reluctance on two grounds. First, the white majority in the US and Europe is itself so diverse it makes little sense to talk of a culturally homogenous majority (though the same might be said for most minorities too).
Second, majorities have been so numerically dominant that their ways of life have felt threatened only in a few small pockets.
The latter is clearly no longer the case, especially in the US where the non-Hispanic white population is now only a little over 60 per cent. In several UK cities, the white British are now a minority too.

David Aaronovitch, who last year wrote an autobiography called ''Party Animals:My Family and Other Communists'', was non too happy with this way of thinking and interrogated Kaufman on Twitter, the whole exchange is fascinating, and pay attention to Aaronovitch's use of ''they'' when referring to white people:

So three Jewish men, Kaufman being the least worst by far, discuss whether it should be legitimate for white people to have racial interests, and when a genuine white person intervenes and compares the situation to that in Israel, which Aaronovitch endorses! they are told ''Fuck You!'' and then blocked. I tried myself to join the discussion and I too was completely ignored. They simply don't want to know what actual white people might have to say on the issue, they discuss us as scientists discuss rats in a laboratory.

 It seemed that that would be the end of the matter, until a few days later...

 The Times is behind a paywall so I shan't link to it, but in any case Aaronovitch spends much of his article explaining the FT article so I'll simply extract the more relevant and interesting points Aaronovitch makes.

Notice that right in the sub-headline it is stated pointblank that white people can never be allowed ethnic self interest without it being inherently ''racist''. Aaronovitch himself has magically transformed his ethnicity, white people are no longer ''they'' but ''us'' and ''our''. Talking on Twitter with other Jews, white people are ''they'' switching back to his day job at The Times and addressing a predominately white readership, Aaronovitch is reborn as a white man:

 Let’s talk about whites. Readers of other colours are welcome to listen in, but this is really about us and our legitimate white self-interests, which are not at all the same thing as racism.
Kaufmann cites some revealing responses when American voters were asked whether it was racist or “just racial self-interest, which is not racist” to want an immigration policy that “maintain his or her group’s share of the population”. Nearly 73 per cent of Clinton supporters and 11 per cent of Trump supporters opted for “racist”. You may already have spotted the flaws in this argument. The first is, how do we define “white”?
 To an extent, Kaufmann and Goodhart are guided by people’s own description. But if “white” is the classification, does that mean that “setting the tone” is literally the skin tone? Which, for many whites, could be expressed more honestly as “too many blacks”. Or by “white” do we mean “English-speaking”? Or “Christian”? Or “non-Muslim”?
Whether or not Kaufman and Goodhart will ''go there'', when we talk about ''racial interests'' we are discussing what is advantageous or disadvantageous for a racial or ethnic group. As Kaufman correctly points out, non-white immigrants have a vested interest in increasing their numbers in white countries via more immigration, whites have a vested interest in reducing that number.
A clue comes when, in Goodhart’s new book (published this week) he talks of “white British people, especially those from lower income and educational backgrounds, [who] do still wish to retain a non-supremacist ethnic identity”. He assumes that this conveniently benign identity is threatened by the presence of others who are not regarded as sharing it. And since the top signifier is colour of skin it follows that the main threat to this group comes from non-white people.

Once we recognize that with ''race'' we are talking about distinct biological groupings then it becomes obvious that the central threat posed to a biological group, settled on its own soil for millennia, comes when a foreign, rival biological group, is introduced into their living space against their will. And indeed, Aaronovitch is going to give us a perfect example of the nature of that threat in the very next paragraph:

As it happens I agree with Goodhart and Kaufmann and plenty of others that the soubriquet “racist” has been horribly overused. When a mild-mannered don is accused of racism for feeling that, on the whole, a statue of Cecil Rhodes is no great threat to humanity, then that’s an abuse of language. And it is also true that fear of being labelled racist has inhibited weak-minded public officials from doing their jobs, from the Victoria ClimbiĆ© case to the British-Asian grooming gangs. Furthermore, as over The Satanic Verses, I support a robust defence of democratic values and rights — rights that have been hard won.

And so in this case the biological threat, Asian grooming gangs, has actually materialized. The true number of English girls who've been horrifically violated is unknown, perhaps as many as 100,000, we simply do not know. But what we do know is that not one of these girls would have been gang raped and tortured if the biological out-group had not been introduced into their towns and cities in the first place.

 It cannot possibly be argued that these Asians are advantageous to white racial interests, so if white racial interest was allowed to flourish these Asians would be removed from the areas where they now live. The white girls of England are literally carrying within them the genetic interest of the white men of England, when Asians rape and pimp out English girls they're destroying, mocking and eradicating our genetic interest, I'd even say it isn't even subconscious, as the reports often cite that the girls are called ''white sluts'' etc.

 It is of course true that the politically correct local governments are partly to blame, but after the fact, the primary problem is having the out-group there in the first place.

But when they talk about legitimate white “racial self-interest” in a society where 86 per cent of the population is white, I struggle with their argument. Kaufmann, for example, is indignant in claiming that “whites” must have their own interests if other racial groups have theirs. He cites a Zoroastrian (an ancient Persian religious group) as arguing against “marrying out” to preserve the existence of the ancient religion.
But this is an absurdity. There are nearly no Zoroastrians left.
So now Aaronovitch is telling an outright lie, he's citing the census statistics from 2010 for the 86% figure. This is a common and deeply dishonest tactic of people who support mass immigration. The census figure is already seven years old, and since then the immigrants already here have multiplied and we allow north of 500,000 new immigrants in each year, into a country which has a below replacement level birth rate. And yet they tell us the obvious lie that the demographics will remain static, despite doing everything they can to radically change them and at the same time crushing any discussion that would actually achieve some sort of demographic stability.

 Even if we take the 86% number his argument is deceitful rubbish, does it matter to a 15 year old girl in Bradford, which is dominated by Pakistanis, that Berwick is still overwhelmingly white?. Do the Last Whites Of The East End feel more at home knowing that people in York are of the same ethnic stock as themselves? If not then how can they be disallowed  their own politics of racial and ethnic interest?, under Aaronovitch's own logic they're a minority group who should be encouraged to think of themselves as such.

There are quite a few white people. And a similar read-across doesn’t work for minorities. Take my black nephew and my white nephew. My black nephew inhabits a society where he can witness us having an argument about whether there are too many of him. My white nephew has never encountered such a thing. My black nephew has an interest in dealing with prejudice. My white nephew doesn’t. Of course, if he were poor he would be disadvantaged and still white, but it would be the poorness that marked him out.
It is here where we begin to see Aaronovitch's true concern beginning to reveal itself, he's worried about what a politics of white racial interest will mean for minorities. But the lot of a minority in another people's land is to live according to the whims and ''tolerance'' of the host population, if his (convenient) black nephew is unhappy then there are countries where he will be in the majority, Africa and the Caribbean for example. 
It is a feature of the times, of course, that a multi-millionaire aristocrat think-tanker, daughter of a 15th earl, can write to the Financial Times (as one did last week) complaining about a “liberal animus against whites” and not be thought eccentric.
White males were declared “an endangered species” in the same week that University Challenge managed a programme on which every person appearing was white and male. We are living through a moment of cultural reaction that has little to do with reality.
Given that it is an indisputable fact that the white demographic is decreasing at a rapid rate, at what point will white people be allowed to have racial interests? Even if we begin with the false 86% statistic and work our way down, when will people such as David Aaronovitch bequeath us their blessing and say ''Yes, now you can form politics based on ethnic interest''?. Will it be when we're 70% or 50% or 40%? when white people are at 25% of the population in Britain will we then be able to organize ourselves for our own ethnic benefit?.

 Ah, but wait a minute, will the then new majority populations, allow us to? You see, as Aaronovitch acknowledges, minority groups have a hard time of it, but at the same time he strives to create the physical and mental conditions which will reduce us to a minority....while staunchly supporting the ideal of a Jewish ethno-state!. 
So let me spell it out. I find it very hard to imagine any “racial self-interest” that whites might have (in a country where they are, after all, in the majority) which wouldn’t have a negative impact on minorities. If, for example, we fashion an immigration policy that embodies the desire to “maintain” a white share of the population, then that policy will have to be racially discriminatory. Since we are never worried about white people moving into “ethnic” areas, a housing policy reflecting white self-interest could be aimed at keeping others off the list. More of my white nephew, less of my black nephew, just so that some people don’t feel “uncomfortable”.

And here we come to it at last, Aaronovitch's true motivation, the reason he flipped out on Twitter, the interrogation, the ''Fuck You and your white countries'', the use of his black nephew as a proxy, it comes down to one issue: The politics of white racial interest makes Jews ''uncomfortable'', when Aaronovitch writes ''which wouldn’t have a negative impact on minorities'' he should have been honest with his Times readership and instead written:

 ''You can't be allowed white racial interest, because it might be bad for us, and so we, are not going allow you, to have it!''.

In other words, it would be detrimental to their ethnic and racial interests, I just wish they were more honest about it.

No comments:

Post a Comment