A Comment NYT didn't want to Publish

The New York Times published an article, Migrants Face Fortress Europe’s Deadly Moat, by Kenan Malik, in which the author says the following:

"The European Union should . . dismantle Fortress Europe, liberalize immigration policy and open up legal routes for migrants."

This was my response, which the NYT chose not to publish:

Kenan Malik is a native of ASIA and unconcerned for the interests of native Europeans not to be inundated with immigrants from other continents.

Despite being overpopulated itself, Europe has already taken in 10s of millions of poor-world immigrants, who are the cause of rising ethnic tensions in our cities. Tensions that will grow as the number of immigrants and their off-spring grows.

Allowing even more in, as Kenan Malik would have us do, will make an already difficult situation even more difficult and eventually lead to violent conflict and even civil war.

Post-racal multicultural ideology, which encourages mass poor-world immigration (not just into Europe) and the creation of multi-ethnic societies is not what it is made out to be, but an instrument socio-political intimidation and control, a modern, secular replacement, effectively, for medieval church ideology, which I elaborate on in THIS and further (linked to) blogs.

How to End Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear weapons and their proliferation is one of the biggest threats facing mankind, yet our politicians are currently proving incapable of dealing with it. The way things stand - and are developing - at the moment, it is just a matter of time before, through design, accident, or misunderstanding nuclear weapons are used, and thousand, millions, possibly 10s or 100s of millions of people will die. And our children will look back and ask WHY?! WHY did WE allow this development, this INSANITY, to happen?

The British and French governments (which, as a European, are the ones that concern me directly and on which I may exert some influence) have both signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are very strongly opposed to other governments acquiring nuclear weapons, but hypocritically they insist on retaining and periodically updating their own nuclear arsenals and delivery systems.

All the arguments put forward for retaining our own nuclear capability can be (and are) also put forward by other governments (Iran, for example), the rejection of which by Britain and France is blatant hypocrisy.

If there is to be any hope of curbing nuclear proliferation the British and French governments must be persuaded of the necessity for THEM to relinquish their own independent, national nuclear deterrents, handing them over to an international authority, which it should be our urgent priority to work out a structure for and to create. Not an easy task, granted, but an urgent and absolutely essential one.

Advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament would be folly, since it would be an invitation to other, nuclear-armed governments, less democratic and well-intentioned than our own, to dominate us through nuclear blackmail, or even attack. We NEED a nuclear deterrent, but it needs to be under democratic international control, instead of national control.

It is the desire (perceived need) of national governments for their own "national" deterrents which is driving, and will continue to drive, nuclear proliferation.

Thus, it is imperative that Britain and France take the initiative in finding a way of placing their own national deterrents under international control (perhaps in stages, in order to facilitate the process). Once they have done that, then they will be in a position, credibly and without hypocrisy, to demand from other national governments (at the moment Iran, but there will inevitably be others in future) that they do not seek to acquire national nuclear deterrents as well.

Finding the right structure for this international authority is absolutely essential, because of the trust that must necessarily be placed in it. It will not be an easy task, so the sooner we set about it in earnest the better.

Most western democracies currently trust America with their nuclear defence. So why shouldn't we create a shared nuclear deterrent and command structure of our own that we can trust instead?

DIVERSITY is Orwellian Newspeak

DIVERSITY, as promoted in the West in the context of post-racial multicultural society, is Orwellian Newspeak for a "melting pot", into which genuine human diversity (racial and cultural) is dissolving and disappearing, i.e. being DESTROYED.

Those claiming to "celebrate" human diversity in the form of multi-ethnic society are in fact doing the exact opposite, i.e. celebrating its destruction. Because that is what melting pots do.

Human diversity is a consequence of human populations having been more or less isolated from each other in the past. Bring this human diversity together in a city like London and it may look very impressive (like seeing lots exotic animals, who don't naturally belong together, at a zoo), but it won't last - intermixing will see to that.

After putting an end to Hitler's dream of creating a Germanic "master race", in overreaction to it, we are now on our way to creating a "mixed race master race". What else can come of this melting pot that has been created?

Looked at more subjectively, as a Native Briton myself, whose ancestors have lived here or on the neigbouring continent for countless generations, "Celebrating Diversity" is Orwellian newspeak for me and other white people everywhere to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise . .

Why are we (i.e. our political establishment, supported by other establishment elites, especially academia) inflicting this madness on ourselves?

There are, of course, economic reasons, but far more important are the power-political reasons, along with the underlying perverted Darwinian nature of the state itself, which I elaborate on in this and subsequent BLOGS.

The feckless father of 40 children by 20 mothers

This is the interesting topic of an article in today's Daily Telegraph (LINK)

From a Darwinian perspective, Mike Holpin, the man in question, has been a lot more successful at exploiting his environment (British society) for his own reproductive success than the likes of Bill Gates, whom most people, in line with "British values", on account of his great material wealth, consider to be one of the planet's most successful men.

Not only has Bill Gates produced relatively few children of his own, he is also using his wealth to massively promote the reproductive success of other races than his own, which is a total perversion of man's Darwinian nature, but which our twisted British (and western) values consider morally virtuous.

What this demonstrates is the perverted Darwinian nature of western civilisation itself, which our academic and political elites are so smug about, vainly believing that it make them morally superior.

Only, it doesn't make them morally superior at all - unless you subscribe to their moral and cultural relativism - but very stupid, the price for which will be the extinction of their own race, which, perversely, they don't care about, or even acknowledge the existence of.

They claim, instead, to care about the "human race", which is how they rationalise their claim to moral authority, and the personal advantages that go with it.

See earlier blog in which I elaborate on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation.