When do we get back to 1983?

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 15 June 2009 01:31.

One is bound to ask who, in 2009, still doesn’t know that “diversity” “enriches” no one? Who doesn’t know that blacks fail educationally a little too often, or that the danger of violence is always heightened amid black populations? Who doesn’t know that Jews are powerful and extremely self-interested?

Well, officially everybody. And after all, the official version is the only version that counts.

Officially, we live, all of us, in the land of the blind. The great prepronderance of those around us accept that they are supposed to be blind, and fight off awkward enquiries with a mortified urgency. But such willingness to put out one’s own eyes is based in fear, of course. The most fearful are also the most sincerely convinced. There are those who take as their own the descriptions of the world given them by others. They believe truth to be lies, and the blindingly obvious to be immoral. They are not free to think, for they do not begin thinking from the right, but from anything but the right.

Today, The Independent produced a hate-scribble titled “Racist rants of elected BNP man, Andrew Brons, revealed”.

In 1983, when he was in his late twenties, Andrew Brons edited the National Front’s general election manifesto that called for a global apartheid to prevent the “extinction” of whites everywhere.

The Let Britain Live! manifesto was prepared by the party’s policy department, chaired by Brons. It outlined a series of hugely controversial positions ...

These are the “hugely controversial positions” that Mr Brons and the NF advocated.

1. The NF rejects the whole concept of multiracialism. The NF believes the gradual dismantlement of the apartheid system since the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1976 to be retrograde. The alternative to apartheid, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the White man.

2. The NF recognises inherent racial differences in Man. The races of Man are profoundly unequal in their characteristics, potential and abilities. Europeans have a greater cognitive ability than non-whites.

3. The UK has been swamped by racially incompatible Afro-Asians.

4. Black muggings of White people, especially elderly ladies, occurs regularly.

5. The eruptions in Bristol in 1980 and Brixton in 1981 were just two examples of the “cultural enrichment” promised to us by the multiracialists.

6. One ethnic, national and religious group whose power and influence has undoubtedly increased has been the Jews.

7. A number of predominantly Zionist organisations control government.

8. It can be no mere coincidence that the number of people of Jewish ethnic origin to be found in internationalist and multiracialist schools of thought and organisations of action is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population.

Shock horror, it’s all here. The drastic effects of immigration on the native British, the issues of black violence and criminality, black IQ, the Israel lobby and the wider Jewish Question ... these are the holy of holies of thought police everywhere. In a free land of free-speakers they should be the litmus test for the health of the polity. But this ain’t a free land, and by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.

Yet despite all this, there is that feeling of fragility to the whole enterprise. The moment when the image of a Marxised life arose in radical opposition to life itself was a long time ago now. No one loves thought control. Nothing so man-made and so damned offensive can last forever. Official discourse is already vitiated and devalued. It has become too embarrassing and too cognitively dissonant for politicians to “celebrate diversity”. It is inevitable that, united in their inability to swallow the customary forms of lying and living in lying, people will rediscover their fearlessness and their freedom.

The only question is when.

Tags: Cultural Marxism

Comments:

Posted by Thunder on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:19 | #

It’s like gold breaching $1000 US an ounce. The powers that be fight it tooth and nail because when it does many economic truths will be unveiled.

I seem to see light poking through here and there about the truth of multiculturalism (Is there an uglier word in the English language?) but the curtains are quickly drawn. This too must have a tipping point like $1000 is for gold. Perhaps when riots are weekend sport. I don’t really know what the trigger will be but economics will play into it so maybe $1000 gold will waken many to other truths.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:18 | #

I think only generalized economic misery and growing physical insecurity can produce a political awakening in the population. Are we almost there? So far, the average European cared solely about consuming and consuming ever more. That’s really the only freedom still left to him by the Establishment: the freedom to be a consumer of goods and services. As long he was materially better off than his ancestors, he was happy.

Posted by Paul on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 04:25 | #

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

new website. Help out with the promotion. If you like it, pass it on to a few friends. It is a spoof of Stuff White People Like.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:24 | #

The only answer is when.

It was a beautiful day yesterday. In the evening I wheeled out my summer days only lightweight motor cycle and went for a spin. I travelled by way of my old childhood haunts, purely out of nostalgia for my childhood days.

My childhood days were spent in a rural setting, though industry was never far away, but by and large it was the surrounding countryside which was my stamping ground.

Put-putting around on motor cycle I threaded my way in and out of the villages and rural highways and bye ways I knew as a boy. I noted where I went birds nesting, building dens, climbing trees, visited the farm and all of that.

Had anything significantly changed since those days? I asked myself. Apart from the takeover of our lives by the motor car, visually very little else had changed, in fact erase all the vehicles that clutter our and dominate our daily lives and one could have been forgiven in thinking my journey was taking place back in the 1940’s.

Oh, I did notice the boarded up old village pub, ‘the Plough’ ‘The Blacksmith’ ‘The Black Horse,’ peeling paint and boarded up windows, once the beating heart of every village in the land. Thousands have been consigned to history by the deliberate assault on our culture by the liberal left. There were other lesser signs of modernity of course but I was in no mood for critical analysis.

So where am I going with all of this touchy feely nostalgia? Well you guessed it. This area I was travelling is by no means unique, although a packed Island, Britain still has whole swathes of un-enriched areas containing millions of unaware citizens. Of course they see their world through a lens which filters out what affects them and what doesn’t, and when they return to the privacy and security of their home after a days toil or whatever, among the familiar, they forget the outside world.

And there’s the rub, there are literally millions who are blind to what is going on, perhaps it’s self inflicted myopia, but my take is, it is the saturated media deception that keeps them that way.

The answer to when will people wake up is when they are affected personally by enrichment, the newcomer next door, the newcomer who takes your job, the newcomer you fall foul off and you are discriminated against by authority. There are a myriad of ways in which they will discover the joys of enrichment.

It is this insidious, incremental, softly softly catchee monky that is the real killer.

It just ain’t got bad enough yet.

Posted by Englander on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:06 | #

by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.

Is this really true? I was born at that time but too young to be aware, but I’m pretty sure a list like that would have been controversial in 1983. After all, Powell’s truth was controversial in 1968.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:52 | #

Englander,

Yes, that is true. By 1983 a very few alert Tories had picked up on the culture wars in America, particularly on campus, and the right’s fight-back with the term “Political Correctness”.

At the time we still had a Labour Party fighting for Clause 4. Michael Foot was the leader of the opposition taking the party into the 1983 election on the most socialist manifesto - Gerald Kaufman’s “suicide note” - since 1945. One needs to understand that at that time the schwerpunckt of the left in Europe was very different from that in America, much more economically Marxist. The Americans never had overt socialism in national politics or in government, never had nationalisation or communist-controlled unions, never had communist parties and communist mayors as they did in France and Italy. They had the American Dream, which kept the right alive electorally. And they had the sixties which very much changed the left, brought forward the agendas of Adorno, Marcuse, Reich and so on, and was the birth of the culture wars.

The first sign of what was to come for us was the putsch by Ken Livingstone at the Greater London Council, when he deposed the then Labour leader Andrew McIntosh one day after the London election of 7th May 1981. Livingstone constructed a “rainbow alliance” of non-whites, militant feminists and homosexuals, and a very embrionic culture war for the UK was born. Nobody knew what it meant. Most people thought it was “madness” and “a joke”.

The National Front, meanwhile, was a declining but not yet spent force. In the mid-seventies it had enjoyed a similar level of electoral support to the BNP now - or maybe a year or three ago - and looked for a while as though it might break through into national politics. The mechanism for demonising it out of existence did not itself exist, since political correctness was still a long way off in the future.

In the early 80s I was earning my coin as a freelance sales rep in London. While I was stuck in the traffic I used to listen quite a bit to Capital Radio, and I remember to this day an interviewee - I think a Tory MP, but his name has deserted me - who stated that the American campus had spawned a new kind of totalitarianism which was entering the nation’s political life, and was a very great danger to the institution of free speech and to the health of American society generally. He urged everyone to be on guard against this insidious threat crossing the Atlantic, which he predicted it certainly would.

He was right. But it took a few years for the academic left in this country to rise to its new generative “responsibility”.

Another strand in this tale is the Birmingham School (The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies), which was busy churning out long-marchers from its Marxisation in 1970 by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. Its enrollment eventually reached 250 undergraduates and postgraduates a year. I had the pleasure of reading the department’s website before it closed without warning in 2002. There was a brief explanation to the effect that graduates would not, in fact, be seeking work in the usual profit centres, but would more likely find their place in the civil service, in education, politics, and the voluntary sector.

By 1983 there might have been over a thousand graduates still situated in their employment positions, but still only in possession of their critical tools. The censorious stuff, with which they would do so much damage, was not yet available to them. By 1989, when it was, there might have been getting on for 3000 of them.

So ... all this, including Andrew Brons at the NF and his little list, was going on at about the same time. I would estimate that the phenomenon of leftist thought control only began to seep through the media and into national consciousness in the latter part of the eighties. It wasn’t until the fall of the wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union that culture politics really took its place as the only game in town. The left here split four ways. Some recidivist characters like Arthur Scargill continued to hanker after the old certainties. Some went into the Greens and radicalised them as egalitarian leftists. Some went into Animal Rights and made it so very extreme and violent. But most went into deep depression and a long search for a new politics that would validate their existence.

Blairism and the Third Way, predicated on the public and voluntary sectors and on the major banks and corporations, was the outcome. That and the raising of culture war to total war on the indigenous population.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41 | #

“The Americans never had overt socialism in national politics or in government, never had nationalisation or communist-controlled unions, never had communist parties and communist mayors as they did in France and Italy. They had the American Dream, which kept the right alive electorally. And they had the sixties [...]” (—GW)

The sixties, which started in this country in October 1964 at UC Berkeley, was (like 1905 and 1917 in the Russian Empire) a Jewish revolt, made possible by a Jewish population in this country that was several million strong, putting Jews literally everywhere and in control of several of society’s key control points, mainly the mass media (the sixties didn’t “just happen” — “the sixties” was shepherded into existence and hyped into existence by Jewish control of the mass media and Hollywood without which it wouldn’t have “happened”: the sixties didn’t “happen” but was created). Much of what has come after the sixties is a continuation of the Jewish hegemony achieved over the U.S. in the sixties.

I understand that when A Finn calls for less targeting of Jews at this site he’s talking in part about my comments. I do a lot of it. GW has also criticised me for it. (So, strangely enough, has JRichards whose log entries on the issue could have been published by Julius Streicher, so the criticism coming from that particular quarter was a little puzzling for me.) Nevertheless “I call it as I see it.” Prior to about 2006 I didn’t see it. I do now. That’s all I can say. A Finn wants to know why someone like me talks about the Jews instead of simply undoing the damage inflicted by them or by anyone else. The reason is you have to understand who’s doing it before you can effectively counter the harm they’re inflicting. One of the main ways the Jews pull it off is by controlling the mass media. That’s far from the only way of course.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:46 | #

Europeans like A Finn and GW can’t see it because they don’t have the numbers of Jews we have here. So why are they in the same soup if it’s the Jews doing it and they don’t have so many Jews? Because they’re strongly under our influence and we have TONS of Jews just as Lenin’s Soviet Union did. And Britain and France do have lots of Jews who get up to the same mischief, though not nearly as many as we have.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:53 | #

I explained myself also here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_vectorists_final_solution_to_the_racism_question/#c75747

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_vectorists_final_solution_to_the_racism_question/#c76074

CvH incidentally is another European who doesn’t see a decisive Jewish role and strongly dislikes the sort of commentary I post on the subject. I’m aware of that.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:29 | #

“The Americans never had overt socialism in national politics or in government, never had nationalisation or communist-controlled unions, never had communist parties and communist mayors as they did in France and Italy. They had the American Dream, which kept the right alive electorally. And they had the sixties [...]” (—GW)

What then was the New Deal, what was the Great Society, if not rank, out-in-the-open socialism? And if you look at the ideas of people like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson you’ll find a proto-NS spirit there. America has a history of totalitarian government usurpation dating back as far as the first Republicans and their cat’s paw, Lincoln.

Cultural Marxism needed time to catch up, but the conditions were already long since met for the Marxists to seize power when it did.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:45 | #

A Finn wants to know why someone like me talks about the Jews instead of simply undoing the damage inflicted by them or by anyone else. The reason is you have to understand who’s doing it before you can effectively counter the harm they’re inflicting.
>Scrooby

Saying who’s responsible is necessary. People talk in codes about “liberalism” and the rest and wonder why nothing ever changes. But if you can connect the dots between all the various points of civilization-decay, one thing becomes glaringly obvious: JEWS and their SHABBOS GOYIM are to blame. For the immigration, for the Marxism, for the anti-“hate” laws, for the gun control lobby, for the banking crises, for the wars, for the…etc, etc.

Now the populace is starting to realize this but they still have a long way to go which is why we must stay diligent and harp on the jews as much as possible. Our people have the right to know who was responsible for the current situation and it is our duty to let them know regardless of how unpalatable people find our presentation.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:46 | #

Guessedworker wrote:

Englander,

Yes, that is true. By 1983 a very few alert Tories had picked up on the culture wars in America, particularly on campus, and the right’s fight-back with the term “Political Correctness”.

Bill says,

Was Thatcher responsible (or in any way implicated in the rise and rise of political correctness, otherwise known as cultural Marxism?) Margaret Thatcher was Britain’s Prime Minister from 1979 t0 1990.

She surrounded herself with cranks like Alan Walters and Sir Keith Joseph, with whom she pioneered and introduced neoLiberal economics into Britain, along with her pal Ronald Reagan - who was doing the same thing over in America. (Is that where it all started?)

Then along comes the breakdown of the wall of the Soviet Union, and another guy enters the scene, one Mikhail Gorbachev former head of the Soviet Union. Well there’s a surprise.

I’ve listened to credible evidence that Gorbachev was instrumental in forging and bringing into being the long planned merging of capitalism and communism. Lo, look what has come to pass.

I cannot believe that Thatcher’s Tories were unaware of the long marchers take-over of the institutions, even the discerning man in the street was suspicious that a parallel force was at work because of the many bizarre things that had been put on the statute book without any mention in any manifesto.

Why did Thatcher not address and attack with the same gusto the liberal education system, the liberal legal system and all the other liberal infected apparatus of the state, as she did Scargill, the Unions and the working class?

It’s beyond belief that Thatcher didn’t know what was going under her nose. Why didn’t she try to stop it or at least slow it down, like most things about cultural Marxism little makes any sense, that is until you find out what the end result is all about.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:02 | #

The Thatcherites didn’t care about culture. They didn’t see the larger culture war, or refused to take it seriously. It was about economics. The market. The Tory boys saw Thatcherism as a means to climb the ladder and earn a few bob. I recall meeting fellow traders for drinks in the City circa 1989: most of them went to comprehensives, with unintelligible accents. Some were Jewish. Harry Enfield: “Loadsmoney!” There were chaps who took it all too seriously. I’m afraid that’s what Thatcherism was about.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:29 | #

One way or another, Slick is still directly or indirectly on the (fill in the blank) _______ payroll:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/15/bill-clinton-celebrates-demographic-transformation/

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:20 | #

Thanks Fred, but what a thin response from the VDare writer. Where is the woeful litany of causation? Ah, organised Jewry ... VDare doesn’t do Jews. And without causation, of course, there is no progression to solution. No, no, please ... no solutions involving, erm ...

Posted by Bill on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:44 | #

Posted by Selous Scout on June 15, 2009, 06:02 PM | #

“The Thatcherites didn’t care about culture.”

Bill replies.

Surely, Thatcher was idolised as Boadicea, the warrior queen battling for Britain draped in the union flag.

Remember the photo op driving (supposedly) a challenger tank in Germany, head scarf a’flowing in the wind, steely eyed, resolute. U turn if you want to.

And then there was the Falkland adventure. She who dares.

She was the Darling of the Sun - ‘Gotcha.’

With that image how could she not care about British culture? Unless she was way ahead of her time and was Britain’s Sarkozy of her day.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:03 | #

Slick Willy is a man who believes in nothing but Slick Willy’s advancement. And he’s a Southerner to boot (an eternal stain on his Dixie homeland) who spent his whole life talking about Negroes the way Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer did and viewing them the same and you can bet that hasn’t changed. This is the second time this crass opportunist who also happens to be a Southerner who sees Negroes the way Huckleberry Finn does has had a speaking engagement arranged for him at which the script calls for him to applaud the planned genocide of Euro-race peoples in his country and their replacement with non-Euros (the first time he gave exactly this same scripted performance was when he was still president). Both times the people who handed him his script to memorize and/or read off of the teleprompter packed the audience with a crowd who knew what was coming in the speech and knew they were supposed to cheer at the spot when he declared things were right on target for white genocide and how great a thing that will be once pulled off. Now, he didn’t think any of this stuff up any more than Huckleberry Finn did. Anyone not cotton onto that yet? All this is scripted and the audience carefully selected to be certain it will cheer at the right moment, and of course he’s bought and paid for and was bought and paid for when he was president, a one-hundred percent marionette. He gets about a half-million dollars per speech nowadays and all the blowjobs he can stand, and when he was still president it was made clear to him by these same shadowy background puppeteers who handed him his scripts to read from and hand-picked the audiences to make sure there would be plenty of cheering at the right spot in the speech, that if he did as he was told he’d be guaranteed a half-million dollars per speech after he was no longer president, together with a guaranteed X-number of “speeches” per year, plus all the blowjobs he could handle. It would all be arranged. This is the kind of man Slick is, no one is under any illusions about it, everyone on the planet knows it. Now does anyone actually think Slick makes up his own lines in these speeches in which this modern-day Huckleberry Finn praises white race genocide to the skies as the carefully pre-selected audience of Jews, non-whites, plus the usual assortment of gentile freaks (or in this case Arabs or whatever it’s supposed to be) cheers wildly, before collecting his check for a half-million from the shadowy guys who own him and going back to his hotel for his pre-arranged blow job courtesy of the same guys? Any guesses as to who Slick’s owners are? They’re the same as Blair’s, by the way, if that give anybody a hint.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:16 | #

The sterile ya boo racist thug rhetoric has got to be wrested from the left, and the direction of the national debate changed.

As I see it, only the BNP can do this at this moment in time. (Unless a bolt comes from the blue via the Telegraph or some-such)

The BNP have got to put before the people of Britain, via any means at their disposal, preferably using the MSM during high profile interviews, that the white people of Britain are fighting for their very survival.

Ok, they have had their highly successful battle for Britain campaign, but that’s not the same thing as getting close up and personal with the British public explaining their plight.

From now on, the BNP have got to learn how to answer their MSM mentors and in doing so talk past them direct to the British public at large.

If they could accomplish this, it would, in a trice, turn the whole debate around in their favour and put the media on the defensive - once and for all.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:18 | #

Marge Schott was threatened with the gulag (or actually ended up in one, I forget — didn’t they force her into psychiatric treatment or something, as the price she had to pay to avoid having her baseball team taken away from her, in addition to a several-million-dollar fine?) for blurting out to someone one day, it was some reporter or something, “He’s my million-dollar nigger,” referring admiringly to one the stars of her baseball team (the Baltimore Orioles was it? I forget that too). Well, you can be sure the guys who own Slick see him as their million-dollar Southern Good-Old Boy. They trot him out to recite his lines and half the whites in the South think whites must want to get race-replaced so it must be OK if it’s what they’re all doing, hell, let’s go along with it, how bad can it be if Good Old Boys like Slick want it. He’s the decoy duck on the water tricking the other ducks in for a landing, he makes the water look so safe. Tough luck for all the ducks when the shotgun barrels suddenly stick out of the duck blind. That’s gonna happen around 2030 or so — it used to be slated for 2050 but the (fill in the blank) _____ did their work so well it got moved up.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:50 | #

Unless she was way ahead of her time and was Britain’s Sarkozy of her day.

Of course she was. It was the reasoning behind her “swamped” speech.

In an interview in January 1978, Thatcher remarked, “people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture”.[40] Critics regarded the comment as a veiled reference to people of colour, thus pandering to xenophobia and reactionary sentiment. She received 10,000 letters thanking her for raising the subject and the Conservatives gained a lead against Labour in the opinion polls; both parties were at 43% before Thatcher’s interview, but the Conservatives took a 48% to 39% lead over Labour immediately after.[41]

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103485

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:08 | #

Close, Fred, but it was the Cincinnati Reds.

On November 13, 1992, Charles “Cal” Levy, a former marketing director for the Reds, stated in a deposition for Tim Sabo, a former employee who was suing the team that he’d heard Schott refer to then-Reds outfielders Eric Davis and Dave Parker as “million-dollar niggers.”[2] Sabo, whose position was “team controller,” alleged that his 1991 firing was due to testifying against her in another lawsuit brought against Schott by several limited partners and because he opposed the unwritten policy of not hiring blacks. Schott’s countersuit alleged that Sabo wrote unauthorized checks to himself and paid health insurance premiums to retired front-office employees. She also asked for $25,000 in damages for defamation. Tim Sabo ultimately lost his suit.

Levy, who is Jewish, also alleged that Schott kept an old Nazi swastika armband at her home and claims he overheard her say “sneaky goddamn Jews are all alike.”[2] The next day, Schott issued a statement saying the claims of racism levied against her were overstated and that she didn’t mean to offend anyone with her statement or her ownership of the armband. On November 29, Schott said the “million dollar niggers” comment was made in jest, but then stated that she felt that Adolf Hitler was initially good for Germany and didn’t understand how the epithet “Jap” could be offensive.

During the same season, a former Oakland Athletics executive assistant, Sharon Jones, is quoted in the New York Times as having overheard Schott state: “I would never hire another nigger. I’d rather have a trained monkey working for me than a nigger,” before the start of an owners’ conference call.[3]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:13 | #

Thanks for the correction, Desmond. I just went back and read Marge Schott’s Wikipedia entry to see if she was forced to undergo gulag-type psychiatric re-education but didn’t see it mentioned. But I think she did have to undergo it — I vaguely recall it being one of the conditions she had to agree to for her team not to be taken away from her. John Rocker also had that imposed on him — I just read his Wiki piece as well, and it does mention it, calling it “sensitivity training,” but he very intelligently and understandably says he never stayed in a “sensitivity” session more than 15 minutes before walking out, and apparently he got away with it.

John Rocker and Marge Schott: both fine, upstanding Americans and wonderful human beings! My kind of people!

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:16 | #

Re Clinton, anyone want to comment on why the last two Dem presidents have been bastards?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:44 | #

Ian Jobling has a new video out in which he, in effect, questions claims that Islam is something we can benefit from (claims made by the same people who constantly tell us how “vibrant,” and therefore highly desirable, Negroes are):

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/blog/blog/new_white_america_video_on_islam_on_youtube/

For me, the video’s high point came all the way at the end where, in its two or three closing sentences, Jobling finally got around to race instead of dwelling exclusively on culture, and explicitly questioned the wisdom of white people allowing non-whites to immigrate. Unless you know that most Moslems are racially non-Euro you might find that a bit of a non sequitur — here the narrator spent the whole video talking about Islam, which is not a race but a religion, and suddenly at the end he talks about race: what’s the connection? Nevertheless that ending was quite good, better than the whole rest of the video: it got down to the meat the matter.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:39 | #

Islam is NOTHING we can benefit from! Good Lord, take your head out of Goebbels’s diaries for a few minutes, and read Mark Steyn’s AMERICA ALONE (I don’t care if Steyn is Jewish, and neoconnishly inadequate: his arguments are devastating). As I said recently (I’m re-posting, as I think this bears repeating, even endlessly, until it sinks in):

Islam is the eternal enemy of the West, as well as the chief ideological cover for the coming global war of racial annihilation directed at whites (note I say ‘whites’ not Aryans, because our modern, non-white racial enemies do not distinguish between Jews and Aryans in their hatred for both groups). The Muslim is the battering ram destroying Europe, through passive demographics, and active terrorism. There can be no alliance with Muslims, as they are the fastest growing demographic in the world, while our race is shrinking rapidly, and, in their fundamentalist guise, literally insane; in other words, they have no need to ally with us. They are coming to conquer us. They lust after power, initially, to steal the white man’s wealth and women, and eventually, to preside over the eternal darkness of an Islamic planet. No self-respecting European could ever tolerate Islam. It is profoundly alien to our minds, and utterly lacking in any joy or appreciation of that which makes life worth living.

Second, Islam, however, meaning militant opposition to it, is the key to the West’s survival. Why? As I have long observed, Western Man is Ethical Man. If he is to survive, he must have a universally valid justification (to satisfy his own ethicality, esp in adopting the hard, coercive measures which, physically, practically, are necessary for white racial survival; please, let no one imagine our race is going to endure without some applications of force, somewhere, even if done legally: eg, a nationalist government rounding up aliens for deportation; some will resist violently, at which point we must be prepared to shoot them). For the moment, for most whites as a sociological matter, racialist opposition to merely passive, State-allowed/encouraged race-replacement is not seen to be ethically acceptable, esp if it should involve violence. Many whites may dislike immigration, multiculturalism, etc, but they lack an ethical philosophy justifying their “prejudices”. We may oppose race-mixing, for example, but if those two people love each other ... who are we, most whites will say, to outlaw their attachment? I have a different view of ethics, and find it perfectly appropriate for a community to enact race-preservationist laws. But, again, at this historical juncture, most of my fellow whites disagree, while meanwhile each day we lose our homelands a little more, with the time in which to recover them running out ....

Islam changes this paralytic situation, precisely because it is a religion/ideology, and one historically hostile and confrontational towards Christianity. It is much easier to form an acceptable ethical justification for confrontation with Islam, than with black America, or hispanic immigrants, let alone with world Jewry. Islam and Muslim immigrants constitute the chief threat to Europe; they are also the easiest threat against which to develop an ethic of militant resistance. We in the West can either believe in God, or not. If no God, then no ethics, at least applied outside tribal bounds. But if we believe in God (as most white Americans in fact do), then that God is usually the Christian one. Thus, in opposing Islam, we can pose as defenders of Christ and His Church. That is a very powerful place to be, far more so than that occupied by whites who merely are racists not wanting to be integrated with blacks (not that there’s anything wrong with that, either, but the ethical justification is neither as strong nor as obvious).

But if we could get vast numbers of whites militantly confrontational with Islam, that aroused fury could easily then be turned in other directions ... The point is that the West is dying because the white man has lost his racial will, which in turn is due to ethical confusion. But once the white man can be induced to “come out fighting”, again, that newly, re-martialized spirit can be expected to carry over into other zones of racial conflict ... What is needed is that initial spark leading towards the revivification of white will, said spark, however, needing an ethical grounding, so to speak, which Islam preeminently provides.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:01 | #

The West will not survive through educationist arguments, and sentimental nationalist appeals. The process of ideological conversion is taking too long in light of demographic trends (declining white fertility as well as alien immigration). The only hope for our racial survival, I now believe, is to try to further the clash of civilizations with the Islamic world. The West needs a unifying enemy; Islam is not only the best on offer, it is perfect! Islamism unites (or could unite, with proper reasoning and propaganda) just about everybody, albeit for wildly divergent reasons: Christians, Jews, white racialists, feminists, gays, conservatives, libertarians, secularists, procedural liberals, even boozers and potheads ... basically just about everyone in the West who doesn’t want to live like some Arabian savage from the 7th century. Militant resistance to Islamism can easily be extended to other arenas of racial conflict, once the white man has reacquired his racial will.

Or we could continue to bitch about the Jews, even going so far as to praise Islamic terrorists who do not differentiate amongst “the infidels” in their nihilism. They hate Europeans as well as Jews, but hey, as long as they hate Jews, they must be OK. I state categorically that anti-semitism (as opposed to Judeo-realism, which is acceptable) is a barometer of the maturity of racialists. Liberate yourself from it, and groups like the BNP will grow ever stronger

Incidentally, if the white man ever musters the will necessary to destroy the Islamic presence in Europe - AND PROCEEDS TO DO SO - you will be amazed at how rapidly all other aspects of the white nationalist agenda will become possible (like, for example, removing Jews from opinion-moulding areas of national life) ...

There is a rational sequence we must follow to achieve our final agenda. We need a visibly distinct enemy. The Muslims have provided us with one.

Posted by q on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:44 | #

Excellent points Leon. In order to make Islam our central focus, first we must overcome the leftists. They protect Islam with as much zeal as abortion. Even the so called “conservatives” run interference for Muslims. For example: George W Bush, while literally standing in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, proclaimed “Islam is a religion of peace.” This is the type of incoherence spewing forth from our “leaders.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:07 | #

Leon, 1) you’re preaching to the choir here about excessive Moslem immigration being undesirable: you’re right, and everyone here agrees with you; 2) solving the problem (the problem of Moslems flooding into the West and taking over both culturally and racially) by counterattacking only Moslems won’t get race-replacement immigration halted or the racial damage already inflicted on Western demographies reversed: Moslems aren’t primarily the ones forcing all that on us. Yes, now that they’ve got a significant demographic presence in the West they’re active participants in continuing to force it on us but they’re not the primary culprits or the ones who invited themselves in in the first place way back before they had any presence here. A certain pro-incompatible-immigration fifth column dwelling among us, one A Finn, GW, CvH, and Ian Jobling think we should talk a lot less about, is the primary culprit and also has to be exposed for what it’s done and openly and aggressively countered and kept in check for any progress to be made.

Posted by q on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:09 | #

This is the type of incoherence spewing forth from our “leaders.”

Incongruence

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:11 | #

“George W Bush, while literally standing in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, proclaimed ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’ This is the type of incoherence spewing forth from our ‘leaders.’ “ (—q)

Who was the hidden script writer standing behind Bush, putting those words in his mouth? It wasn’t the Moslems and it wasn’t the WASPs like him. It was someone else.

These people like Bush and Clinton, these vermin, are put in the presidency and from that point forth are owned. Same with Blair and Brown. Their owners tell them what to say.

Posted by q on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:33 | #

Like you’ve said before, Fred: 70% of the funds for Dems, and 50% of the funds for GOP are contributed by Jews. The pols do the bidding of their contributors, not the will of the people.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:19 | #

“George W Bush, while literally standing in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center, proclaimed ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’ This is the type of incoherence spewing forth from our ‘leaders.’ ”

That is because he knew the actual religion that was responsible for the smoldering wreckage.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34 | #

Why embrace Islam? It’s adaptive. What Steyn can’t or won’t grasped, probably because of his commitment to equality, is that a European Muslim will not resemble the Arabian savage, because the European people are racially distinct from Semites. An Islamic Europe would no more resemble an Islamic Arabia than a Christian Europe resembled a Christian Africa. OBL was correct. The West is a debased, debauched and perverse world; a Weimar Republic writ large.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/haarman/terror_2.html

It will not come easily, but neither was Christianity a wholly evolved force. If it comes, it will serve Europe much better than Stoddard’s lurking “under-Man”.

If it doesn’t come then Al Ross will be right.

In the world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, ‘incredibly adaptive’ Islam’s practical application means that the (non-Muslim) Chinese, who comprise about 2% of that nation’s population, control about 80% of the corporate wealth.

In an Islamic Europe, where Europeans are displaced by Semitic/black Muslims, it will be a small high IQ European population that will control the majority of the wealth. It is the mitigating properties of evolution.

Posted by skeptical on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:54 | #

Scrooby,

Europeans like A Finn and GW can’t see it because they don’t have the numbers of Jews we have here. So why are they in the same soup if it’s the Jews doing it and they don’t have so many Jews? Because they’re strongly under our influence and we have TONS of Jews just as Lenin’s Soviet Union did.

Your argument runs as follows:

Premise 1: Jews control America (see MacDonald’s Culture of Critique)
Premise 2: America controls Europe
Conclusion: Jews control Europe

Now, the problem with this line of reasoning is that America doesn’t [ideologically] control Europe (e.g. Premise 2 is false). Europeans like GW and A Finn “can’t see it” because, as Europeans living in Europe, they know that Premise 2 is false from personal experience.

Posted by q on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:16 | #

Now, the problem with this line of reasoning is that America doesn’t [ideologically] control Europe (e.g. Premise 2 is false). Europeans like GW and A Finn “can’t see it” because, as Europeans living in Europe, they know that Premise 2 is false from personal experience.

Smooth move, skepticle. Grap the tiger by the tale! LOL

Posted by q on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:42 | #

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments