Hughes is the bellweather for the faux progressive herd. He represents a
constituency with a large immigrant population so he is keeping one
chameleon eye on them and another on his bosses arse. He regularly pumps out
this specious rubbish (seemingly lifted straight off a ‘disinformation on
immigration’ primer) in defence of this potentially ruinous experiment in
mega-immigration (mass- no longer captures the scale of the irruption).
He is a textbook example of the socialist self server. Other people
nationalism and bigotries are OK. Your own kind and your own history are
despised. Look after yourself and your own short term interests whilst
claiming to be serving the interests of universal man. At all costs repeat
the mantra: diversity is good, diversity is a strength, immigration brings
Of course ‘diversity’ is a filler goodthink/goodfeel word – effectively
meaningless but thanks to repetition, it is now “good”. The propagandists of
the left are trying to achieve the javalamu effect (
http://www.juvalamu.com/ ). First associate a vague word with almost all
your core principles, then relentlessly redefine it positively.
Eventually you have a meaningless incantation that sounds good and evokes an
appropriate emotion. Simply use you spell word whenever you need to
introduce positivity. As it has no real meaning it cannot be criticised or
deconstructed. It is just a trigger word after all. Javalamu = diversity.
It is a terrible pity that history’s lash cannot inflict any real pain on
the villains of posterity or that contemporary villains cannot be threatened
with future shame. What good is it that people like Hughes will be denounced
as insane fools in 50 years (along with all the other apologists for
fundamentalist intolerance, unrestrained immigration and multiculturalism )?
He will be dead by the time the consequences of his actions have fully
matured. Where are the ghosts of Winterval future when you need them to show
idiots like this the likely consequences of their self-interested idiocy?
What is needed in this dishonest world where style trumps substance and
appearance is all that matters, is a way to somehow connect the people
who’s decisions have massive consequences for others to those very
consequences. We need to rediscover shame. Perhaps we should adopt a sins of
the father approach? It would sharpen political thinking and clear up plenty
of bullshit. Imagine if politicians had to stake the lives or livelihood of
their children (or related descendants ) on the outcomes of their policies.
Maybe the politicians entire estate could be confiscated? Every living
descendant sterilised? The sons hanged for the sins of the father.
False idealists like Hughes articulate romantic delusions and receive in
return what they hunger for most: acclaim. That it is the acclaim of the
ignorant , the uncomprehending and the collusory does not matter. When the
delusory nature of their hopes is revealed and the deadly consequences of
their idealism expounded – they accuse you of attacking the hopes and
It is the perennial problem when dealing with idealists (or false idealists)
who are addicted to the mind killing toxic air of their imagined moral high
ground: How can you make them see the link between what appears to be
harmless prating about rights/fellowship/decency etc and the consequences of
actually acting on their proposal? Does one unfurl the long scroll listing
grim unintended consequences and the annihilation of the naive? Does one
ignore and wait for maturity to set in?
These false idealists may or may not misunderstands the constraints on their
(pretend) noble ambitions (and the dangers they create). The dishonest known
the ruinous consequences if their proposals, but speak out anyway to harvest
praise and acclaim. The honest are simply deluded or foolish – believing
their own exhortations and naive pronouncement. Both can be deadly if they
are persuasive. History and the truth are no defence against them: They
appeal to an otherwhere where an ideal set of circumstances makes an ideal
set of men. They sell a dream – knowingly or not the half realisation of
which is ruinous.
This reminds me of a rather macro level prisoners dilemma. If prisoners
cooperate it is best for them both. If one betrays the other then one
co-operating is doubly punished. An idealist – ignoring all evidence of
man’s self interest – would have you wager the future of an entire culture
or society and 1000 years of moral calculus on an experiment in
mega-immigration and the hoped for beneficence of the ingressing hordes.
I know it sound like insanity. That is because it is.
This is just another expression of the battle between naivety and
experience, wisdom and folly, youth and age, reason and madness. It is of
course easy to preach tolerance, brotherhood, fellowship of man, equality,
fairness etc. One is likely to get much approval and ego stroking for
endorsing such goodness. It is an entirely different matter taking
realistic measure to protect yourself from the intolerance, enmity, envy,
violence, inequality and unfairness that is very much the norm in most of
the world. Idealists hope their own fairness will be a talisman to ward off
the brutality of others or perhaps they hope that they will be taken
seriously enough to be universally praised for their goodness, but
sufficiently ignored for their suggested actions never to be carried out.
Hughes is like the person who loudly harangues the lifeboat crew to return
to the site of sunken ship “for the others”. It is an ostensibly noble
sentiment but such an action would be suicide for those in the lifeboat. The
haranguer has lifted the guilt of survival but is secretly grateful that he
is ignored. “But I tried” he will say to themselves, “those brutes refused
to go back”. Win:win for the haranguer – he get the moral praise, to ease
his guilt and survive.
The nightmare, of course, is to be a sane person on boat where such a silly
notion takes root, where the meme spreads and the boat is turned around. Now
that is the situation we face today. We on the lifeboats that represent Europe are being turned
around to accept the horde…and leading the flotilla is Hughes and
[ Update: It is worth quoting at length from a brilliant essay I cam across this afternoon.
From “No-Think Nation VI: Destroying the West with Political Correctness” By Paul Craig Roberts
Does democracy undermine a countryís future by shortening the time- preference of rulers? Does racial diversity produce conflict? Are Americaís ìtwo greatest strengthsî in fact the countryís two greatest weaknesses?
In an important new book, Democracy: The God That Failed political economist Hans Hermann Hoppe makes the case that democracy causes rulers to use policy for their short-term gains at the expense of the long-term welfare of the country.
A king or hereditary line of rulers has a long-term view, because he and his heirs have a proprietary interest in the country. Although all kings will not be well-informed or in possession of good judgment, their proprietary interest causes hereditary rulers to pay attention to the repercussions of their actions on the economic, social and cultural strength of their country.
A democracy, on the other hand, is ruled by temporary and interchangeable caretakers, who have no proprietary interest in the country. Their ability to exploit the country to their advantage is limited to their uncertain term of office. The results are shortsighted or present-oriented policies, which benefit the office holder at the long-term expense of the country.
The longer democracy exists, the more damage will be done to law, property, culture, family, and moral values by the musical chair system of rotating rulers guided by short-term interest. As redistribution expands, the incentive for businessmen, judges, and consumers to take a long-term view is systematically reduced. Business time horizons shrink to three months, saving rates fall and debt levels rise as shortsighted rule reduces government to income and wealth confiscation.
The prevailing incentive for citizens becomes to over-consume income and to be a net debtor, as wealth is targeted for exploitation both by government and lawyers.”
Not a cheerful analysis. Before dismissing it, sit back and make your list of government policies that take a long-term view to actually promote ìthe general welfare.î
At this point the author of this peice lists Reaganís supply-side policy, which cured ìstagflationî by overthrowing Keynesian short-term demand management, and President Reaganísa and his decision to abandon ìcontainmentî and actively work to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union.
he then analyses several of America’s ìgreat victoriesî which he points out are actually unmitigated disasters
“The Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of conscience, voluntary association, and equality in law, replacing it with status-based privileges from the feudal past. Busing and federal aid destroyed public education. The Great Society spending programs eroded family and encouraged public dependency. The New Deal destroyed accountable law by forcing Congress to delegate lawmaking power to unelected federal bureaucrats. The Social Security Act substituted an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, which is entirely dependent on favorable demographics, for individual saving. The Federal Reserve Act gave us the Great Depression. American entry into W.W.I, which was to make the world ìsafe for democracy,î resulted in Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
Yet, all these disastrous policies greatly benefited the politicians who inflicted them.
When democracy is mixed with racial and cultural diversity, the combination of short time horizons with internal conflict maximizes weakness, regardless of accumulated scientific and technological skills.
In another important recent book, Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, Scandinavian scholar Tatu Vanhanen argues that group conflict is biologically or racially based.
Professor Vanhanen constructs an Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity, [RTF] a measure of ethnic, tribal, racial, linguistic and religious diversity, for every country in the world with a population larger than one million. He then constructs an Index of Ethnic Conflict [RTF] and finds a strong correlation between the scores of the two indexes.
In our world of politically correct scholarship, it is almost obligatory for sociologists to assume that the source of conflict is ìoppressionî or ìinjustice.î Prof. Vanhanen dismisses these ìexplanationsî as worn-out Marxist propaganda.
Conflict, he concludes, comes from ìethnic nepotism.î It is natural to the human species to favor relatives over people who are unrelated to us. Extending this principle, people care more for those genetically related to them than for others. Of all chasms that separate people, race is the hardest to bridge.
Multiracial or multitribal states break up, because assimilation across racial boundaries is rare.
The only solution to the conflict is secession and separation.
Professor Vanhanen notes that the belief that racial diversity is a strength is limited to Western European countries, the U.S. and Canada. The belief is so obviously at odds with the experience of the rest of the world that only people brainwashed by political correctness can believe it.
By infusing themselves with massive racial diversity, the countries of the West are ceasing to be nation-states and are planting seeds of future conflict without precedent in world history.
Nonthinking civilizations are doomed. The weakness of Western intellectual thought is apparent when the entire edifice can be challenged by two books.
Is the West too politically correct to free itself from the black hole of No- Think? ]