Posted by cladrastis on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:44 | #

This article is more of the same.  Caveats that “we are not Nazis”, just “traditional racialists” is a complete waste of time - and something, it seems, the British are particularly prone to do.  Next time David Hamilton should save himself 50+ words and the the embarassment of curtsying before the multicult.

This, however, was interesting:

The Jews ... are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man. The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.

Cue: the demographic changes in the US and the recent election.

Posted by link on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:26 | #

Or in other words, it is nice to see, that the first documented ‘nazi’ was a royal from 1596…:-)

Just ‘cos ambiguity is not my intention: I myself set sails on the side of ole Q.E.

Posted by snax on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:17 | #

cladrastis is surely right Mr Hamilton, if you say you’d like to recreate our homogeneity you’ll always be dismissed as a racist bigot by the establishment whose tolerance you seek - no matter how forcefully you condemn the one European government that actually tried to recreate a national homogeneity.

If they also call you a hypocrite for excusing imperialism and Britain’s own racist past, you can’t really complain.

When we were homogenous we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed.  Now they regularly have to shoot people in the street.  We are in a surveillance state, and have totalitarian race laws to oppress us.

While I pretty much agree, every people invaded by your beloved empire might well have said they had trust among themselves; they might also have complained about the Colonial Police and British Army shooting their people in their homelands; and I daresay they weren’t cockahoop about the race laws that oppressed them. All this is part of our tribal tradition Mr H., and it doesn’t strike me as any better than what Hitler did, or as bad as what we suffer now - though it in no way justifies the way ‘our’ govt. treats us today.

... That Disraeli had a wicked wit.

Posted by VanSpeyk on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:59 | #

Contrary to snax, Nazi Germany was not ‘the one European government’ that aimed for ethnic homogeneity. It was neither the only one or the last. After the war several Eastern European countries expelled their German minorities in a conscious attempt to reduce “diversity”. A recent Foreign Affairs article, no less, mentioned this and even put a positive spin on ethnonationalism. See here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87203/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html

Furthermore, that particular German government did a lot more than simply trying to achieve a mono-ethnic country, in fact it even followed policy that increased heterogeneity by absorbing Czechs and Slovaks. 

Concerning the argument that, whatever we pro-white activsits do, we will always be tarred with the Nazi brush, I would like to express my disagreement with this line of thinking. Even if we accept for the sake argument that it is essentially correct then, still, that does not mean we should therefore seize to distance ourselves form nazism. The point is that it’s not the accusation that counts (those will always come, I agree, because it’s such a powerful weapon of our opponents) but the credibility of it (as perceived by average to above average whites).
As Fade has pointed out, Jared Taylor gets smeared as a Nazi too. However, with him it just doesn’t stick. Sure, some radical leftists accept this, the one that try to mess up his public appearances, but most whites would realize how ridiculous that accusation is.

Posted by snax on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:59 | #

VS, I’m not sure I agree. Expelling one minority among many hardly makes for homogeneity, and countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland never made any claim to be ethnic nationalist. That the Third Reich had a policy of increasing “diversity” and sought to increase the ethnic Czech and Slovak numbers in their population is news to me.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:54 | #

If Master Hamilton wishes to boast of a superior British morality in the pursuit of The Great British Tradition of Conserving Homogeneity then why not begin with the Edict of Expulsion.

Jews acquired a reputation as extortionate money lenders which made them extremely unpopular with both the Church and the general public. While antisemitism was widespread in Europe, medieval England was particularly antisemitic.[2] An image of the Jew as a diabolical figure who hated Christ started to become widespread, and antisemitic myths such as the wandering Jew and ritual murders originated and spread throughout England; as well as Scotland and Wales.[5] Jews were said to hunt for children to murder before Passover so they could use their blood to make matzah.[6] Antisemitism on a number of occasions sparked riots where many Jews were murdered, most famously in 1190 when over a hundred Jews were massacred in the city of York.[6]

The situation only got worse for Jews as the 13th century progressed. In 1218, England became the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge.[7] Taxation grew increasingly intense. Between 1219 and 1272, 49 levies were imposed on Jews for a total of 200,000 marks, a huge amount of money.[4] The first major step towards expulsion took place in 1275, with the Statute of Jewry. The statute outlawed all usury and gave Jews fifteen years to readjust.[8] However, guilds as well as popular prejudice made Jewish movement into mercantile or agricultural pursuits almost impossible.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:36 | #

Van Speyk is right.  And he didn’t even mention Bismarck-era Germany.  That was an explicitly racialist state as well (not as extreme as Hitler’s but racialist nonetheless).  Minorities there were encouraged to assimilate or get out. 

I don’t think that Russification/Germanization/whatever-ization policies are that productive however.  Its better to create apartheid-ism than try to force top-down assimilation.  It runs counter to man’s tribal nature.

Posted by onetwothree on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:47 | #

If Hitler wanted a “racially pure” Germany he could have sent the Jews en masse to Palestine any day of the week. Rather, he needed their money and their cheap labor. Same shit as now.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:05 | #

“Caveats that “we are not Nazis”, just “traditional racialists” is a complete waste of time - and something, it seems, the British are particularly prone to do.” - cladrastis

“Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter, with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me. I have issued the command, and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad, that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death’s-head formation in readiness, for the present only in the East, with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” - Adolf Hitler,
speech at Obersalzberg, 22 August 1939

I guess that would depend on the audience.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:32 | #

If Lochner’s quote is true.

“MY informant seldom visited me, but when he came it was always on legitimate business which he was careful to announce in advance over our tapped telephone. Even to-day nobody in Germany suspects him. It was he who not only gave me the zero hour for the outbreak of World War II, but who later informed me of the exact day and minute for the attack on Crete. It was he, too, who, thirty days before Hitler started his offensive against Russia, revealed the day and hour—3 A.M. on June 22, 1941—when the Nazi wave would start to inundate the U.S.S.R.

A week before Hitler’s assault on Poland, this man delivered to me a three-page typed manuscript. The document, written in German, is entitled, “Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939.” It is one of the most sensational and, at the same time, most revealing papers I own. “

What about Germany?

Book by Louis P. Lochner; Hodder and Stoughton, 1943 p. 11

Heath W. Lowry
Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc. Washington, D.C.
Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2 (1985)

“In short, a comparison of the Lochner and Nuremberg versions of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg speech, strongly suggest that the one leaked to Lochner by the confidant of Beck was a strongly doctored version designed for propaganda purposes. This interpretation is supported by the fact the General Halder’s detailed diary entries for August 22, 1939, contain none of the above passages. Halder was, by that date, firmly in the ranks of the anti-Hitler German officers, and presumably the would have had no interest in censoring his own diary had Hitler in fact made such statements. (27)

While it way never be possible to completely reconstruct the reasons behind these addenda to the Obersalzberg speech and the manner in which they were made, nor why Lochner was chosen as the conduit to transmit them to the West, one thing is certain: The only versions of the obersalzberg speech containing any reference to the Armenians derive from a single source-Louis P.Lochner.

Thus, not only is the provenance of US-28 (L-3) doubtful, but the actual transcripts of Hitler’s Obersalzberg speech (US-30/1104-PS, Boehm, and Halder) are at total variance with the text of the Lochner version vis-?-vis the alleged Armenian statement (compare Appendices II and III). Therefore one cannot help but share the opinions of the Nuremberg prosecutor and William Shirer (Shier’s assessment of the Lochner version as “embellished a little by persons who were not present at the Berghof.” ) and reject the Lochner version. “

http://www.azerigenocide.org/hist/hist17.htm

Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:24 | #

I always tended toward an understanding of what Q.E. I went through, trying to keep England together after Bloody Mary.

As an Orthodox cleric, I would much rather side with a traditionalist Anglican interpretation of history, than the Romanist, for the record. Rome has never been for anyone but herself, and that was nothing more than a revivified Empire, with a facade of Xianity thrown in for good measure… and that’s all.

But now, with these quotes, I find I like ‘Good Queen Bess’ far more than I did before. Can you not find a ruler more like her, than that old tugboat, QEII?

And I disagree with those who say finding such sentiments is a waste of time.
On the contrary, knowing from whence you came, makes it so much easier to throw off the shackles of Jewish Bolshevist rule, and return to ‘that green and pleasant land’. Want willing labor? Expatriate all non-Anglos, and ask those of us in former colonies, if you guaranteed a White nation with White Rule, for White Christians, how many would want to ‘come home’ and you’d have a deluge of applications from those who would make Britain a world power again, in less than fifty years!!!

And don’t think I’m not serious!

As for that monstrosity in Oxford. Buildings can ALWAYS be destroyed.
Deo Volente.
And a Christian monarch can ALWAYS be found to take over rule from those no longer Christian.
Deo Volente.
And an act of God can remove Barack from his “Emperor Jones” rule presumptive, before January.
DEO VOLENTE.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:29 | #

“Want willing labor?  Expatriate all non-Anglos, and ask those of us in former colonies, if you guaranteed a White nation with White Rule, for White Christians, how many would want to ‘come home’ and you’d have a deluge of applications from those who would make Britain a world power again, in less than fifty years!!!”  (—Fr. John)

Precisely.  Well said.  In that and other ways, there are a great many vastly superior alternatives to the “solutions” being pursued by our overlords at present.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:34 | #

“As for that monstrosity in Oxford.  Buildings can ALWAYS be destroyed.”  (—op. cit.)

And pray God the Euro populations currently targeted for erasure by the E.U. overlords never forget that, and rise up one day to set all this outrage to rights once again!

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:48 | #

“If Lochner’s quote is true.” - Desmond Jones

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:51 | #

Leon Haller posted the following this morning, but the Takimaggots already took it down:

(To ‘silver’ and Ryszard: You might find my latest post below of some interest.)
I agree with ‘silver’ almost (but not quite) without reservation. I have thought about these issues a great deal; indeed, awareness of them (ie, Richard McCullough’s - apologies if misspelled - hypothesis of the inevitable Death of the (genetically recessive) West unless total white racial segregation is instituted) has spurred my realization of the desperate need for a complete examination, ‘interrogation’, and possible deconstruction of not only the whole history of Western ethics, but of Christian theology as well. Obviously, this takes (life)time ...
But it must be done. In my perpetually enlarging book, tentatively titled RACIAL ETHICS, I try to situate not merely scientific race-realism, which is empirical and not idelogical or moral per se, but white preservationism WITHIN the broad traditions of Western moral philosophy and theology (I have never believed, for both intellectual and practical reasons, that white preservationists should cede our Western heritage of moral inquiry to the multiculti/race neutral perspective, either by becoming atheist tribal amoralists, or adherents to psychologically resonant, but empirically ridiculous, pre-Christian Euro-folk religions). I do not believe that Christianity mandates white racial death, or even indifference to extinction, which, given our collapsing demographic profile, amounts to the same thing.
The tough questions, however, concern the moral legitimacy of, first, coercion to secure racial preservation (eg, keeping out Third World immigrants, who have no RIGHT to immigrate to our lands, is not coercive, however much liberal/neocon/libertarian traitors may whine; I’m referring to things like anti-miscegenation laws), and second, initiatory violence to save our race (eg, terrorism, assassination, guerrilla warfare, violent revolution).
My (ongoing) reading is leading me to the conclusion that authoritarianism in defense of white racial purity, as well as white numerical/territorial supremacy, is morally justifiable in both secular and Christian terms (though the intellectual work demonstrating this conclusion mostly does not exist - yet). The REALLY tough question concerns the aforementioned initiatory violence, whether such can ever be justified, and to what extent. My intuition is that such violence cannot be justified within the philosophically sophisticated Christian mainstream (ie, one can always find, or form, violent white supremacist sects calling themselves “Christian”, but that does not mean they merit the designation, as there does exist a generally agreed upon body of core doctrine; it is that to which I refer). But I am discovering some intriguing evidence which may provide an eventual wedge ...
I direct these remarks or hints to ‘silver’s’ observation that if we have societies that are half-white only, racial amalgamation is inevitable, leading to Western civilization’s eventual extinction. Believe me, my friend, I have thought about this problem often, even if I could not express it as artfully or at least precisely as you have. Racial repatriation/cleansing seems to be the only option, doesn’t it?
Two comments. First, your conclusion re inevitable amalgamation in mixed-race societies is historically grounded and sociologically probable, but not logically valid, and not the chief racial threat. The presence of enormous non-white communities resident in the West represents a long-term amalgamationist threat, though also a physical / military one. While greater amalgamation certainly seems probable, given contemporary moral and cultural attitudes among whites, it is neither logically, nor probably empirically, inevitable, as you imply. Whites in many areas of the world over the past several hundred years have lived in intimate proximity to non-whites, yet have maintained their blood-purity (you’ve surely heard of the ‘one drop rule’?). Geographic racial integration is no argument against white nationalism, its possibility or necessity; quite the contrary.
Moreover, the historical rate of amalgamation in white societies afflicted by multiculturalism along with immigration/ racial integration is likely to look like our old friend, the bell curve. Consider the US. At first, there was very little miscegenation, and the one-drop rule ensured that what mixing did occur did not pollute the racial constitution of the hegemonic ethnoculture (that is, the Obama-like hybrids produced in earlier times were not granted access to white women, or white society; the white race was thus kept pure, while, in the American case, the Negroids were the ones ‘amalgamated’ or ‘polluted’ with white blood). Later, with the rise of both racial integration and mass non-white immigration as well as racial egalitarianism and anti-anti-miscegenationist sentiment, ever greater numbers of whites have started falling by the wayside racially, so to speak. Amalgamation or blood pollution has increased. We are living in this period, where miscegenation increases as multiculti doctrines become more widespread across lines of class and geography.
But what is the basis for assuming that the trajectory of this trend is linear-until-white pure blood-extinction? Such an asumption is empirically possible, but not logically necessary, and perhaps not even empirically likely. Eventually, white propensities towards miscegenation will be sated. That is, at some point, the bell curve will begin to shrink again, as the gene-pools most predisposed to miscegenation will have done so. Of the pure-blood whites remaining, an increasing percentage will be indisposed to miscegenation.
What can be said, then, about whites in mixed race societies is that any transformation from reproductively restrictive to permissive attitudes will initially increase amalgamation, but that its rate will eventually slow down, and finally almost peter out. In each new generation, there will be some miscegenators, but there will also be pure-bloods still being born. Eventually, most existing whites will not only, by definition, be pure-bloods, they will be self-consciously so.
Which brings me to my second comment. The real threat to the survival of white civilization is not amalgamation but alien conquest or physical extermination. The nation-state ultimately arose for military reasons as much as any others. For the West to survive, (pure-blood) whites must survive. Civilization, however, needs not only blood, but soil. In the contemporary world, it also requires sovereignty, not to exist briefly, but to survive indefinitely. If whites do not maintain their numerical majorities in their historic nation-states (assuming those polities remain democratic, which I believe they will; that is, I do not believe that whites will come to reject democracy at least until after they have become powerless minorities), then they will have allowed their race to be placed in a very militarily precarious position. If we have territory that WE control, our race can survive, and thus too our civilization. But if we should lose our RACIAL SOVEREIGNTY (a “Leon Haller original”, I think), if whites should end up a functionally diasporic people, like the Jews, then we could be, and, for reasons outside the scope of these comments, I believe will be, exterminated.
The real threat we face is extermination, not passive extinction.
Posted by Leon on Nov 07, 2008.

———————————————————

Good stuff!

Posted by Celtic Wife for Life on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:57 | #

To insinuate that those of us who follow a traditional conservative way,

Does this “traditional conservative way” include the concept of one marriage for life and exclude the concept of divorce, like most “traditional” and “conservative” ways around the world do?  Just curious.

I think if white europeans and our descendents could just wrap our minds around the idea of abstinence until marriage and then lifelong marriage with no divorce, that our concerns would dwindle to nil because, guess what?  Our population would grow and grow without so many “issues” that arise from broken family syndrom.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:29 | #

“I think if white europeans and our descendents could just wrap our minds around the idea of abstinence until marriage and then lifelong marriage with no divorce, that our concerns would dwindle to nil because, guess what?  Our population would grow and grow without so many “issues” that arise from broken family syndrom.” Celt

And yet you will not at any time admit the role of feminism and other cultural Marxist initiatives in deleting tradition from “respectable discourse.”  Strike at the root or not at all.  But then, that would strike at your own core beliefs, now wouldn’t it?

Posted by Celtic Inquirer on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:04 | #

My core beliefs are what?  Enlighten me since you seem to know more about me than even I do!

Posted by danielj on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:19 | #

Celtic,

  I don’t understand your beef?

  I think most of us here would agree that divorce is a huge problem in Christendom, especially since the Bible forbids, and would therefore be in agreement with your position on the issue. The other varieties of theists and non-theists would most likely also assent to the idea of perpetual and lifelong monogamy as it creates a stable society with strong families; something that is not possible under other marital arrangements.

  I don’t read any commenter here as endorsing divorce, polygamy, bigamy or any other sin you seem intent on preaching hell-fire toward.

  What gives?

Posted by Celtic Math Again on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:48 | #

What gives is that most, if not all, of the dudes on this site ARE divorced at least once!

Really, I guarantee that most, if not ALL, of the problems facing white euros and white euro descent americans today would vanish if they just learned and practiced principles of abstinence, chastity and lifelong marriage with no divorce.  Then you’d be having, if not more kids, then at least kids of stable mind and character who then go on to reproduce more of their own kind of stable white euro offspring capable of doing and achieving more.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:52 | #

With all the white men you’ve been burned by, Celtic, you could go on Maury Povich.

Posted by Celtic Puritan on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:09 | #

White men haven’t burned me.  All the white dudes I met during my dating years had so much baggage (babies mamas, divorce, alimony, child support, you name it) that after the first date I said, “salam”.  They didn’t get any oppurtunity to burn me.  I wanted to be with a cultured, self controlled gentleman.  Not a washed up and jaded dishcloth.  So sad to see young men no older than 28 so down and out with no vitality.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:19 | #

this should be very useful, in the near future, I think. Reason I say this is twofold:

The “No Platform” position dictated by the extreme left is crumbling. BNP speakers will have to defend their views in debate, and pointing out that the BNP is advocating policies which are mainstream in our recent history is a very effective way of doing just that.
Secondly, it may well be that in the near future, BNP supporters will be in discussion with UKIP supporters as a result of the recent shenanigans in UKIP. An article like this is useful in pointing out to UKIPpers that what UKIP is offering, i.e. civic nationalism, is a phenomenon unknown in our history.

In speaking to UKIPpers, we could well say, unknown in our history until we went into the EU.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:04 | #

If its only civic nationalism, Glen - and I’m not arguing with you about that - the English are not going to survive.  There has to be something more.  But is there?

Posted by Armor on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:33 | #

If Hitler wanted a “racially pure” Germany he could have sent the Jews en masse to Palestine any day of the week. (—onetwothree)

but what would the English government have said to that?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:56 | #

“...but what would the English government have said to that?” - Armor

England (rock) <>Germany+Jews<>Russia (hard-place)

And, yes, Lebensraum sucks.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:08 | #

two of the biggest problems we face with what appears to be our own side are the civic nationalists like UKIP, The disgusting English Democrats who hate the Scots yet say all legal immigrants are English or the irelevant Free England Party who intend to keep the Community Relations Act 1976 because it ensures racial justice! They have hollowed out Englishness and made it interchangable with multi-racialism and we must take these on.
Then there are the so-called white nationalists who make wild but simple statements against the brave people in the front-line.  The commentators on here are cowards who hide behind screen names while attacking the brave people who face the enemy.
Well,  try fighting these civic nationalist parties instead of those who do stand up to the enemy.  The reason why you blame Jews for everything is because they are in your imaginations and that makes them safe. If you are like the state-run Stormfront you only know who is Jewish when they admit it.  I have seen idiots on there describe Johny Cash as a white icon!  What do you think of white hero David Duke?
Have any of you got the intelligence or the courage to do something like this -

http://www.bnptv.org.uk/news3.php?go=fullnews&newsid=359

Of course, not you are insignificant and pointless.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:11 | #

Glyn,

It might have passed you by that we have no interest in or expectations of UKIP, the English Democrats or the Free England Party.  Obviously, they are not addressing the Great Existential Question in any way.  But the BNP is.  That makes it worthy of attention.  That makes it worth weighing its political meaning - not the dogged virtues of its canvassers on a cold and wet Sunday morning in Nuneaton.

Arthur Kemp, by the way, is no political or intellectual titan.  His “Titans” is ridiculous, and if you trouble to check his past in South Africa you will likely form a more critical view about the man and his value to the movement.  You might also ask yourself why Griffin has him around at all - a good question with no good answer if the purpose of the BNP really is to achieve political power.

As for us, I don’t think you understand what intellect is for.  The world is made of ideas, not activism.  Activism sans ideas is the banging of an empty tin can.  It may catch the attention but it does not please the ear.

In truth, you aren’t really required to understand why you bang on the doors of Nuneaton.  You are driven by your own simple nativism anyway.  But in our complex world, Glyn, simple nativism cannot “travel”, cannot endure without an over-arching ideology that imbues it with power and direction.  So ... far above the argument and counter-argument on the doorstep is the argument and counter-argument of the meta-political out of which such ideology is formed.

In a word, people like us are trying to give historical function to the work of people like you.  Is that clearer now?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:36 | #

Glyn Roach: “The reason why you blame Jews for everything is because they are in your imaginations and that makes them safe.”

No, Glyn.  We blame the Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE GUILTY.  Read this, genius.  And then click the link and read the chapter.

“A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab, who remarks very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.1 Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leader-ship role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigra-tion policy (1993a, 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (1995, 91). Or more colorfully:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, 23)” - Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Ch. 7: Jewish Involvement in Shaping
U.S. Immigration Policy.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7+Ref.pdf

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:42 | #

Ideas are superficial just the rationalising process whereas the real battle is of underlying prejudices.  The opposition is prejudiced in favourof ethnics and we arein favour of whites. The rest is rationalisation.
I was trying to defend the author from cowardly attacks by people with screen names who only seem to post here.  My point is why attack him when there are legitimate targets like civic nationalists to attack.  I am not in the BNP but these constant attacks by people who don’t seem to do anything else shows them to be traitors. The same is true of stormfront Britain.  When Lee Barnes started outing the cowards one moderator resigned out of fear.  A dirty little coward like those here attacking people on the same side from behind screen names. They are the ones doing the work of the state.  Why are you sayingGriffin and Kemp are conspiring against us?
However, I would like to see your ideas.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:45 | #

The writer you are attacking 3 times challenged MacDonald and he would not respond. Thats what I meant about the front line.  You lot are jeering from the stalls.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:11 | #

Glyn Roach: “The writer you are attacking 3 times challenged MacDonald and he would not respond.”

“Hey, MacDonald.  You are full of shite.  I didn’t read any of your books, too many big words.  But you are still full of shite.”

(silence)

“Hey, MacDonald.  Why debate about books when we can settle this the right way - with a drinking contest.  Come on, MacDonald.  No man on these Isles can out drink me.  What makes you think you can?”

(silence)

LOL!

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:28 | #

Glyn,

There are some disturbing aspects of the BNP.  In no particular order: it’s lack of a genuine constitution, NG’s “Chairman-for-Life” status, his inexplicable handling of the EiE crisis, his tendency to cast off talented officers, his stubborn cleavage to people like Tony Lecomber, Lee B (occasionally), Arthur Kemp, Mark Collett and Dave Hannam who would not be given houseroom in any normal party, never mind positions of influence and power.  I find certain aspects of party policy incomprehensible, particularly the “my enemy’s enemy” focus on Islam while Sikhs, Hindhus and Jews are held in high regard; and the focus on being “British” at a time when the Union is falling out of favour is very odd and annoying too.

My other two concerns are its anti-intellectualism - a bit of an on-off thing, mostly on - and the elephantine certainty of its infiltration by MI5.

I don’t know if NG is conspiring against anyone.  I think he proved in the EiE debacle that he is principally for himself, which for some never explained reason involves loyalty to the talentless coterie around him.  He had the opportunity to continue in his present lordly manner minus three of the coterie.  But he chose instead to decimate his activist base.  It is legitimate to ask why.

The dark and worrying possibility is that the party is not meant to “break through” at all, but is merely meant to provide an outlet for native frustrations.  Such a reading is entirely consistent both with the facts about the BNP as they exist and with the uniformly ritualistic and non-substantive condemnation the party receives from its opponents.  I hope to hell it isn’t so, and the appearance of a dogged, brave little party of loyal Brits is true.

We may know more in 2009/10 when Brown goes to the polls - not from the results necessarily, which will indicate a steady strengthening of popular support for the party, but from the reaction of the mainstream parties.  The day they cease employing demonisation and begin to confront BNP policy issues I will know that the appearance of a state mechanism is an illusion, and things are for real.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:51 | #

This stuff about ideas is essentially “Rationalist” thinking and so is intellectualism.  It was part of the various rationalisms especially liberal thinking and throughout the fifties those who grew into race-traitors were looking for new ideas.  The nitty-gritty is emotions - where we belong and who with.  I would go so far as to say philosophy mainly appeals to this type as does ideology.
When you go to a local library note that asylum seekers are given longernon the PCs, note the way immigrants are spokwen of, enriching us, makinbg our cities vibrant.  These terms cxan not be demonstrated in reality because expewrience and common sense shows them to be false: they are rationalisations of the prejudice thatethnics are better than us. You will find the opposite prejudice in the way missionaries in Africa spoke of the natives and how they needed the benefits the missionaries were bringing. These are nothing to do with ideas. Ideas come after the prejudice to justify it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:14 | #

Glyn,

The history of liberalism, most particularly since its Marxisation before the turn of the 20th century and its entirely Jewish culturalisation after WW2, demonstrates conclusively that ideas are sovereign.  Ethnic interests (not “prejudice”) have proved no match for notional liberty.  But the reason for that is that the liberal era comprised from the outset an ideological environment in which European ethnic interests could be turned into foreign matter - and, ultimately, could not survive.

The task is one of intellectualising an environment in which the reverse is true.  Just waiting for the overwhelming presence of foreigners to trigger white people’s prejudices, by which I assume you really mean race-consciousness, is half or even a quarter of an answer.  Liberalism ... the whole shooting match left and right ... has to be got out of the way, along with its parasites and beneficiaries.  We cannot make piece-meal changes stick if individual freedom remains the notional purpose of political and cultural life, and if European Man remains estranged from himself and in thrall to an inculcated morality.  This is a very big and complex issue.

Do not play the anti-intellectual.  We are on the same side.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:19 | #

Fair enough, but what have you that will trigger race-consciousness?  Because that is the crux: if you disagree with others what have you to offer? Where is this ideology you ae building?  At least DH is putting things forward.

Posted by Why Ask? on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:23 | #

and the elephantine certainty of its infiltration by MI5… The dark and worrying possibility is that the party is not meant to “break through” at all, but is merely meant to provide an outlet for native frustrations.

A false flag state police & “private” Board of Deputies of British Jews operation is the most reasonable interpretation. These kinds of operations are a favorite method of political police.  Particularly when the political elites are pursuing policies they know the mass of the population reject.  When the regime ruling in Germany attempted to outlaw patriotic opposition it emerged the predicate acts for the ban had all been committed by police agent provocateurs.

N-G has flipped over to sucking the Zionists’ toes, denouncing their enemies and keeping the BNP organization crippled with internal strife and poor leadership.  What more is there to discuss?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:48 | #

Glyn: Where is this ideology you are building?

That’s a fair question, and of course I am not in possession of a complete answer.  I am closer to it than I was four years ago when we launched this blog, that’s for certain.  But the heavy lifting is not actually for me - a very poor originator of thought.  It is for all the intellectuals of the radical right.  We still need to fashion a formative consensus so their energies can be adequately and profitably focussed.  This can be done, btw, and I expect it to.

I’d rather not answer your question with much of my own stumbling thought at this stage.  Regulars here know the shape of my ideas, such as they are, and Soren’s and Matt’s and James’, too.  James is the most original thinker of all of us, and he would give quite a different and perhaps less holistic answer than me.  In reality, as I say, we need to engage a much wider circle of thinkers - some of whom we know personally - to crack this very hard, substantially semitic nut.

What I will say is that my “disagreement” with European palingenesis and nativism and American race-realist, judeophobic WN relates to their respective incompleteness.  The European mythos and the American logos operate to the exclusion of one another, which hobbles the possibility of advancement of both.  European nationalist intellectuals are not much interested in the real.  The Americans cannot find a dream to compete with the pursuit of liberty.  The resulting stasis is what keeps us from realising our racial objective.

So my efforts are geared to trying to overcome that, and very difficult it is, too.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:55 | #

”Liberalism ... the whole shooting match left and right ... has to be got out of the way”  (—GW, just above)

Here’s a tool for the job, a new book by American social philosopher James Kalb, telling how to accomplish it:  <a >a review</a>; <a >an excerpt</a>; <a >another excerpt</a>; <a >the book</a>; <a >the book at Amazon.com</a>.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:58 | #

What is more to discuss “Why ask” is why you do not attack our enemies but our only movement albeit with faulty leadership?  Because you are doing the work of the state yourself!

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:00 | #

Have you read it, Fred?  Jim is so very attached to his faith, and I see Christianity, and certainly Catholicism, as part of the problem, I would be doubtful of finding a solution in the terms that I see the problem.  But if the religion thing isn’t leading Jim’s thoughts, that may be an unfair expectation on my part.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:06 | #

None of those links I embedded in my last comment works (maybe the last one does).  I was going to try again posting from AOL instead of Mozilla Firefox, but on testing it, the same thing happened.  (That stuff never used to happen; I don’t know what’s going on.)  Try isolating the URL which appears in the browser box at the top of the screen:  subtract this site’s URL from the intended link’s URL which will begin with http, and click on the isolated address.  Sorry about that!

Posted by Glyn Roach on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:39 | #

Thanks for the tip Fred.  this looks interesting.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=3040999&trail=14#9

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:41 | #

GW, I’ve ordered it on the strength of excerpts I’ve read and the author’s reputation as a philosopher; not yet read it.  I also consider the Pope and the Vatican a big part of the problem, but they aren’t “Catholicism itself.”  They’re this year’s, or this decade’s, or whatever, Pope and Vatican.  Popes and Vatican Curias change of course.  I’ve not yet decided if Catholicism itself necessarily is part of the problem.  I have a gnawing suspicion it is, but in my mind I keep wavering back and forth.  If it is, I’ll leave the religion (or rather, I’ll stop identifying as one, since I’m not a practicing Catholic).  And I’ve left “liberalism” behind as the cause of the disease afflicting us, on grounds it’s a miasma theory.  Nevertheless I cite Kalb’s book, which posits liberalism as the cause of the disease, because 1) from excerpts I’ve read and knowing Kalb’s thinking well, I expect it promises to give the best analysis of liberalism out there, and 2) for those who see liberalism as the disease’s root cause, his outlines for successful counterattack likely can’t, I would surmise, be improved upon, if even equalled, which I doubt.  Yes for him Christianity generally and Catholicism specifically is a necessary part of the solution — or at least is highly recommended as part of the solution.  As I’ve indicated, I’m not settled on that question.  I complain about Christianity but I can’t at present imagine, for example, a European identity in the absence of Christianity.  But until I get to where I’ve solidly rejected his interpretations of the malady, I do not know of a better expositor of the workings of several, at least, of the innermost gears of the infernal machine.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:14 | #

It’s not liberalism that must be gotten out of the way, but government’s anti-liberal incursion, the “protective shield”, built on the behalf of minority groups.

Previously, the role of the state had been to protect the rights of the discriminator: traditional rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including refusing to hire them or to serve them. Courts and governments…were still upholding and enforcing the right to discriminate into the 1950s. It represented a fundamental shift, a reversal, of the traditional notion of citizens’ rights to enrol the state as the protector of the right of the victim to freedom from discrimination.

Freedom is not a finding of an equilibrium. It is present or it’s absent. Liberalism posited universal freedom including exclusion. The revolution lay in the shift from the exclusive to the inclusive. However, as Mill stated freedom cannot be inclusive.

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the governed. One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves.

But, when a people are ripe for free institutions, there is a still more vital consideration. Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.

However, contra Mill, some believe freedom of speech can and should be maintained, even in a multiracial environment. If racial consciousness is a none starter, especially for N. Europeans, then an opportunity may exist. The effort being to first take back speech and then the right to exclude.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:12 | #

Liberalism was a rationalisation for the weakness of the hire ruling classes as PC is of their surrender to other groups.  The real problem is the racial and spiritual weakness of an tired people who spent their enegy after 1500 years of conquest and civilisation.

There is a lot of interesting stuff on The New Right web site.  http://foster.20megsfree.com/index_en.htm/

http://jkalb.freeshell.org/misc/pareto.html

http://foster.20megsfree.com/393.htm

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:59 | #

Desmond,

You seem to be expressing the same faith in Isostasy that John Bryant does.

Of course the problem is liberalism in its very widest historical sense - which is the sense of a secular faith in the primacy of the unfettered will and its possibility of attainment by political means.  The ethnic favouritism of which you complain is only a gesture in the direction of egalitarianism, and egalitarianism is a modus operandum for the attainment of liberty.

The ideological war against racial inequality that was fought in both the 19th and 20th centuries does not reduce down only to the issue of exclusion, and if one attempted now to argue only for exclusion, while leaving the primacy of individualism in tact, the result would be an aborted revolutionary process or one so ideologically compromised, it would be short-lived.

Revolutionaries have to kill-off the entire status quo, and replace it in toto with a universal system capable of maturing in the desired way.  That really is the size of the task.  Everything else is just partial, and mostly means masquerading as ends.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:10 | #

Glyn: The real problem is the racial and spiritual weakness of an tired people

Somewhat Spenglerian, but it is true that our people are sick in the soul.  It is the product of the two 20th century wars, Christianity and its universalism, the effects of urbanisation, of materialism, economism and consumerism - essentially of the myth of progress - of Jewish self-interest ...  There is a raft of great problems which beset us.

But we can’t change the past.  We have to repair what we can in us and live well again.

Posted by Solve The Jewish Question on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:04 | #

GW: “In reality, as I say, we need to engage a much wider circle of thinkers - some of whom we know personally - to crack this very hard, substantially semitic nut.”

For the solution to the Jewish problem look no further than Zionist ideologue A. D. Gordon:

Gordon believed that all of Jewish suffering could be traced to the parasitic state of Jews in the Diaspora, who were unable to participate in creative labor. To remedy this, he sought to promote physical labor and agriculture as a means of uplifting Jews spiritually. It was the experience of labor, he believed, that linked the individual to the hidden aspects of nature and being, which, in turn were the source of vision, poetry, and the spiritual life. Furthermore, he also believed that working the land was a sacred task, not only for the individual but for the entire Jewish people. Agriculture would unite the people with the land and justify its continued existence there. In his own words: “The Land of Israel is acquired through labor, not through fire and not through blood.” Return to the soil would transform the Jewish people and allow its rejuvenation, according to his philosophy. A.D. Gordon elaborated on these themes, writing:

The Jewish people has been completely cut off from nature and imprisoned within city walls for two thousand years. We have been accustomed to every form of life, except a life of labor- of labor done at our behalf and for its own sake. It will require the greatest effort of will for such a people to become normal again. We lack the principal ingredient for national life. We lack the habit of labor… for it is labor which binds a people to its soil and to its national culture, which in its turn is an outgrowth of the people’s toil and the people’s labor. ... We, the Jews, were the first in history to say: “For all the nations shall go each in the name of its God” and “Nations shall not lift up sword against nation” - and then we proceed to cease being a nation ourselves.

As we now come to re-establish our path among the ways of living nations of the earth, we must make sure that we find the right path. We must create a new people, a human people whose attitude toward other peoples is informed with the sense of human brotherhood and whose attitude toward nature and all within it is inspired by noble urges of life-loving creativity. All the forces of our history, all the pain that has accumulated in our national soul, seem to impel us in that direction… we are engaged in a creative endeavor the like of which is itself not to be found in the whole history of mankind: the rebirth and rehabilitation of a people that has been uprooted and scattered to the winds… (A.D. Gordon, “Our Tasks Ahead” 1920)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._D._Gordon

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:12 | #

@ the commenter signing as “Solve the Jewish Question”:  Whatever the Jews do to heal themselves — and I wish them the best of success in that endeavor — they have to be separated from Euros while they do it.  This 2,000-year cohabitation of Jews and Euros under the same roof isn’t working out, because one of the partners, the Jews, is continually abusive of the other partner.  If the Jews don’t want to agree to a split they’re being exactly like the abusive spouse in a dysfunctional marriage who refuses to agree to an amicable divorce, insisting on continuing his abuse of the victim.  It’s long past time for the two, Jews and Euros, to physically separate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:32 | #

”Jim is so very attached to his faith, and I see Christianity, and certainly Catholicism, as part of the problem, I would be doubtful of finding a solution in the terms that I see the problem.  But if the religion thing isn’t leading Jim’s thoughts, that may be an unfair expectation on my part.”  (—GW)

GW, it’s not “an unfair expectation on your part”:  you’re right.  Here,

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2750 ,

is a Turnabout log entry recently posted which links to a very concise, easy-to-read, just-over-seven-page summary of his views on liberalism, conservatism, where both stand at present, and what needs to be done to get out of the liberal mess we’re in, and at the summary’s close he indeed offers religion as the way out.  I’m not disagreeing with him outright, as I know you do; I do have grave reservations about Christianity; that’s all I can say at present because I haven’t in my own mind settled religion’s ideal role in all of this.  I admit I’m very reluctant to give up Christianity for the Eurosphere.  I’ll also admit we may end up being forced to, if we want to save anything to do with race.

Notice Kalb no longer explicitly mentions race.  He refers to race now only in the most hidden ways.  You have to really search to find them.  I don’t know why that is.  It would appear he’s gotten away from race as something of central importance (clearly also the Vatican’s position, of course).

Posted by Glyn Roach on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:50 | #

liberalism was replaced 20 years ago.  Your hero needs to keep up.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:46 | #

Glyn,

Liberalism is the philosophical All.  The cultural marxism to which you allude is but a Jewish byway.

This isn’t a game of semantics.  To have any sort of purchase we need to think past the obvious.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:50 | #

GW,

Sorry old chap, but your isostatic, (some sort of gravitational or hydrostatic balance metaphor?), falls short, IMO. What you describe is a secular theology, (can theology be secular?) but it’s not liberalism. At a guess it sure sounds like a strategy to advance some groups ethnic genetic interest. (can’t think of who that group might be). Egalitarian is; “A social relationship in which neither member of a social pair consistently wins when the two have social conflicts”. However, it’s clear that the majority constantly loses these social conflicts, whether the conflict is of an ethnic, racial, religious or sexual nature.

Revolutionaries have to kill-off the entire status quo, and replace it in toto with a universal system capable of maturing in the desired way.

No such system ever existed (maybe Islam) because of the evolutionary nature of man.

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:21 | #

This 2,000-year cohabitation of Jews and Euros under the same roof isn’t working out, because one of the partners, the Jews, is continually abusive of the other partner.  If the Jews don’t want to agree to a split they’re being exactly like the abusive spouse in a dysfunctional marriage who refuses to agree to an amicable divorce, insisting on continuing his abuse of the victim.  It’s long past time for the two, Jews and Euros, to physically separate.

It’s hardly been a one-way street, but let’s leave that aside. 

Why is it you never get around to providing Jews with some positive reasons for agreeing to a split?  Are you afraid it’ll call into question your whiteness?  For all the yapping you do, I thought you, of all people, might have made at least a cursory effort in that regard.  Well, I suppose the suggestion that Jews “agree” to a split (as opposed to “we’re gonna wipe you out”) qualifies as cursory.  Maybe you lack the imaginative firepower for greater flesh.  That’s okay.  Why not suggest others employ themselves thusly?  Or pay a little more attention when they attempt to?  I know the song and dance about government ordered, official (but secret) forced race-replacement is more your thing, but suggesting others engage themselves in different but “equally” [cough, cough] productive pursuits won’t break your rhythm too much, surely.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:52 | #

“Why is it you never get around to providing Jews with some positive reasons for agreeing to a split?”  (—Silver)

We’ll give them the southern half of California, prime real estate.  At five million population the U.S. Jewish community will have way more than enough room there.  Five million wouldn’t even fill Los Angeles. 

“I suppose the suggestion that Jews ‘agree’ to a split (as opposed to ‘we’re gonna wipe you out’)”

We don’t want to “wipe anybody out” and we don’t want anyone else to wipe anybody out, especially us.

As for the rest of your comment:  you’re raving, Silver.  I can’t even follow it.  You’re really going off the deep end. 

Look, this isn’t the right blog for you.  It gets you upset.  It’s not good for you to hang around here, not good for your mental health.  What’s wrong with Sepia Mutiny?  You’ll be among your own kind there.  You definitely don’t fit in among Euros, Silver.  Some Pakistanis manage to do it, but you’re not one of them.

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:22 | #

You and bullshit, Scrooby, you go together like peaches and cream, you really do. 

The pattern’s becoming quite familiar, so I’m pleased to say I’m no longer surprised by it.  But it does grate.  I make a salient point, and dumbfuck here (a) fails to understand it, (b) vomits up whatever garbage his feeble mind calculates will keep him in the hardcore’s good books. 

It’s quite simple, dumbfuck.  You’d like Jews to agree to separate. Fine.  Give them some positive reasons to consider doing so.  (”...or else!” isn’t a positive reason, though it’s not without its merits.)  You might consider doing that beneath you.  Fine.  Do it anyway.  Or recommend someone else does.  For the sake of completeness, if nothing else. 

As for this blog not being good for me, I’m touched by your concern, I really am.  But leave that to me to worry about.  See, unlike you, scrubster, I’m not interesetd in “blogs,” the he-saids, she-saids of daily goings on.  Ideas are what matter. You, and most of your commenting compatriots, I’m sorry to say, are bereft of them.  And that’s a pity, because if any group out there should be most open to new ways of thinking, to ideas that can make a difference, it should be you guys.  But nope.  Staying stuck in the same loop you’ve been in for the last fifty years seems more up your alley. 

PS - If you must be snide, a simple accusation of being a jew should suffice.  I’m far more closely related to jews than pakis.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:28 | #

1) It’s been obvious from day one you’re not a Jew.  2) Identifying someone as a Jew isn’t an “accusation,” any more than identifying someone as a Greek, Icelander, or Sioux Indian is.

Posted by silver on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:41 | #

Way wrong on both (actually, all three) counts. 

(1) Some thought I was a jew, so it certainly wasn’t “obvious.”

(2) Identifying (or exposing) one as a jew (or non-white) is accusatory (and intended to be dismissive) in WN circles.

(2a) You engage in it yourself. (“Pakistani”)

Now, if you bemoan the silliness of all this (as I do), then stop engaging in it.  Ball’s in your court.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:53 | #

“You engage in it yourself.  (‘Pakistani’)”  (—Silver)

I don’t hold your being Pakistani against you, Silver.  I don’t hold it against anyone.  I like Subcons.  And I like Jews too. 

As with Sir V.S. Naipaul, I’m not a huge fan of Negroes but certainly they have their positive sides that I do like and respect, their special intelligence, their special wisdom, their special creative gifts, their special humanity, as do all races of men — even Hungarians, hard as that may be to believe .... (and yes, even Irish Catholics, in case anyone was wondering ......). 

Negroes aren’t all bad, but of course I certainly don’t accept the current Jewish plan to turn all Euros in the world into them.  If Jews think they’re so great let them turn themselves into them, then we’ll see if we like the result and decide if we crave the same transformation for ourselves.  Until then, Jews, take your white mulattoization plan and stick it you-know-where. 

I like Euros best, since I am one.  Yes I’m part-Jewish by ancestry, and part-white.  I reject the one-drop rule for Jewishness and identify as Euro.  I’m American first, German second, Jewish non-existent.  As things Brazilianize in the ‘Kwa, I’m starting to see myself more as German first, American non-existent.  (And Jewish non-existent.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:05 | #

(Just to clarify:  When I say “Jewish non-existent” I am in no way lacking respect for my Jewish ancestry, which on the contrary I deeply respect.  I’m saying that ancestry doesn’t make me “part-Jewish.”  I’m zero-Jewish.  I like and highly respect Jews — the good ones, not the bad ones — and I deeply respect the fact that part of my ancestry is Jewish.  On this subject, incidentally, I also deeply respect Islam and Moslems — the good ones, not the bad ones — and no one will ever see me engaging in Moslem-bashing.  I never do it.  Deeply respecting them does not, of course, mean wanting to get turned by the Jews into them.  That I don’t want:  let the Jews turn themselves into them and leave me and the white race strictly out of it.  That’s not the Jewish plan, of course:  the Jewish plan is to turn whites into them and leave themselves strictly out of it.)

Posted by Right Said Fred on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:51 | #

If you are part ethnically Jewish Fred you should not have any children for the good of mankind, so that you do not perpetuate your Jewish genes (however minute they may be).

Jewishness has a bad tendency to reasert itself in future generations even if abandoned or forgotten by earlier ones, and as such you really should let your Jew lineage perish.  It’s the best gift you could make to White Euros.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:59 | #

Thanks for that advice, “Right Said.” 

I disagree.

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:16 | #

” I’ve not yet decided if Catholicism itself necessarily is part of the problem.  I have a gnawing suspicion it is, but in my mind I keep wavering back and forth. ” -Fred Scrooby

Trust your gut instinct, Fred.

Your Scrooby ancestors were correct. The Puritans and Pilgrims were afraid of Romanism, because Romanism is not Christianity.

Has not been since at least 1054.

Talk to the Orthodox on that POV. The books written could fill libraries.

Read some of my blog posts, searching words on ‘filioque’, too.

Cheers.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:28 | #

Do you anti-Jewish geniusaes know who is Jewish or not?  I mentioned SF and Johny Cash and you lot are as daft!

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/KalbConservativism.shtml

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:36 | #

“Do you anti-Jewish geniusaes know who is Jewish or not?  I mentioned SF and Johny Cash and you lot are as daft!” - Glyn Roach

Glyn, just what is your problem?  Are married to a Jewess or something?  My condolences.  BTW, did you know that Nick Griffin is a Jew? (Just kidding, I think.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 04:00 | #

“Do you anti-Jewish geniuses [...]”  (—Glyn Roach)

We’re not “anti-Jewish”:  we hate the sin, love the sinner.

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:49 | #

Well, you should look at his father in profile.  But have you seen tony blair,s father?
My problem is you keep attacking Jews as the main enemy then recommend a book by one as the solution!  Can’t you see how foolish that makes you?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:39 | #

Glyn: Do you anti-Jewish geniusaes know who is Jewish or not?  I mentioned SF and Johny Cash and you lot are as daft!

and ...

you are doing the work of the state yourself!

and ...

Can’t you see how foolish that makes you?

You combine confrontationalism with reductionism, which is not a happy outlook.  I suspect the one is your nature and the other your limit, which is even unhappier.  However, I urge you to listen more and speak less - hang around here and allow a more reasonable interpretation of what we talk about to soak in.

Posted by Englander on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:44 | #

This brave article at the express will be of interest to MR readers.

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/70437

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:54 | #

About the fine Leo McKinstry essay linked by Englander:  yes they were told, at age 18, 20, 22, 25 they had to die, that their nation might live.  Think of yourself when you were that age!  Imagine being told then, at that age when all your life lay yet before you, that you had to die for a higher good!  Imagine accepting what you were told, and going!  Believing what they were told, they went, willingly — no one had to prod them with the point of a bayonnet; quite the contrary, they grimly volunteered — up into the skies to die, as they were told they had to, that the nation might live.  And some of the most highly-placed men on both sides of the Atlantic who told them that were at that precise moment planning the extinction of “the nation” these men thought they were dying to preserve.  Can the sheer evil of it be imagined? 

“Her insistent question –  ‘What was it all for?’  –  has also been echoing through my mind as I research a book about Bomber Command during the Second World War.  It mounted perhaps the most bloody and dangerous British offensive of the conflict, as crews of the heavy bombers flew night after night over Germany through vicious flak from the ground and from Luftwaffe fighters.  Long-term chances of survival were minimal.  More than half of all men who served in air crews were killed in action.  The courage required to step into those aircraft for the long journey in blackened night skies over enemy territory is almost beyond imagination.  Yet thousands of young Britons volunteered for this hellish role, motivated by their deep love of country and an abiding sense of a higher duty to others.  They died for their nation but that nation barely exists any more. It has been destroyed by the politicians, its sovereignty handed over to an unelected continental bur­eau­cracy, its economy sold off to foreign interests, its heritage traduced or ignored, its cities turned into modern Babels full of discordant tongues and wailing mosques.  In this Remembrance Week we hear our political leaders mouthing platitudes about the debt we owe to the fallen.”

But the debt owed to the fallen was easiest to repay:  they were owed truth, and they couldn’t even get that:  their lives were taken away, snuffed out at ages 18 and 22 and 20, mere kids!, in return for the 1948 arrival before they were even cold in their graves of the first boatload of Jamaican Negroes intended to replace the Englishmen they’d understood they were dying to preserve.  You politicians reneged on your debt and you continue to renege, bastards!  At least find the decency now, the smattering of shame, to renege no more before the heirs of the fallen who are still owed that sum which bought their fathers’ and grandfathers’ lives but was never yet paid.  It is owed to them, their heirs, today:  truth.  Let it finally be paid, let the nation-destruction come to a halt, and let the damage done be reversed till what these boys volunteered to lay down their lives for at age 18 be bequeathed, at long last, to the rightful heirs.  Yes, forever.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:43 | #

Why has patriotism become a dirty word in this country? (—Sunday Express columnist)

Because patriotism doesn’t make sense unless you accept that immigrants must be deported. The problem is that Leo McKinstry will lose his job if he says so, since his employers support the policy of race replacement.

reporter Robert Hall, introducing some archive footage from 1918, said crowds in London could be seen “celebrating the peace agreement”. / No they weren’t. They were celebrating British victory and the surrender of Germany.

Technically, it was an armistice, not a case of unconditional surrender. In any case, the first world war was a calamity, almost as much as today’s policy of race replacement. Millions of people were uselessly sacrificed by crazy governments. It was not the right kind of patriotism.

The very idea of British citizenship has been rendered meaningless by the twin malign forces of the EU and mass immigration.

Until recently, the EU had nothing to do with mass immigration. Knowing how the London government has been deliberately replacing British people with immigrants, McKinstry should not fret over the loss of sovereignty from London to Brussels. What difference does it make?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:09 | #

On the subject of “preserving British homogeneity” the question legitimately arises, Why do white women take Negro boyfriends?

A couple of female View From the Right readers offer their opinions:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011872.html

Lawrence Auster:

Four days ago I wrote about the murder of 19-year-old English model Amy Barnes.  She had been “dating” several football players, including Benni McCarthy, a black.  A suspect had been arrested shortly after the murder but no details on him were given.  I said that whoever had killed her, she was a typical example of today’s young British female Eloi who seem almost deliberately to put themselves in situations with men, particularly nonwhite men, where they get themselves raped or killed.

Yesterday’s Birmingham Mail reported that the suspect who had been arrested several days ago has been charged in the murder.  He is Ricardo Morrison, 21, a football player and coach, a former lover of Amy Barnes, and black. […]

A female [VFR] reader writes from Europe:

“You say:  ‘ ... she was a typical example of today’s young British female Eloi who seem almost deliberately to put themselves in situations with men, particularly nonwhite men, where they get themselves raped or killed.’

“I had to look up the term ‘Eloi.’  A powerful and in its truthfulness frightening metaphor.  However, I don’t think it fully grasps the ulterior motives of white women and girls like Amy Barnes.  I have a first cousin who had nothing but non-white boyfriends/lovers when young and I happen to know that she, too, has been raped.  My cousin’s looks would have put Amy Barnes and 90 percent of all other ‘models’ to shame.  She never married and does now, past middle age and still extraordinarily beautiful, surround herself with dogs from the animal shelter.  I am sure a lot of people would describe her, similar to Amy Barnes, as ‘one of the most kindest, warm-hearted people.’ 

“My observation is that there is a lot of condescension in such an attitude.  When such women are throwing away their fair good looks, sweet face, handsome body and all on some third-worlder, it makes them look and feel noble in a similar way as caring for a rescue dog does […].

“I am NOT, mind you, comparing non-white men to mongrel dogs, I am comparing the different manifestations of an attitude a lot of white women seem to possess, white women who pay dearly for their condescension […].

“Addendum:  I read that Amy Barnes was public school educated.  [Note to Yanks:  that’s the British way of saying she attended all private schools, so her family was well-to-do.]  In still-class-conscious (or status-conscious) Britain that may have played a role as well on both sides:  on her side, it increased the urge to condescend and the height from which to condescend; on his side […] it intensified the hatred.”

Adela G. writes:

“I think this female reader discounts the element of a raw and masochistic sexuality these clueless white women find in their relations with black men, particularly when those men ill-treat them.  The women don’t take care of these men so much as they allow themselves to be used by them.  When I lived in a mixed-race neighborhood I observed this over and over again.  The white women had the money, the homes, the food, etc., yet were effectively powerless in their relationships with their black sexual partners.  I avoided such relationships like the plague I could see they were, only to find that my black male neighbors would often confide in me about their white women.  Very occasionally they were vaguely complimentary about them; more often they bragged at how much they got from them in exchange just for showing up at their doors and demanding food, money and sex.  Neediness and self-abasement on the part of the white women, contempt [for the white women] and self-aggrandizement on the part of the black men were the most prominent features of these sick relationships.”

Notice the theory put forth by the first woman above is similar to the motivation which Simon Sheppard labels “Affection Beneath.”  He discusses that in these three interesting entries of his: 

http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/wfpim.html
http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/wfpim2.html
http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/wfpim3.html

I happened on this VFR discussion by reading this other VFR entry,

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011876.html ,

in which Lawrence Auster, concluding that the young woman who bizarrely got herself raped and killed must have been a little crazy, calls her “Miss Havisham” (see photo of her hitchhiking in a wedding dress):  Auster may be onto something there — look what her first name is.  (Pip in the same novel was of course used by Dickens as a pretext for social critique, and Miss Havisham to express a certain kind of frustrated woman’s unreasonable view of what was wrong with the world:  look at this frustrated woman expressing unreasonable social critique, hitchhiking in her wedding dress, bearing that name, a striking coincidence if a purely chance convergence.)

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:14 | #

I was surprised to find several pictures of her in her wedding garb on the net considering what happened later.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=Pippa+Bacca&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB301GB301&um=1&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=5&ct=title

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:37 | #

“I was surprised to find several pictures of her in her wedding garb on the net considering what happened later.”  (—Glyn Roach)

Yes, and exactly as in the novel, where the wedding dress Miss Havisham ridiculously insisted on wearing, completely inappropriately, was the cause of her death, so here with “Pippa”:  the wedding dress she ridiculously insisted on wearing, completely inappropriately, was the cause of her death.

Auster was definitely onto something there.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:25 | #

On the question broached above, “Why do white women take Negro boyfriends?,” this from Amren:

Our task is to restore the monogamous heterosexual family as the normal social unit in Western society. The most important form of racial activism, after all, is childrearing. This goal will be achieved neither by denouncing “race traitors” nor by harping on racial differences in IQ. Instead, we must consider the actual incentives that drive women — who are the real choosers in the mating dance — and focus our efforts on altering them in ways that encourage family formation.

Why, for example, do white women take up with black men? Like men who search for foreign wives, they do it for a reason. Much has been written even by mainstream conservatives about the injustice of so-called affirmative action, but I have never seen a direct discussion of its sexual consequences. Given the natural female attraction to men with status, there will be consequences. Our current system subordinates the interests of whites to those of blacks. At the same time, whites must watch their words to avoid “offending” blacks, but not vice versa. Women see this; they have a keen sense of which males are dominant. Again, changing the incentives to which these women respond will be more effective than scolding or exhortation.

In contrast to European nationalists, American race realists have not yet had political success. When we do gain influence, we will have many more important things to worry about than mixed-race marriages or men who seek Venezuelan brides: things such as how to dismantle 50 years of “civil rights” legislation, the repatriation of millions of aliens, and ending anti-white indoctrination in our schools.

Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children.

http://amren.com/ar/2008/06/index.html

(I saw the link in an Inverted-World.com thread.)