|
|
|
The Big E tells God: Thou shalt not love Thy children in the BNP None-too-bright but seemingly unstoppable lip-flapper and scourge of English survivalism ... “The Man” when it comes to equality ... the one and only Trevor Phillips, Tony’s Georgetown bro, has been laying those smooth, smooth moves on the BNP. Again.
Well, Trev, it’s like this. Outwardly at least, Christ commanded us to “love thy enemy”, not live with him. You don’t love your enemy. Being “ready to turn these people into pariahs and outsiders” is not noticeably loving, is it? But, hating as you do (you call it “rage”), you still demand your enemy’s love ... and you demand to live with him, hypocrite. You take his welfare, his work, his daughter’s favours, his home, his street, his neighbourhood. All this, hypocrite, you do. And two or three years from now it will be his capital city you take and, not too long after that, his children’s very birthright. Well, birthrights are not given by God. They are stolen through conquest ... through the deployment of superior force. Yours is a force of numbers which, though not superior in itself, is aided and abetted towards that end by a false morality that has everything to do with Marx and nothing whatsoever with Christ. Your true place of worship is in Highgate Cemetary, beneath the hypocrite’s injunction: “Workers of All Lands Unite”. While you genuflect you might ask the cold grey marble why we English would want to unite with you, bruthah. AND why you are not “working” in your own land instead of mine. Now, the Mail article concludes:-
Here’s Nick the Bish kneeling to get his appetite for the Holy MultiCult whetted. So what is one to say to a bang-to-human-rights, Kumbaya, One-Love fool of God? Christ bore witness to the perfection of consciousness, perhaps, and to the impossibility of conscious evil. He did NOT bear witness to politics or to any worldly, sociological phenomenon. He did not name evil in Marxist, humanitarian or universalist terms. Universalism is not part of the Christian credo. It is not part of that inner love flowing from I to me, consciousness to unconsciousness, which is the higher emotional estate of the “risen” or truly conscious Man. “Thy enemy” is that within yourself which eats, sleeps and breathes for you, that which is mechanical in its workings and from which Christ calls you to turn. In Christianity, unlike in Islam with its inner Jihad, turning is accomplished through love ... through the impossibility of conscious evil. The rest of truth is Nature, Nick ... in which ethnic interests play their considerable and inevitable part. Ethnic interests no more connect with Christ’s message of redemption than does their opposite: universalism. We English are under the same natural obligation to pursue our ethnic interests as any other peoples anywhere ... whom, presumably, you do not condemn for their want of a keen desire to get on down with Trevor Phillips at his local clapping parlour. No Englishman - including you, Nick - is worthy of the name if he does not love his people and his homeland as unreservedly as, and for the very same and fundamental reason why, he loves his own children. Now, I know that you have three children aged between 18 and 25, and being a good man you are surely also a good and loving parent. So this natural love, which towers over your faux-emotional, all rather 1970s proclamations of universal love, is well enough known to you. Reflect upon it. Ask yourself whom Cool Trevor really loves, and if that extends to your children. Ask yourself what reciprocity is in his heart for the love that, by your universalist creed, your children are obliged to feel for him. Then try, please, to understand that the Eucharist does not celebrate the, of course, always vibrant flesh and blood of alien peoples. It is immeasurably more interesting than that, and no basis whatever for making wicked moral judgements of good Englishmen and women, turning them into pariahs, hate objects, and victims of falsehood, ignorance and naked ethnic competitiveness. Comments:2
Posted by Mrs. Blessed on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:46 | # Worse is better. Excommunicating moderate racialists from public life will only serve to further radicalize them. This is a good thing, in my opinion. ~~Mrs. Blessed 3
Posted by That1 on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:05 | # Since the numbers of church-going christians in Britain has dwindled to about fifty, Mr. Griffin’s presence at any church would not go unnoticed, and presumably the ‘right on’ negroid vicar of St, Simon-of-the-holy-holocaust would feel justified in refusing the sacrement of communion- or disunion, in that case. 4
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:40 | # No doubt Clever Trevor deems it a matter of regret that the Bible’s Old Testament is so unabashedly ethnocentric, dealing, as it does, with the affairs of one group only, viz., the Children of Israel and making mention of others only when they have the misfortune to come in contact with the Chosen. 5
Posted by rear guard action on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:23 | # New Zealand is also declining as a destination for UK immigrants, due to stagnating wages, increasing crime and traffic congestion in the main city, Auckland. The South Island is still mostly White and uncrowded but the low wages don’t really conpensate for rising property prices. New Zealand has a high number of East Asian immigrants that buy a house, send their kids to the local schools, drop off the wife, and then go and go back to Asia to work in the family business. This pushes up the cost of housing while draining the public purse. Keeps builders in work but thats about it. 6
Posted by Michael Dupont on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:41 | # Jesus was indeed a racist as his unabashedly ethnocentric (and shabby) treatment of the gentile woman by the well indicates. Additionally, it should be pointed out that Jesus brought his message to his fellow Jews and Jews only. It was certainly not his intention to preach to Greeks or Romans, etc. The great travelling salesman of the Jesus cult was Paul; and without him the West would’ve never been Christianized in the first place, in my opinion. 7
Posted by Retew on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:38 | # If by the Gentile woman by the well you mean the woman of Samaria described in John 4, he was not supposed to speak with her at all by the standards of his time. Here’s what I think is a fair account of the significance of that story http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-study/jesus-life/woman_at_the_well.htm 8
Posted by Bats on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:34 | # Michael Dupont seems to echo professor John Hartung’s (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html) idea that Christ’s teachings were a sort of Nazism for messianic Jews. These argments seem to always contain the notion that Paul falsely spread the new religion to the gentiles. To the non-Christian, Paul was just hallucinatory since he didn’t actually meet Christ. The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the fact that Peter certainly knew the heart and mind of Jesus and yet he defended the right of Gentiles to convert. Also, the parable of the good Samaritan could be interpreted as having universalist sympathies although the meaning of the parable is debated. It could be interpreted as “include those who help messianic Jews in the category “thy neighbor.” The “there is no Greek, nor Jew” passage is frequently used by race nihilists. Yet the real meaning seems to be that (valid) wordly social distinctions are not distintions is ultimate ability to experience the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no female,yet Paul was a sexist Patriarch by liberal standards. There is no slave, yet Jesus never condemned the rapant slavery of his time (a point liberal atheists never fail to remind us of) and Paul told slaves to obey their masters. These social distinctions weren’t being leveled as a modern “social justice” Christian would suggest. Also note that the Galatians, Colossians, etc. are never told to amalgamate. There is that which unifies all Christians such as the basic sacraments (all the more reason for liturgical uniformity) but the balance of scripture suggests that God wants men to exist in seperate societies. If God created the White Race, why would he want it destroyed ? Didn’t He reject such notions at the tower of Babel? The Orthodox have a much better grasp of all this, hence the national churches. The “messianic Jewish Nazism” interpretation represents a problematic system of morality. If you only owe morality to your fellow group member then you can simply redefine the group bounds (after all, all groups are semi-abstractions, albeit necessary ones) to exclude those you don’t like and then crush them as your enemy. Perhaps Jesus’ early-Gospel teachings represent an in-group equivalent of “can’t we all just get along.” He drilled this into his disciples heads before he sent them out to evangelize this to the world. So perhaps, Jesus teachings indicate that our love and loyalty can be conditioned by our ancestry, yet we can’t be Nazis who think we owe no morality to out-groups. I think modern race-nihilist Christianity represents a deviation from 2000 year old historic Christianity and is a modern heresy. It is strictly a product of post-Enlightenment liberalism. From a civilizational point of view, it’s no different than an individual Christian who says that you should allow a child rapist-killer kick your door in and savage your family because Jesus said “resist not evil” or a Christian who says that we should run around naked an eat grubs instead of sewing and reaping crops because Jesus said the beasts and fowl worry not about what they will eat and wear. All are based on an overly simplistic interpretation of scripture and both help validate Nietzsche’s false charicature of Christianity. Enough speculative, amateur theology for one post. Any Christians out there want to help me out here? 9
Posted by Michael Dupont on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:52 | # Here’s how the meeting played out according to Scripture between the gentile woman who had an ill daughter and the Dear Leader (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30). It’s very inspiring. In Matthew’s account she’s a Canaanite and Mark thought she was a Syro-Phoenician. In any case, she was a gentile woman. What is so incredible about this even is how Jesus delivered a racist double-whammy, it was a master-stroke. Jesus had gone to Tyre and Sidon, and was staying at someone’s house. He was trying to keep it under wraps and instructed His disciples thus. Since his disciples were uniquely composed of low-life rabble, predictably, word got out. The gentile woman approaches Jesus, asks Him for mercy and explains her daughter is ill. Jesus ignores her:- “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (i.e.:- “I’m a Jew who is here for Jews.”) The gentile woman persists and worships Him. Jesus’ next response is startling:- “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” Jesus was suggesting that this woman’s request for help was encroaching on His children and that was unacceptable behaviour for one of the ‘dogs’ (1st century Jews referred to gentiles as ‘dogs’...they still do…that’s what the derogatory term “goyim” is all about…). Enjoy! 10
Posted by Retew on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:58 | # That is correct, but it wasn’t the Canaanite race that Jews of that time objected to but their paganite practices. Have a look at this; http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2006/11/canaan-in-patriarchal-times-part-2.html In any case, the story goes on from there to say how the woman’s faith does in fact rescue the situation, which indicates that her race was not a crucial factor in this encounter. BTW Svy, Christ wasn’t Jesus’s name but his title reflecting his spiritual accomplishment, just as Buddha wasn’t Gautama Siddhartha’s name. 11
Posted by Retew on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:11 | # Christ To be fair, different interpretations are possible, as this article from wikipedia makes clear; I suppose my view comes closest to the gnostic interpretation. However, this passage is key to what I’m saying here; “The word is often misunderstood as the surname of Jesus due to the numerous mentions of Jesus Christ in the Christian Bible. The word is in fact a title, hence its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus, meaning The Anointed One, Jesus.” 12
Posted by Retew on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:15 | # Here’s the article (forgot to paste it in and you can’t edit your entries here, sorry) 13
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:41 | # Svyatoslav, “Christ was a racist. He needs no reforming. Not sure about Paul yet (I suspect he was an unreconstructed Hebrew ‘til the end), he may need to be excised.” Paul? Paul was an out and out anti-Cretite!!
Extract from Doug Wilson lies like a Jew under the rug! - one of Bad’s funniest. “I’m still developing my WN Christian apologetics but maybe I should put a post up.” Check out BADLANDS and Little Geneva. I think you’re looking for Kinism. 14
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 01:02 | # Michael Dupont wrote: Jesus was suggesting that this woman’s request for help was encroaching on His children and that was unacceptable behaviour for one of the ‘dogs’ (1st century Jews referred to gentiles as ‘dogs’... That’s true, but the theological message of the story is exactly opposite. That’s why it’s in the text. It is teaching Romans 1.16: “Jew first, then Greek.” The New Testament is a thoroughly universalist document, and this brief episode is a good example of its universalism. The Syrophenician woman had not seen Christ’s miracles, yet though a Greek (i.e. a Gentile and a heathen) she believed in him and persisted in her belief despite his initial refusal, even strikingly winning a debate with the Son of God by turning his own words against him. She knew he was the Messiah in the absence of evidence and despite his overt disinclination to assist her. Hence the story’s conclusion: “for this great faith of thine, let thy will be granted.” She gets what she needs through the persistence of her faith. That she is a non-Jew becomes irrelevant. Although Christ’s historical mission was specifically to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the gospel story is clearly anticipating the Church’s subsequent mission to the Gentiles after the descent of the Holy Spirit, which expands Christ’s teaching to the entire world (John 16.8), an expansion signified by the glossolalia of the Pentacost narrative (Acts 2). The universalizing effects of the outpouring of the Spirit are stated repeatedly; see, for example, the story of Cornelius the centurion in Acts 10 (“we ought not to speak of any man as profane or unclean.”) Such universalism, in stark contrast to Judaism (“it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him”), is the overwhelming message of the New Testament, for good or ill. Also see Acts 11 and Acts 15.7-11, but the idea is almost everywhere, not only in Paul. New Testament Christianity and Jewish ethnocentrism have next to nothing in common, other than (unfortunately) a shared collection of pre-Christian religious texts. 15
Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 01:38 | # GENTILES? WHO DAT? We really need to get out from under the labels, descriptions, and definitions heaped on our heads by the Other. There is no way that “gentile” grew out of our vibrant diversity or our historical development; it is a term imposed on us in the most blatant of ways. Kindly think whose agenda is being carried forward by our internalizing the label “gentile” and accepting it. If we can’t shake off the power of the Other even on the level of our own naming, I wonder how we can acquire the will to shake off its power in other arenas. How are you going to oppose kosher taxes or strings around your neighborhood (eruv) or killing white kids in Southwest Asia if we dare not even pick our own name? The first mark of oppression is when someone claims the right to name someone else. It is called a claim to supremacy. The second mark of oppression is when those so-named accept the name and internalize it. It is called submission. The White Abe Foxman 16
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:25 | # Too true, Bo. To most of Salt Lake City’s denizens, Jews are Gentiles. 17
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 03:34 | # By necessity, it’s equally useful and reasonable to have the terms Jew and non-Jew - but both Jew and gentile were imposed terms originally, although widely accepted by the so-labelled nowadays. Is there a time limit Bo? Or a statistical test of acceptability? If most Jews and most gentiles accept the use of those terms how do you defend your position given their continued self-defining in this way, Bo? If I wish to talk about the different interests of the Chinese and the rest of the world, should I be required to talk about the Chinese vs the English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Cornish, British, Manx…, on and on through hundreds and hundreds of self-labelling groups?, or can I just use the accepted shorthand - Chinese and non-Chinese? 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 06:09 | # Perun contributes to this topic here and here. Here‘s another:
My view: nothing in Christianity mandates forced race-replacement and it is therefore perfectly Christian to oppose it. I will go further and say it is unchristian to support it. 19
Posted by Bats on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:07 | # “The New Testament is a thoroughly universalist document.” Yes, otherwise the West wouldn’t have been Christian. Again, Peter defended the right of Cornelius to convert. If Christ was a Jewish ‘racist’, I think Peter would have known it. Also, see the council described in Acts (I can’t remember the chapter). “Univeralist” in that anyone can be a Christian. But the modern-liberal reconstruction of Christ as a social justice crusader seems rather strained. Again, Christ’s teachings weren’t about reconstructing society in the modern “social gospel” sense. For a Christian, the real question isn’t whether or not the NT is “racist” or “Nazi”, but whether it is anti-racist in the modern sense. Again, Christ wasn’t a leveler of the earthly-necessary social distinctions (male/ female, black/white, slave/free, rich/poor). Christ’s teachings were about the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. Such distinctions have (finite) value. But, they are not distinctions in piety, holiness, the ability to experience the Kingdom of Heaven, to commune with the Father, etc. The “Christ was a Nazi” argument won’t work for a White who wants to be a Christian. Don’t go there. In the same token, don’t buy the “Christ as a Dr. MLK-style redeemer” silliness. 20
Posted by Bats on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:16 | # Also, since Christianity is Western man’s Faith, as Western man is confused, so is Christianity. So don’t be tempted to react with hostility towards true Christianity. We have 2000 years of Christian tradition telling us we needn’t be anti-racists. 21
Posted by R CROSS on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:44 | # How is one to tell just who is a nationalist and who is not,as far as i am aware i have no “mark of cain” that distinguishes me from any other,will we have to register our political persuasion in a book at the door?It is hardly a Christian attitude from the proto-simian trev, but i do not suppose that it has occured to him that many Christians equally resent attending church with zoo-life like him,let alone be lectured by a foreigner pretending to be a white Englishman.I have heard it suggested that a lack of iodine in the diet accounts for the significant retardation amongst negroes,maybe he is not getting enough fruit? 22
Posted by Godless Infidel on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:17 | #
Sure about that? “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14: 26 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:19 | # The obligation Christians are under to treat their fellow man with humanity doesn’t translate into an obligation on whites to extinguish their race in order to show “humanity.” Christianity allows the keeping of possessions, otherwise the Church itself couldn’t hold real estate, church furnishings, expensive art treasures, or stock market shares but would have to sell prime real estate, pipe organs, priceless Michelangelos, da Vincis, Caravaggios, and Berninis, rare book collections, investments in stocks & bonds, and so on, and give the proceeds to the poor. Needless to point out, no church views itself as under any such “Christian obligation.” A possession which Christianity allows a community to keep is its race. Those intellectual quacks and moral zombies who say Christianity demands race-replacement are weak-minded creeps unable to think or malign self-serving charlatans who know exactly what they’re doing. So, while the individual Christian is under a Christian obligation to treat an individual Nigerian Negro with basic humanity on a personal level should the two come in contact, he isn’t under any Christian obligation whatsoever to hand over all his property to him “to make him feel better”; neither is his government under any Christian obligation whatsoever to hand over its race, “to make him feel better” (nor, for that matter, is his wife or daughter under any Christian obligation to make herself available to him for sex or procreation, “to make him feel better,” despite what’s being implied in the educations of white girls across the West nowadays). The Christian is permitted under Christianity to keep his race provided it be humanely accomplished, and he is enjoined by Christianity from frivolously squandering his race. The Nigerian, if he be a Christian, is enjoined by Christian obligation from wishing another’s race to be frivolously squandered. The Christian Englishman employed in his government’s immigration service is under no Christian obligation to approve kinds and volumes of immigration as will race-replace England. Put another way, if through the immigration policy he sets, he preserve the English race (in humane fashion), he’s violating no tenets of Christianity. Christianity does not frown on setting reasonable immigration policy, deporting illegals, or humanely offering inducements to those already here legally but in inappropriate numbers to leave (inducements generous enough to get most to prefer going home to staying). None of that is frowned on by Christianity. Neither is the “push” side of the repatriation “push-pull,” namely, the total doing-away-with of all pro-race-replacement social policies such as affirmative action in hiring, promotions, and university places, multiculti, generous social welfare payments funded by taxes levied on whites and lavished on immigrants who are race-replacing whites, and so forth. Christianity gives its blessing to the keeping and preserving of possessions including ethnoculture and race as well as material possessions. It does not require a man or a community to be materially destitute, ethnoculturally destitute, racially destitute, spiritually destitute, or alienated. Furthermore, a case can be made that Christianity, in disapproving of suicide and murder at the level of the individual, implicitly disapproves of them at the level of the racial community — that is, disapproves of the suicide of races and of their murder. One interpretation of the Book of Genesis has it that the division of humanity into distinct races( * ) and the preservation of those distinct races is seen by God as proper or at least as acceptable. Catholic priests have denied this interpretation but it has merit. Catholic arguments need to be re-evaluated in this age of forced race-replacement now descended upon us: I think the Catholic priests are wrong, and that Genesis can be viewed either as saying preservation of distinct human races (and species*) is favored by God or at least not forbidden. I believe Catholicism is going to have to adapt itself to that. Christianity calls on us to treat our fellow man humanely no matter his race, and affords us scope wherewith to humanely preserve our race. Those two things exist on different levels: the level of the individual, and the level of the race as a whole. Any priest from the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury to the parish priest who says Christianity frowns on reasonable, humane racial self-preservation by communities is wrong and deserves rejection. If priests persist they’ll be asking for the biggest schism in two thousand years and maybe it’s about time — I for one have just about had my fill of excessively effeminate Christianity. I don’t want it, thank you very much. The Renaissance Italians, the Elizabethans, and the Pilgrim Fathers managed something more balanced. Why are we stuck with the excessively effeminate version that came in with the Victorians? ( * Humanity, in my view, is divided into distinct human races and distinct human species: in this I agree with many naturalists of the pre-Boaz era. That this view has died out is due to politics, not science. It needs to be revived. Acknowledging it isn’t the same as assigning inferiority. To point out that bald eagles and golden eagles, polar bears and grizzlies, or humans and Vulcans [Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock] are different species is not to assign inferiority.) 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:21 | # Hi Friedrich, I know you are not godless. But I did not realise you are Godless. Anyway, why don’t you put away the jolly old Judeophobia just long enough to reflect upon the more subtle and recondite meaning of that verse from the Gospel of St.Luke. Life would be very dull indeed for Jews if the most Jewish spirituality could offer was blatant racial supremacism. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:23 | # I hope it’s not necessary to add that in saying humanity is divided into different human species as well as different human races I wasn’t talking about “humans and Vulcans” (you never know how some comments you post will be interpreted ... LOL). 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:16 | # Images of heaven vary with the individual’s capacity for abstraction. Heaven exists outside of time and space, as does the soul once the mortal husk is sloughed off. As for many of the concepts we who dwell in time and space find natural, such as husband, wife, race, segregation, old, young, intelligent, stupid, hungry, thirsty, sick, well, tall, short, fat, thin, pleasure, pain, life, death, and so on: whether or not any of these makes sense with respect to souls in heaven is unclear but each person imagines heaven according to his ability, some picturing it more simply and concretely ways, others more abstractly if at all. Thinkers who’ve given the subject lots of thought advise against overly simplistic conceptions of the matter. 28
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:48 | # “Is Heaven segregated”? Well those WN’s who, unlike myself, believe the writings of Yahweh’s Darlings might take comfort from John 14:2 . “In my house there are many mansions”. 29
Posted by De Lawd Hath Spoken on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:13 | # If Paradise is where everyone may hang out with whomever he prefers, I think I can guess how multicultural my saved souls will wish it to be;-) There are certainly class distinctions in Heaven: archangels and angels, cherubim and seraphim… It is a blasphemous presumption for Man to seek to make Heaven on earth, and it always leads to disaster. Therefore if any Christian dreams of inhabiting a coffee-coloured world, he must lead a good life under actually existing biological conditions, and trust that in the next life things will be ordered more in accordance with his eccentric taste. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:06 | # On this thread’s “Christianity vs atheism” digression, there’s this, newly posted over at Turnabout. See also Jim Kalb’s replies in the readers’ comments thread, especially this one (notice, btw, Kalb’s parsimony with words):
31
Posted by Retew on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:50 | # Svyatoslav_Igorevich said; Quote This is the dominant modern-“Christian” apologist argument, and it doesn’t hold water. The Hebrews, their race, and their practices were inseparable, and to them, so were the race and practices of the heathen. There is no mechanism for correcting the heathen, no command to convert them, no exceptions for the righteous among them. Ergo, religion and practice are proxies for race, and vice-versa. ============================ I think you win that one, Svy. I’ve had a look at the Internet to see if there’s any evidence to the contrary and not come with anything, so you may well be right. However, I think rnl gets it 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:37 | # I’d like to see Trev try out some of his suggestions on this English nun:
33
Posted by tina on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:42 | # Why should this nun have been fined 200 pounds when she probably felt threatened and her life in danger, and do we wonder why??? But then, in Blair’s New Labour Britain, the thinking is that we are no longer allowed to be afraid of the bogeyman!! Strange, but I don’t seem to remember any arrests of the Muslims who were marching in the streets with their banners pronouncing ‘Kill Salmon Rushdie’. 34
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:27 | # To help speed up the revolt in the UK against the parasitic traitor class, I propose that White Euopean citizens of the UK (is it still called the UK?) not be allowed to migrate to America. And would you please take the degenerates John Cleese and Eric Idle back. This would force them to fight for their genetic survival in the UK. Honestly, you folks in the UK at some point in time are going to have to exterminate your home grown traitors. There is a lot less room in the UK these days to flee the africans,jamaicans,muslims and asians. The UK may be ripe for violent racial conflict. Why would this be a bad thing when you consider the alternative. Worse is better. After you clean up England,Wales and Scottland you are welcomed back. 35
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:51 | # Guessedworker I don’t really believe that the churches in America or the UK are Universalists. On the contrary, I believe the Churches in America and the UK have a very strong racial preference for America and the UK. The Christian churches have a very strong racial preference that excludes OUR PEOPLE. Or to put it another way, the Christian Churches have a racial double standard. It is very fashionable these days in Europe to be atheist. Atheism isn’t really an option for European people. Atheism is just a stepping stone,a transition to a Muslim/Hindu/buddhist Europe. This transition will require the racial transformation of Europe which requires the extermination of European atheists. Isn’t this kind of obvious. Post a comment:
Next entry: Dutch to ban the burqa.
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) |
Posted by Lincolnshire on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:11 | #
Yet more madness from the powers that be these days in Britain.
I’ve been to Britain and Ireland about 25 times over the past 15 years, and the UK has long been a favorite place for me and my family to visit. But the last few times I’ve been there I’ve been appalled by what I’ve seen, and this past July, it was almost unbearable.
Britain isn’t British anymore. Britain, today, better denotes nothing more than a geographic description, an island that has just become the world’s newest Third World outpost. We spent time in London, in Manchester, Sheffield, Sunderland, Glasgow, Fife, Liverpool, Sefton, Walsall, Leicester, Derby, Bradford—in short, we were all over the country. Yet the majority of the people seem to be Jamaicans, Zimbabweans, black children from Jamaican father-white mother pairings, Somalis, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Egyptians, Iraqis, Afghans, just about anybody but White Britons! And it becomes more so every month. It was worse, much worse even than Paris.
Meanwhile, just about every young Briton I encountered was anxious and rushing around to leave the country as fast as they could. Spain and Italy for some reason were popular, as was France, but a good number of bright and hardy young White Britons who were leaving, were opting for more solid White nations like Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and Germany to join in and raise their kids.
Surprisingly few seemed interested in the USA, Canada or Australia, and the response of one fellow in Sheffield made it obvious why: “We’re leaving Britain because it’s no longer Britain—no longer white British and no longer part of the West. The USA is even more advanced in becoming a non-Western craphole than we are. Ergo—why would we have any interest in the USA? Frying pan, fire, you know…”
Arrrgggghh. All throughout this once beautiful island country, we see the “benefits” of diversity. I had thought this White emigration thing was just a fad in the USA, a country where even a state as White as Minnesota has become nothing more than an overseas branch of the Islamic Republic of Somalia. In Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin where I originally hail from, big German-American regions, there’s been a recent revival of the German language, to try to make a home for a still (relatively) unabashedly Western people, language and culture in North America. Though with the pervasive Brazilification throughout the country, many Whites have just realized how lost a cause North America has been becoming in general, and opted to go to many of the same places in Europe my British friends are leaving to.
I had hoped that Britain had somehow escaped the worst of the madness, but I was bitterly disappointed. Britain is not far behind the United States these days in the “who’ll-go-Third-World first” contest. The English-language media which is centered in the US is dominated by Marxists and a group of Jewish interests who are viscerally opposed to much of any sense of White racial consciousness in the US and, by extension, in Canada, Australia and apparently the United Kingdom as well. So we’re committing suicide as a result.
I can hardly stand it anymore. If even Minnesota in the US and Sheffield in Britain are being invaded by the Third World hordes, I don’t feel much connection to these places anymore. Obviously, Britain’s rulers want to further accelerate it.