The Green Belt and the carrying capacity of England

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2007, 02:09 AM | #

It’s not to house all the non-white immigrants.  They could do that by building more high-rise monstrosities in the cities.  No, it’s deliberate targeting of the final hold-outs against forced race-replacement, the rural and semi-rural areas.  At some point these have to be eliminated, otherwise they’ll be white refuges where furious whites can plan their counterattack.  We’re to be deprived of all possibility of refuge.  That’s what this is:  the methodical, systematic elimination of a country’s white people.  Only blind fools can for so much as a second believe this isn’t carefully planned behind the scenes with the explicit goal in mind of turning Englishmen into a minority in England in the shortest time.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2007, 02:18 AM | #

Or, as Top said in another thread yesterday, it isn’t being done behind the scenes, because they’re saying openly how they plan to make whites a minority in Britain.  It only feels as if it’s behind the scenes because no one is permitted to frankly discuss its implications or protest against it, on pain of criminal prosecution or other means of ruination.

Posted by Joe on August 31, 2007, 04:37 AM | #

Why are you guys still talking about this? If whites refuse to use brutal violence to defend their territory, what’s left to discuss? If a creature refuses to physically fight to defend its territory from intruders, then its genes are faulty and it is a GOOD THING that they will be eliminated from the natural world, to make way for creatures that actually want to live. The vast majority of white people want to die. They are happily conceding living-space, resources, and fertile females to non-whites. You can’t reverse this strange suicidal behavior with words! The tiny minority of non-suicidal whites just need to take care of themselves and learn to be thoroughly immoral, unjust, and violent (three very good survival traits).

Posted by Bill on August 31, 2007, 10:34 AM | #

I am frequently reading on the blogospere that our technological miracle Western civilisation is entering (within 10 years) a terminal phase of declining energy and raw material resources, which begs the question has this housing project connected all the dots?

Where is the energy coming from to power all of this construction (let aside materials, infrastructure, water, jobs etc.etc.) I am told oil has peaked and the availability in 2020 will revert back to production levels of the 1980’s, there’s still plenty of coal left (so I’m told) but then there’s the carbon emission problem, so I suspect it will be left to nuclear (how many more power stations?) and renewables to fill the resultant gap of lack of oil.

I am also told, by seemingly well informed doom-mongers, that our civilisation and the human race is tanking fast, Peak Oil alone will take out billions before the end of this century.  In other words, it’s back to the stone-age.  All of which, leads me to Joe’s post, Friday 31st August, 4.35am.  Maybe it’s the subliminal recognition of this fact that our race is simply not bothered about being replaced - they’re saying (subconsciously) why bother? it’s all over anyway.

Seriously though, when discussing Western civilisation (MR) it is like peeling an onion, before you know it, your way past decline, financial disaster, energy crisis, war, race replacement, die off, infinite growth, it suddenly becomes all about the survival of the human race, which reduces all else to insignificance.  Being a fly on the wall observing events unfold, is fascinating - indeed, we are living in interesting times.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 31, 2007, 11:11 AM | #

Bill, you can see.  That’s the point.  The others, the ones who can’t be bothered to save our people, the defeated, the complacent ... none of them can see.  All we ever do here is talk about the faculty of sight and what it clarifies for us.  Those like Joe who say it’s not enough to talk are suffering from impatience, and that’s perfectly understandable, even inevitable.  But to take us forward a critical mass of the sighted must be formed, most especially among intellectuals, and that will take considerably more time yet - even with all the dystopia about us pressing at the sleepers’ eyelids.

Posted by James Bowery on August 31, 2007, 07:30 PM | #

GW: What is your opinion of Ferbus O’Connor’s Land Corporation?

Posted by James Bowery on August 31, 2007, 07:40 PM | #

Ferbus -> Fergus

Posted by Guessedworker on August 31, 2007, 08:19 PM | #

It’s a long time since I did my History A-Level, James.  I don’t remember anything much about O’Connor now, though a few very shadowy forms shuffled around inside my head when I read this:-

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/chartism/landplan.htm

I understand, of course, that smallholdings may, in a post-Hubbert, post-liberal scenario, offer a stable basis for survival.  But given the level at which such ventures operate - at or near subsistence - urban life would have to be very grim indeed, or the required generation of new smallholders simply will not materialise.

In addition to being a not very capable 19th Century historian, I am not a sufficiently skilled “guesser” to say how we will adjust to the Peak.  The high-tech fish farm will surely be nearer the mark than simple dirt-farming (the means to buy land is required just the same, of course).

Anyhow, adjust we shall.  That is the niche that cold-climate peoples best exploit.

Posted by James Bowery on August 31, 2007, 08:21 PM | #

Well, I am asking about the Land Company specifically in the context of the maintenance of green belts.

It is much harder to pave over land that people are organically linked to and they, themselves, own.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 31, 2007, 09:42 PM | #

Probably four-fifths of the land which comprises the Green Belt around London is already farmed by private owners.  But ownership is not the issue since, once it has been de-listed for protection, development value of land is perhaps five times higher than agricultural value.  I don’t think an “organic connection” between the owners of the land would be strong enough to prevent very much.

The government has, in fact, been pretty cute about this.  First, it has moved the boundaries of the Green Belt by de-listing certain areas, then transferred powers to its unelected regional assemblies to drive through redevelopment.  Second, it has selectively failed to react to planning applications in Green Belt areas.

The general flow is all in one direction, and it’s the wrong direction.

Posted by James Bowery on September 01, 2007, 04:29 AM | #

How large is the typical estate in the Green Belt?

Are there any land tax exemptions for small holders?

PS: I watched the process of green belt destruction take place in San Diego from within the very Sierra Club that had been successfully opposing the degradation of the city plan.  The technique was simple: 

1) Identify the lonely old widows who inevitably end up in charge of things (what I have come to call “The Church Ladies of Holocaustianity").

2) Wine and dine them with brunches overlooking the La Jolla Cove during meetings supposedly regarding “enhanced” planning, and

3) Via them veto any committee actions within the Sierra Club opposing the “enhanced” city plan.

I’ve written up my experience on this elsewhere.  I’ll see if I can dig it up.  It was truly one of the more nauseating experiences of my life.

Posted by Jean West on September 01, 2007, 11:04 AM | #

On August 31, Joe wrote:
Why are you guys still talking about this? If whites refuse to use brutal violence to defend their territory, what’s left to discuss?  If a creature refuses to physically fight to defend its territory from intruders, then its genes are faulty and it is a GOOD THING that they will be eliminated from the natural world, to make way for creatures that actually want to live. The vast majority of white people want to die. They are happily conceding living-space, resources, and fertile females to non-whites. You can’t reverse this strange suicidal behavior with words! The tiny minority of non-suicidal whites just need to take care of themselves and learn to be thoroughly immoral, unjust, and violent (three very good survival traits).
_________________________

I agree with the logic behind your two questions.  However,

1.  between talking and brutal violence, there is a range of grassroots actions that *could* have been initiated, e.g., opposition to US Aid to Israel, opposition to Israel’s special status with respect to nuclear/chemical/biological arms inspection, but weren’t.

2.  it’s not that the vast majority of white people want to die, but that 1) the knowledge that they’re going to die one way or another, regardless, hums in the background and makes them only alert to imminent danger; 2) the kind of death you refer to is of the barely noticeable slow-boil variety served up with plenty of sugar.

3.  the tiny minority of higher quality whites--the ones who discern and oppose the destruction of white lives by way of destruction of the material and spiritual resources they need to sustain and nourish themselves and their progeny could, if they remain discerning and oppositional, eventually be forced to resort to what they would normally have considered to be immoral, unjust, and violent behavior.

The question is, what organized efforts that are more than talking but less than brutal violence could they be engaging in right now?  How can our children, grandchildren, neighbors, friends and others be made aware that even this tiny minority exists?

Jean West