The cost of “compassion”

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on July 11, 2006, 11:49 PM | #

The only real explanation I can come up with for this vicious undermining of the existing population in favor of a new and different population is to refer to the model of layers.

The first layer is of course all the people who live in a given area. (Whether they are legal or not is irrelevant to this analysis.)

The second layer is all the people in that area who vote. This layer is vividly different in nature and definition from the first layer. Often it is astoundingly different, so different it renders street marches null & void.

The third layer is the people who finance the elections in that area. This can literally be a national-sized layer as America Firsters have learned to their dismay, but it is has a radically different make-up from either of the first and second layer. To the extent that politicians see themselves as representing the third layer in the name of the first layer, we see the second layer increasingly stripped of their rights and constitutional privileges to enable politicians to represent their true constituents, the third layer.

I am sure this could be expressed scientifically according to some kind of computerized model, and that might tell us a lot more about why “white” politicians seem to loathe their Majority voters in favor of the financiers.

If this is an old and discarded hypothesis, please be gentle.

Posted by James Bowery on July 12, 2006, 12:27 AM | #

I like the Tibetan notion of compassion:  Compassion must be guided by an awareness of karmic consequences to actions.  The way this played out in Tibetan history was a recognition that a tyrant was condemning himself to many lifetimes of misery by continuing to rule and it was an act of compassion to kill him given that one could not otherwise persuade him.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 12, 2006, 08:16 AM | #

To the extent that politicians see themselves as representing the third layer in the name of the first layer, we see the second layer increasingly stripped of their rights and constitutional privileges to enable politicians to represent their true constituents, the third layer.-Billy

e.g. the granting of civil rights of various sorts to criminals (first layer as cannot vote), at the expense of Magna Carta protections for the general citizenry (second layer, by and large)?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 12, 2006, 09:14 AM | #

The model is good, BJD, but perhaps a bit static.  Only since the mid-1980’s has the core voter of the parties of the left been discarded in favour of racial egalitarianism.  The move to do so commenced among Marxist academics in the aftermath of WW2.  It is a characteristic of our liberal political universe that it holds in perpetuity to nothing but, on the contrary, discards old bromides of unattainable freedoms for new, ever more extreme ones.  The zeitgeist marches leftward.

As it does so, the parties of a Conservative mein, being cut off from the finite certainties that once informed their politics, chase afterwards.  The desire to be relevant is the new core principle.  Relevancy, by definition, cannot mean relevancy to their core voters but to the new political constituency of the left.

Thus it is that culture politics and anti-racism has become the obsession of both parties.  If if was not also profitable they wouldn’t do it.  But it is, because corporate, (heavily Jewish) foundation and (even more heavily Jewish) individual-donor funds have filled the gap.

They all get away with it because:-

1) No functioning national alternative is presented to voters.

2) The rest of the liberal Establishment - Church, judiciary, academia, media - play the orchestral parts to the political tenors.

3) The ethnic interests of the majority are made dirty and politically illegitimate, and would-be political actors on our behalf are savaged to death.

4) We have set aside our ethnocenticity, and are dumbly satisfied with beer and skittles.  We do not have the wit to understand that the pursuit of individualism, as produced by liberal politics, leads directly to atomisation, racial marginalisation and extinction.

And the cure to all this?

I’m open to suggestions.  If we get some power it is, in the long term, this.  But how to get power, that’s the thing.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on July 12, 2006, 12:39 PM | #

GW-The Internet,and blogs such as this ,have opened up widely held viewpoints to discussion,unlike “letters to the editor"in MSM.As more citizens become activated,we will hopefully see a more aware populace,and increasingly disallow our “leaders"from pointing us down a trail of distruction

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 13, 2006, 09:35 AM | #

Nick, imagine our popularity exceeds all expectations, and MR and sister blogs gain a British following of 1million. Now, imagine that these 1m, being extraordinarely articulate and persuasive fellas as befits our commentariat, manage to persuade 3 other solid citizens each. That’ll make Real Cons a voting bloc of 4m- about the same as the ethnic minority voting bloc! Now, which bloc will most politicos, in it just for a quiet life and a bit on the side, court?

It’s not going to be us. Basically, blogs, even very successful ones, reach too small an audience. An MR newspaper or whatever might swing the political landscape our way, but not us pissing into the cyberwind here (not that pissing into the cyberwind doesn’t help).

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on July 13, 2006, 03:38 PM | #

Just to follow up a little bit. One of the things that seems to mystify white activists is why white elected officials seem to disdain white well-being. The dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture delight in reminding us that “white” people run everything, so we should just shut up.

But if white elected officials are really representing the so-called third layer that resides in Manhattan and Hollywood, then the mystery is resolved. The white elected officials are true to their constituency, and we are left holding the empty bag.

There is nothing new at all about white elected officials selling out their co-ethnics in favor of issues that negatively affect the Majority. It’s ancient history, true in all climes and for all races.

How to make white elected officials more dependent on the second layer (the Majority) instead of on the third layer (Manhattan & Hollywood) becomes the issue, so we must of necessity start supporting policy proposals that

(1) restrict campaign donations to residents of the district;
(2) ban corporate & union donations; and
(3) cap campaign spending to reasonable amounts.

There is a school of thought among American Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives and Constitutionalists that campaign contributions are a form of speech, and therefore as protected as Freedom of Speech.

To bring power back to the second layer, we’ll have to abandon that notion.