|
|
|
Inevitablism on a roll Irwin Stelzer can be justly proud of his career. As his entry at Wikipedia makes clear:
... he is someone whose writings are taken seriously by powerful men on both sides of the Atlantic, and who is no doubt on first-name terms with many of them. Today, in the Daily Telegraph, he offered them his view on How to make immigration work in Britain’s interests. I won’t bore you with the details. He is, as a man of the Establishment, concerned that “hostility to migrants is sweeping Europe”. He has a plan. “Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants” from the EU, he says. “Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output,” he says. But the losers who see their job prospects taken away by immigration and their neighbourhoods transformed could be paid off. “How so?, he says ... “By requiring employers to bid for the limited number of entry permits, the proceeds to be remitted to the communities on which the immigrant imposes costs, or to HM Treasury.” He says. No doubt, “powerful men” will read the column, welcome Stelzer’s little scheme (with reservations, of course), and file it away for some opportune moment when the minister is in melt-down and the briefing paper for tomorrow’s Cabinet is still to be written. But what of those damned losers in the migration game? The indigenous, as they seem to be calling themselves these days. Are they grateful for Mr Stelzer’s ingenuity? Are their fears and hostility calmed? Are they looking forward to selling-out to race-replacement for a few thousand quid? Well, I’ve never seen a thread like this one in any English national daily. Never. A brief selection for your amazed eyes:
Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:49 | # The English are now, apparently, the largest minority in Wales becoming a veritable Greater Little England beyond Wales. http://welshpatriot.blogspot.com/2010/09/mewnlifiad-fawr-2010-and-white-flight.html 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:49 | # Once the Good and the Great have all “fucked off to Australia” to enjoy the ever congenial company of the Silvster, the last line of Britain’s defense will be…Chavs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1gu-OAgV4 Luckily they will be “militarised”, Lord knows they need it. 4
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:44 | # As the number of English people settling West of Offa’s Dyke increases we must expect some ethnic interbreeding. As the amorous Welsh girl said to the Englishman, “Prestatyn boyo”. 5
Posted by Thunder on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:45 | # Astounding really. This is good news. Never during the many, many years (since University studies in the 80’s) that I have been following this have I seen such collective anger. Surely we approach a tipping point. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:28 | # If it is inevitable that a new order be established, then isn’t it incumbent upon us to delve more seriously into the formal structure of such order? How do people think this new order will come to be? What form will it take? What form should it take? What can practically be done now to help it take more the form it should? This is not part of the “ontology project” except insofar as it pertains to populous action on the streets, which must be an exoteric expression. Since the esoteric “ontology project” is insufficiently developed to take exoteric forms, we must do with what we have lest the opportunity bypass us as the “inevitable” becomes de facto but not necessarily de jure. If you prefer lawlessness, then stop reading this admonishment. It is not for you. I’ve put forth the following de jure proposals—any of which is specific and unambiguous enough to be right or wrong as an exoteric launching point dealing a particular evolutionary phase of the new (or should I say, restored) order: <ul><li>Political Platform for Mayoral Candidates<li>Libertarian Nationalist Political Economy and its Traitors<li>Local Currency Based on Four Stages of Electronic Barter<li>Laboratory of the States Platform<li>Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments<li>Actuarial Militia Reform<li>Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals<li>TECK: The Electoral Corruption Killer<li>A Contract Between Americans</ul> Please do better or at least contribute your insights. 7
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:41 | # Statecraft, or anti-statecraft as Bowery would have it, is not separate from the “ontology project” but an expression of it as the former in ordering social relations and hence reproductive trends, will act as a selective pressure on the genetic stock which it relies upon for the (continued) existence of its work product - the state. The purpose of the “ontology project” is not merely to explicate to ourselves what we are but to facilitate those now latent potentialities in ourselves (e.g., statecraft), which are also part of what we are, which can secure the existence of what we are. Ontologically informed statecraft will mold what we are in accordance with the needs of the continuity of its work product - the state. The state being the means by which we will secure our genetic continuity. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:15 | # Thank you, CC. Meanwhile, the Telegraph moderators face another challenging day:- 9
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:16 | # Moreover, the state is in actuality an extension of what we are collectively in that it is an expression of what we are. It is our extended phenotype. If it is an optimal expression of what we are, what we are per se (our gene pool) will eventually be brought to, or at least closer to, optimality. What can truly be referred to as “ontological nationalism”, with this added dimension of ontologically informed statecraft, is inseparable from this search and striving for optimality. Not only is something the same as itself with itself when it is itself, but it also contains within itself the best means by which it can continue to be itself lest it go extinct: the latter of which is its optimal state from an ontological perspective. 10
Posted by from intellectual to palingenetic beefcake on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:59 | # Hunter’s latest at Occidental Dissent:
Perhaps now a reconciliation with Greg Johnson will be possible. 11
Posted by cartman sez on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:46 | # Something had to change. I was ruining my health. You can reach your goals; I’m living proof ..... Beefcake, BEEFCAAAAAAKE! Anyone catch where, about a year ago, he claimed to keep himself in form with a mere 30 push-ups per day? No Heidegger muscle zen, that. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:37 | # JB, I’m going to try to find some time to read your various links. I still maintain, however, that the best approach for the moment is to reconfigure something like the BNP as a single-issue anti-immigration party. And then just keep hammering away at the practical problems associated with being colonised and conquered by socially and culturally undesirable aliens. We don’t need to reimagine The Racial State (someday yes, but no need to try to involve people in that type of discussion now), or sally forth with a New Ontology. What’s wrong with the old ontology, or whatever? Just ask the British a variant on Reagan’s famous line, “Are you better off today than four years ago?”. “Is Britain a better place for YOU, sir, as a result of the invasion?” I don’t think this is so hard. And stop whining about the Jews. They are too concealed. And once the native British recover their manhood, they will sniff the wind, and modify their behavior accordingly. Diviso et imperio. ————— On another note: Does Fred Scrooby still write here? I haven’t seen anything from him in a while. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:25 | # What’s wrong with the old ontology, or whatever? But that’s what got us into this mess in the first place. Or do you mean liberalism? 14
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:04 | # ”...the latter of which is its optimal state from an ontological perspective.” But do we authentically seek merely an optimal state from an ontological perspective? We might consider whether the state of Being in such a context may not be optimal from the perspective of inhabiting oneself amidst that outward habitus, and thus inclines toward the elicitation, from the ineffably authentic persona, an existential cry for relief from confinement of the Self within a structure of its own mere projection, confused with the objectification of social structure at the level of individual subjectivity. 15
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:39 | #
It’s my personal theory is that Fred no longer has time for blogging since becoming the full time personal trainer and sparring partner of H. “Whirlwind” Wallace. So far, I’ve resisted the urge to believe Gorboduc is his manager. 16
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:42 | # “conflated with” would be a better phrase than “confused with”. 17
Posted by Englander on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:49 | # It’s impossible to say how many of these comments are from ordinary people, and how many are from committed online nationalists. One thing is clear though, and that’s that they aren’t being shouted down as much as they used to be. 18
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:49 | # It’s my personal theory is that Fred no longer has time for blogging since becoming the full time personal trainer and sparring partner of H. “Whirlwind” Wallace. Could be - I understand that Fred is having to take more time at meals for the thorough gumming of this food, pending some extensive dental work. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:36 | # Leon Haller writes:
Reading my specific proposals is less important than this kind thinking regarding “What’s the next step?” As I alluded in my admonishment: There are various stages in the evolution of the new (or restored) order and my various proposals deal with stages of that evolution—indeed, some are from my own preferences, such as The Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals. Having said that, let’s get on with the task at hand, which is “What’s the next step?” Your point about simplifying the issue to the most pressing around which the populace can rally in the formation of a new party is to the point. I would submit that the issue most pressing in people’s minds is not immigration but political economy. Immigration is a tributary issue. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between the United States and Parliamentary forms of government: It is impossible to form a new political party short of a civil war here whereas in Parliamentary governments, it is practical now. So in our discussions let’s presume a Parliamentary government since I am less concerned with where the revolution begins than that it begin in some nation within the Eurosphere, and the Parliamentary environment has shown recent signs of national life. Toward that end, I would suggest that Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments is a superior next step because it basically calls the left on their progressive bluff. They want to appear to be the benefactors of the unemployed by presenting them with government hand-outs to compensate for their dispossession. This is, of course, ridiculous since what they really want is to fund their hierarchy of Apparatchiks through which to trickle-down their social goods from the central banks, leaving the indigenous dispossessed out of the beneficiary stream and preemptively declaring declaring them “haters” with the full and certain knowledge that “hate” is the direct function of their form of public-sector trickle-down economics. 20
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:48 | #
I’m not sure about that. Greg Johnson likes his bottoms fat. 21
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:08 | # Neo, My preceding statements were in reference to the racial collective, not to individuals in particular, though obviously the racial collective is the sum of racially-like individuals. I propose a polity of law crafted to preserve the racial collective. An elite individual will be free to pursue his self-interest and self-actualization within the confines of the law so long as said does not violate the law, hence damaging the interest all racially-like individuals have in the survival of the racial collective, the protection of which is vested in the state. He need not worry about having his home burned to the ground by disgruntled English peasants, so to speak, so long as his conduct is kept within legal bounds. 22
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:47 | #
How is this contract made binding? As JB suggests, read Spooner and JB’s “A Contract Between Americans”. It’s brilliant.
The interest of the elite individual will be sustained by a reproductive differential. 23
Posted by PF on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:15 | # skkkkkkkkweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!! 24
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:58 | # Yes, PF, this is exactly what we need to rise to the opportunity of reviving national life. Could you expand on that? 25
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:30 | # Soren Renner’s combat - shod cephalopod seems to be burning the midnight oil at both ends. 26
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:41 | # I find the latter completely unworkable. It basically seems to let gangs in by the back door*, among other things. *A leader and his dogs go up to a man. One of the dogs says to the man: “I, an individual sovereign, challenge you for you have offended me gravely. Wink, wink, if you win, I’ve got some mates with me. Not that one of them will challenge you if you win, just saying.” If we speak of a duel with firearms, a slight advantage falls to the one who is challenged. For - if he loses - he’s dead, anyway. But if he wins the initial encounter (perhaps by putting the Big Dog down with a flashy Mozambique), the others are not going to stick around for single combat with an ace who’s now nicely warmed up to the task. 27
Posted by PM on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:12 | # The comments from ‘proleishplumber’ were mine, hence the use of the term ‘race-replacement’, so maybe not all the commentators are typical, average voters (I’ve been BNP for years). 28
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:04 | # Alex writes: “I’ve just looked at the seven points again.” As correctly pointed out by Leon Haller, relevant discussion here should focus on “What is the next step?” With that in mind, before proceeding to answer your question, let me describe how The Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals could provide The Next Step: A public registry is kept of individuals whose legal identity and address are verified, who agree to The Seven Points. These individuals then constitute Society and are, by default, Sovereign, not Shielded, but all members of Society may, in accordance with the Agreement, publish:<ul><li>Offers or Revocations of Offers to Shield (if Sovereign), <li>Acceptance or Revocation of Acceptance of a Sovereign’s Shield, <li>Sexual Acceptance or Revocation of Acceptance of a Man (if female of reproductive age), <li>Challenges to Individual Combat (if challenger and challenged are Sovereigns)</ul> Up to this point, the only departures from a secluded Society have been the lack of geographic restriction on residence, and the definition of “public” which, in the case of a secluded Society would be those within the geographic restriction. But now we get to formation of The Next Step: Any person in the world who would ordinarily be called “a public figure” is presumed to be part of Society. “Inevitablism” then takes on a new meaning which I leave to you to interpret. Alex again: “The first point is that violence is allowed only in self-defence or in enforcing the contract.” The actual first sentence of the first Point is: “Except in self defense or enforcement of this agreement, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another.” This sentence does not preclude ordinary individual violence. For example, if two individuals get into an ordinary fist fight, there is no implied legal consequence. They may even seriously spar with weapons till, say, “first blood” during informal single combat. Moreover, if an individual burns another individual’s unoccupied dwelling to the ground, there is no implied legal consequence. This is all restricted violence which, except that it is individual to individual, is of the same qualitative nature as a game of football or rugby. If, however, any of these acts is taken in a context where it can be reasonably ascertained that it constitutes an act of willfully killing, disabling or permanently disfiguring another, then it is legally actionable in accord with Point 3. Alex hypothetically situates: ““I, an individual sovereign, challenge you for you have offended me gravely. Wink, wink, if you win, I’ve got some mates with me. Not that one of them will challenge you if you win, just saying.”” Point 6c states: “There shall be at least a one year interval from the time one Is engaged in formal combat as the challenged before one may again be engaged as the challenged.” 29
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:14 | # GW, Those are very encouraging comments indeed! 30
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:36 | # Alex writes: “So, the protection against spurious challenges is that they can only be issued once a year? That’s reasonable enough, altho’ I wonder if that wouldn’t give someone too much of a clear pass for a year after a challenge.” In “The Next Step” context, yes, it is a weakness. For example, a public figure’s position on immigration would clearly make him, as a public figure, the likely target of a formal challenge by some highly competent Sovereign, and his failure to show for formal combat at the appointed time and place under the prescribed conditions would subject him to the death penalty for cowardice, to be carried out by anyone in any manner at any time. In order to subvert this, the public figure would call upon another Sovereign who would be willing to permanently give up his/her Sovereignty and be shielded by the public figure, if not to sacrifice his/her very life for the public figure—by preemptively challenging, and then losing to, the public figure. Either way, the public figure just needs one dog per year. This is a serious problem since civilization has been breeding for dogs for a long time, and a lot of them would happily act as such for money if not simply Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” award or sainthood from the Vatican. Alex asks: “ So, what I was getting at originally, is there any provision for the community to decide based on discretion what is and isn’t a reasonable challenge?” No. There is only a law against conspiracy under Point 5:
This could be used in accord with Point 7 against such a public figure since they would almost certainly refuse to abjure the realm, hence its judiciary, in matters pertaining to the Agreement. 31
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:54 | # *A leader and his dogs go up to a man. One of the dogs says to the man: “I, an individual sovereign, challenge you for you have offended me gravely. Wink, wink, if you win, I’ve got some mates with me. Not that one of them will challenge you if you win, just saying.” NN, You missed the point. It isn’t the leader challenging, it’s a dog. So that means the leader and so the organization of the gang remains after the individual wins the first duel. So what? We’re not asking the challeng-ee to exhaust himself in fist fights. If he wins the first duel of (fire)arms, his advantage is progressively enhanced by the demoralization of subsequent opponents and the warm-up provided by prior episodes. The risk involved is the temptation of the gang to refuse to continue according to the rules. 32
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:04 | # NN writes: “duel of (fire)arms” Point 6 reads:
The rationale behind this is to put the enemies in The State of Nature that created them. The sword and cordage are presumed to be the sort of capital equipment that an individual could, and likely would have at his disposal as a result of his own resources in The State of Nature. If it can reasonably be demonstrated that some form of firearms likely would be at the disposal of any properly trained man based on his own resources in The State of Nature, then it might be reasonable to include such a firearm along with ammunition that can similarly be fabricated. I’ve met folks in the Pacific Northwest who claim to be able to fabricate the equivalent of a Southbend Lathe from stone tools and low grade ores from the area, so this is plausible. Under no circumstances are the enemies to be tested on such silly criteria as their ability to shoot accurately at 20 paces. 33
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:47 | # Under no circumstances are the enemies to be tested on such silly criteria as their ability to shoot accurately at 20 paces. And I presume that my perhaps lengthy affair of honor in The State of Nature means animal hides/furs for clothing and no toilet paper. 34
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:11 | # You apparently missed the first 2 sentences of 6d: “Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed” The Assembly would determine clothing and other provisions on a criteria that meets the intent. For instance, is cloth something that an individual can reasonably fabricate? Probably. Snark aside, toilet paper most likely would not be carried by someone in the State of Nature, although I see nothing forbidding it in Point 6. As to the time length of the “affair of honor”, it can safely be presumed that in The State of Nature, things would only come to the point of mortal combat if territory of some sort were in permanent and vital dispute, so we can equally safely presume a fairly limited area so as to require confrontation within a short (days) period of time. Most likely an area with surface water would be chosen so that, as predators await prey at drinking areas, it would be within a day. 35
Posted by PM on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:12 | # There is now a similair comment thread in the DT regarding the sack-thing that Muslim women have to wear over their lovely heads. I don’t agree with all the comments, but they are certainly heading in the right direction. 36
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:58 | # Alex Zeka writes: “In the current context, I can really see some obese America-lovin’ evangelical who’s never been in a fight in his life challenging a member of the enemy class, and getting his ass handed to him.” That’s an interesting scenario because it provides a window into the origin of Paul’s anti-Christianity among the Gothic kings. Dasein’s point about “the toughest guy at school” being a “decent fellow” is to the point as it is a living example of the kind of guy who would be the Goth with “their understanding of their roll as enforcer for the will of the community.” If someone was obviously a bully, they’d get their ass handed to them preemptively by the kind of individual sovereign who found such behavior a mockery of the genetically-based moral faculty. The decent tough guy might preemptively challenge the bully to mortal combat and thereby “play God” in directing evolution away from that mockery of morality. However, at first he might simply go and tell the bully to cut it out. That would be enough for most bullies. Next he’d tell the bully “You didn’t listen when I told you to cut it out. Let’s step outside.” and punch his lights out. That would probably be that, except that the “sheep” (the obese tough-guy-lovin’ proto-evangelical who’s never won a fight in his life) would most likely become shielded by the decent tough guy. Now, you can bet that these decent tough guys were the first to be crucified by the Romans when they came through with their legions, to whom a challenge to single combat from such a decent tough guy would be simply “ludicrous” to use NN’s term. He might be grist for the Arena but if not, he’d get the cross. Hence we have the prototype of the Christ figure upon which Paul spread his anti-Christianity among the northern Europeans. Mix up politics, religion and the relationship between sovereign (decent tough guy) and shielded (thralls), shake and bake for a millennium or so and you get the Evangelical preacher with his sheep. Alex Zeka writes: “Kind of the personal combat version of what happens with intellectual discourse.” Excellent example as this is exactly the process by which the sheep end up abandoning their own people as they see their Evangelical preacher is a fool. It takes a long time to completely dismantle the social structure with genetic origins but it can be done. Alex Zeka asks: “Btw, do you really think dogs can be found willing to accept certain death?” That’s the function of theocracy’s partnership with the military. Suicide is the ultimate—unforgivable—sin but martyrdom “For God and Country” -> “The Government” is sainthood. Alex Zeka asks: “Also, why are deliberately weak challenges a problem in the next step, but not afterwards? ” It will take a while for people to realize how nauseatingly perverse the theocracy is. At present, its too obscene to admit to perception. 37
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:26 | # The “inevitable” is breaking through to the elite who are starting to see cracks of truth in the towering edifice of lies:
They’re retrenching to head off something happening like a citizen’s dividend or a single tax on net liquidation value of assets which would remove the current “aristocracy” from their rent-seeking perches in the public and private sectors respectively. The current Hell they’ve created might be vulnerable to both leaving them no niches anywhere to suck the blood of the folk. 38
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:08 | # We can bypass trying to get into the mind of a military grunt—a mind so twisted by the conflation of desperately seeking some way to afford a family and “voluntary service” to the military—that he will follow suicidal orders from a black general in a foreign land. Let’s think instead about a gay who had gone “bug seeking” so as to achieve the sainted status of all “victims of AIDS” in the current theocracy’s pantheon. Such a creature may be so twisted that he would go beyond being sodomized by an AIDS infected black, to being killed outright just for the “privilege” of paying his debt to blacks for his “white guilt”. Like I said, “It will take a while for people to realize how nauseatingly perverse the theocracy is. At present, its too obscene to admit to perception.” 39
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:26 | # Let’s get back to reality. This is for my fellow Americans (maybe I re-post this on Nov 1): Thanks to 45 years of unnecessary, undesirable, and untrammeled Third World immigration, destroying America’s historic and very salutary white racial base, we are now a diverse (and thus increasingly dysfunctional) hellhole. Our future is bleak. Multiracial societies are not a blessing, but a curse, needing constant management to avoid or ameliorate natural tensions, not to mention, for whites, endless interracial wealth transfers and remediation for the benefit of economically underachieving non-whites. We are also an increasingly dysgenic society, as the genetically superior of all races have had the lowest fertility rates for the better part of a century now. The US has long exceeded its ecological carrying capacity (and yet the environmental movement is silent about immigration’s role in generating nearly all contemporary population growth, still more evidence that most environmentalists hate capitalism far more than they care about biospheric preservation). And our darker, dumber and more crowded populace is ever less traditionalist in its outlook and morality, and even whites are more brainwashed into accepting destructive ideological and moral nonsense than ever before. In this political and cultural environment, when America is no longer a natural nation, but just a giant ‘diverse’ mob, the only hope for the American people rests with a renewal of the rule of impartial law, and the restoration of a full capitalist economy, to replace today’s politicized, “rent-seeking” economic regime. The GOP is mostly weak and stupid, but Obama and his Democrats are uniformly evil. Decent people need to educate themselves, and then rally together to demand a much tougher conservative government, one which focuses on cleaning up the US, “strengthening the core”, to use a gym metaphor, and not such peripheral (or at best long term) concerns as abortion, the gay agenda, foreign policy, Iranian nukes, etc ad infinitum. We must: 1) seal the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and end the legal immigration invasion and conquest of the US; If we as a nation do not begin following this type of fusionist conservative/libertarian/nationalist agenda, then, mark my words, America as we have known it, indeed, even as a civilized, First World country, will be dead before 2050. 40
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:10 | # In terms of “the best approach for the moment”, that you properly point out is the relevant question, a “hardly exhaustive list” is a bad idea. Your own suggestion for the moment is “a single-issue”. Since we’re now limiting our discourse to Americans, here is The Laboratory of the States Platform:
This is the best approach for the moment in the United States. It opens the door to any of the 50 States to adopt your list by the simple expedient of rebates on Federal Taxes combined with adoption of your other policies. The pressure would then build from the States to shift tax authority from the Feds to the States. Once one State had adopted your list, its superiority would have empirical support. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:54 | # More Telegraphica: This time, fun with Jews. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:28 | # More trouble t’at Telegraph: This time it’s the myth of the Third World genuises we desperately need to steal our jobs and fill all our employment vacancies. 44
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:46 | # I’d suggest looking at the comments by DanDaniels. To me at least, he comes across as someone who is honest by nature and with enough natural honor to need moral justification for what jews do. He comes very close to explaining the jewish way of being which is basically: “We have to be this way as pre-emptive self-defence.” Obviously, what is pre-emptive self-defence from their point of view is betrayal on an epic scale from our point of view. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 6)
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:22 | #
The inevitable rising? Right. Compare the data. Anecdotal evidence from the website of an English Daily versus people actually fleeing the country. Over the last ten years over three million Britons emigrated; second only to Mexico. 500 comments on an English Daily versus over 3 million emigrants clearly indicates a growing commitment to ethnic nepotism. No doubt Britons are forsaking their kindividualism for the love of their co-ethnics. Just ask the BNP.