Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:12 | #

Perhaps Lee Barnes could find time to continue the discussion here, it would be interesting to hear his views on the transmutability of culture across ethnic boundaries.

After all, we are often instructed that acculturated second- or third-generation Afro-Asian immigrants are ‘as British as we are’.

But then perhaps the culture to which they been acculturated is not the one which Lee feels the need to preserve.

Posted by Rod Bateman on Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:51 | #

It almost seems to me that this argument is basically over symantics and ensuring that the people get the right idea behind the party. It’s all basically using different words but it all comes down to blood, culture and soil. They all come together. The BNP may be trying to defend britians culture but how they seem to want to do that (stop the massive immigration) will also serve in protecting the blood. It seems that protecting one will protect the other so I don’t really know why you two are arguing.

Posted by Prozium on Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:51 | #

“Defender of Liberty” - the name really says it all.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:56 | #

For Lee, race has too many presentational problems - and now it has a legal problem.  Meanwhile, a sizeable percentage of potential voters apparently mistake pictures of Spitfires and records by Vera Lynn for reasons to vote BNP.  Politics is a numbers game and Culturism represents an easy way to speak to lots of dumb people.

So I can see his argument.  I can see the electoral carot and the legal stick.  For people who believe that politics need have no sheet anchor against the winds of expediency it is very inviting.

But always the question must be: what sort of England do I seek to create?  If the answer to that is not “an English England and no other” then the principle of defering to expediency has been established.  Power has passed to those who set the political and legal agenda.  The future will belong to them, and certainly not to the English.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00 | #

For every Jared Taylor there are a hundred skinheads

I’m not sure how many times I have to post this in the community but here goes again: A majority of skinheads are non-racists or SHARPS. For every racist skinhead in this country, there are a hundred SHARPS.

An American Skin is a White man with a job who likes to wear Fred Perry. “British Nationalists” shouldn’t be so quick to condemn a target market.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:24 | #

The problem for the BNP in casting off from its ethnic moorings is that the market for non-racialist nationalist groupings is already close to saturation. Leaving aside the Celtic fringe, where ‘civic’ nationalism is now the predominant political idiom, in England the pitch on which the BNP would seem to want to pitch its new tent is already occupied by the English Democrats and, more ominously, UKIP.

That’s not even considering the ‘progressive nationalism’ (aka as ‘space not race’) being increasingly touted by the likes of Mark Perryman, Paul Kingsnorth and, erm…, Billy Bragg.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:42 | #

This is demoralizing.  How transparently Barnes elides the clear articulation of what is truly fought for and at stake - securing the physical existence of a few of the peoples which makes up our race.  One wonders where it will stop?  If majority culturism proves insufficient in stemming the tide of the genetic destruction of the British peoples, one can easily envision Barnes and his ilk retreating yet again to the alleged bastion of multi-culturism which would then be represented of permanent legitimacy.  One also can further envision Barnes and his ilk actually coming to believe their own bullshit as they rationalize their power getting as an end unto itself, as they preside over the managed decline of the existence of their people all the while telling themselves they did all they could.  This is not leadership, it is sophistry, what any second rate hack journalist can do all day long and does so for a living.

Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:44 | #

Actually this is a video I watched just before I read this post and highlights nationalism among non-white groups with Mongolian nationalists sporting Nazi emblems and against Chinese and Koreans in there country.
Even Have a Nazi themed bar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdV-wJyE3xE

Maybe that would be a way of getting rid of the Nazi stigma by highlighting other non-white countries that promote.
I hear they also ad Nazi themed bars in South Korea and India.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:51 | #

It’s at least good Barnes is opposing nonBritish white immigration. Polish etc. immigrants into Britain, Iceland, etc. are a greater threat than are more foreign immigrants because the white immigrants will more readily mix in. And the threat they pose isn’t as obvious or as likely to provoke a response.

I’m American.

Folks who call themselves “WN” aren’t all the same. There are different meanings to the term. I’ve used the term to refer to myself simply because “American nationalist” is too readily perverted into including blacks etc. as “American”. However, I don’t wish to mix with much blood outside northwestern Europe which is where America derives its blood. And with blood comes ancestral traditions - the two are largely the same, something Rudyard Kipling understood.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:55 | #

It’s worth taking the time to read Lee’s article in full at the link in GW’s original post. To the extent that it represents official party thinking, what is being proposed describes a major volte face for the BNP.

Under the overarching slogan of protecting British culture, the BNP is now it seems about to extend its core mission of protecting the interests of indigenous Britons to include looking out for other non-indigenous, but ‘naturalised’, Britons:

...Whilst the BNP represents the interests of the indigenous British it can also represent the interests of the Naturalised British citizens who are ASSIMILATED as we defend British culture.

Not being considered for representation are others, so-called ‘Colonisers’, who are:

... naturalised British or who are British citizens with naturalised British citizenship but also Dual Citizenship status based on Lex Sanguinis, who have a Right of Return to the homelands of their parents or grandparents and who have come to this nation not to assimilate but to impose their culture, religion, demands and values on the majority of indigenous British and the minority of naturalised British citizens.

Quite how the BNP proposes to separate the sheep from the goats at the point of membership application is not explained, but let’s assume the new constitution will include some artful language to that end. Also potentially problematic is the point that Fred raised, that is: how many of the assimilated New Brits might we be required to accommodate under a future BNP administration?  If the answer is lots, aren’t we basically back at square one?

Now,if only there were a DNA test for culture ...

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:01 | #

“Maybe that would be a way of getting rid of the Nazi stigma by highlighting other non-white countries that promote.”

Be careful of the non-white nationalists being too extreme. The Mongolians you mention there I know revere Khan.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:10 | #

And with blood comes ancestral traditions - the two are largely the same, something Rudyard Kipling understood.

Yet they are not the same damn it.  What will the BNP “leadership” do next, trot out some Negro in a kilt?  Also, that is the fundamental insufficiency of National Socialism as explicated by Yggdrasil, though his proposed “vaccine” is really none at all.  That is the fundamental insufficiency of myth, it masquerades as truth yet is not truth; and myths can be co-opted and manipulated by our enemies.  The lemmings will not understand the truth about themselves lest there be men courageous enough to stand by them loyal unto death to dispense it to them.  But this must be done in a systematic way, it must be a philosophy, which has the enduring strength to out live the perishable bone and sinew of the men who create and disseminate that philosophy.  Hitler and his clique died, and with them that chance at life in perpetuity for their people.  We must have a philosophy of indestructible strength, which will imbue our people with the knowledge that their existence in this world is of paramount importance, and inalienable legitimacy, before all the tides that erode towards death.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:15 | #

“Yet they are not the same damn it”

I meant ancestral traditions follow race; I meant a negro could not be made into a Celt.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:24 | #

The negro’s great grandchildren might become “Celts” if they and everyone else forgets their true origins… But what’s gained other than the undermining of the national distinction? Race is what we are. In this day of genetic testing, cultural bromides are less powerful at tricking people into thinking they’re a real nation. Only genetic reality is solid enough for a modern nation.

Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:37 | #

@Frank

I don’t mean we should support them just because there nationalist but it’s an interesting point that non-white groups admire Nazism and the idea of racial unity something that white groups have been exclusively attributed to.

So when someone saids that the BNP are facists or Nazis you could show them these pictures o Hitler themed bars in Asia.

http://www.who-sucks.com/people/dining-with-hitler-in-asia-hitler-themed-bars-restaurants

Posted by Leon Boliakov on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:48 | #

I hear that at a recent BNP meeting people were asked, if they’d had a parent or grandparent who’d opposed Hitler in WWII, to put up their hands in order to win applause.

    (Pity “Sir” Martin Gilbert wasn’t there.)

    Someone whose grandfather had fought for Franco in Spain didn’t fare so well, the implication being that descent from a member of the International Brigade would have been preferred.

    And THAT, I think, says it all about the BNP.

    It doesn’t have to be Spitfires and Vera Lynne: it can also be red telephone boxes and Brylcreme.

    I loved the Mongolian Nazis on the Youtube vid, but I agree with Frank’s recommended caution.
Marcus Garvey seems to have imported ideas and imagery from Nazism, and some Moslem ideologues have borrowed from the same source. It may NOT be a safeguard of peculiarly White interests, then.

    Quote of the week: “I just LOVE to hear a black man speaking with a Welsh or a Scouse accent!”.

    Yeah, lak I jus’ love hearin’ da white kids talkin’ dat black twatois, innit?

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:05 | #

JamesUK,

I’m all for Salter’s universal nationalism which would among other things accomplish what you say (demonstrating that nonwhites can be racially oriented too). I’m simply wary of that particular Mongolian group.

In the US we have a Latino group here called “La Raza”. They tell the whites here (somehow Americans are far more gullible than are Europeans) their name merely means “the people” and that they’re not “racist”, though whites of course are often or always “racist”... We’ve also got Jewish, black, and recently Asian advocate groups. It’s only a matter of time before they can no longer prevent a comparable white advocate group - the question though is “when?”

-

here‘s the article. That is NOT the sort of group I want associated with nationalism. While I understand and respect the concern that China might absorb Mongolia, that group is less than ideal.

Japan has a more reasonable right wing, and less explicit nationalism is very mainstream there. Were it not for the evil empire’s military bases there, Japan might be healthier. Note: the group I linked to is small and aging… Nevertheless, it’s sensible and sane.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:33 | #

“Also consider that about 50% of British-born negroes take a white female, despite their obvious alienness.”

Incredible! I had no idea. The male-female ratio must be unbalanced somehow.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:51 | #

Actually, the mixing does make sense: blacks wish for white partners, and a small percentage of the much larger British population is willing to accept low standards.

It makes sense, I’d just never suspected it.

The only reason I meant blacks are preferred to Polish immigrants is because I’d assumed the blacks would be less likely to assimilate. Britain only recently (last century) has a significant nonwhite population, so it should be fairly easy to locate and repatriate them and their descendants.

Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:02 | #

@Frank

I’m not supporting international nationalist groups in fact quite a few are on the payroll of the CIA/NED and other foreign intelligence like Albanian KLA, Chechens, Uighars, Crimean Tatars, etc all involved in terrorism and organised crime benefiting a geo-political agenda.

I’m just saying it is a good reference point to people who think fascist nationalist movements are exclusively white and others groups are essentially egalitarian with no axe to grind.

I point I’ve mentioned before as well is that immigrant groups also have there own organised crime groups like in the case of Europe Albanian crime gangs/network especially in Italy and the UK

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:15 | #

I’ll take the Poles over our ‘vibrant’ Britons any day.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:24 | #

Maybe Im an old softy but I find WN more appealing (perhaps it appeals to my liberal self) than what LJB seems to steering towards, a Britishness that can be diverted off into all sorts of blind alleys.

It can’t be impossible to construct a WN framework which which allows various white ethnic groups to survive while still co-operating at the global level of ‘whiteness’. With regard to this in the British Isles we have to find a way to settle the lingering problems of Northern Ireland in some way WN could be built into this solution, otherwise we are very much fighting over the deckchairs as the Titanic sinks, never mind rearranging them.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:45 | #

Regarding racial mixing in the UK, it is still (thankfully) quite low.

I saw a study a week or two ago, which I will attempt to locate again, which showed that (from memory) 98% of indigenous males and 99% of indigenous females have spouses or partners from the same ethnic group.

Given that Afro-Caribbean migrants and their descendants comprise only around 2% of the population, it is easy to contemplate how up to half of them might have taken white partners.

It’s important that these figures are taken in the correct context and not used to spread alarm and despondency unnecessarily.

Posted by Robert Reis on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:58 | #

Lovely video from Mongolia!

I cannot understand the objection to immigrants from white countries since the defining characterist of the natives is alcoholism and the admiration of bullies. This probably explains the BNP’s worship at the shrine of Churchill. White immigrants can only improve the UK.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:02 | #

British Nationalism is a political movement designed to represent and promote the interests of the Indigenous British people, whilst white nationalism represents the interests of all whites worldwide.

This difference is of fundamental importance in relation to issues like immigration.

A white nationalist welcomes mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indigenous British folk.

IME that’s generally characterized as “Pan-European” WNism.

Barnes overstates his case.  In any event, I self-identify as an ethnic nationalist, so I’m more in alignment with Barnes than the strawish opponent he attacks, but the matter is hardly as settled within WNism as he implies.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:31 | #

Im not advocating replacement by Poles. Given the current nature of immigration into the UK, limiting it to Polish?European immigration would be an improvement. In the overall scheme of things limited movement of Poles to England (or vice versa) would be a vastly lesser evil than the demographic madness advocated by mainstream multiculturalists.

I wouldnt go as far as to say I welcome mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indigenous British folk. But if there is going to be any immigration at all, however limited in scope, those are the people we should be selecting.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:40 | #

Ive had a couple of people voicing mild discontent about Poles in Britain to me in the last few weeks. This might be the stirrings of more overt nationalism, but this from people I dont believe have ever uttered a squeek about the more obvious problems of other more vibrant immigrants.

I see it more as another example of divide & rule. The MSM here know the rules of the game are changing, mutterings of dissent are being voiced - as long as it towards Poles and other incomers. The liberal/left would rather die than allow the same approach to blacks or asian muslims.

They want to talk up ‘foreign’ and avoid race.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:51 | #

Given that Afro-Caribbean migrants and their descendants comprise only around 2% of the population

LOL!  Anyone who watches BBC knows that can’t be true!

Posted by Texan on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:16 | #

LOL!  Anyone who watches BBC knows that can’t be true! wink

Anyone who watches England’s WCQ match on Wednesday against Croatia won’t get that impression either, with as many as 5 negroes starting for the “English” side, with perhaps 2 more coming off of the bench.  It’s like there’s some perverted competition between the English and the French to see who can cram more Africans onto their national side.  But I digress. 

The fact that the policies of white nationalism if enacted into law would destroy British culture by importing into the country millions of culturally disparate whites from around the world to replace culturally british non-whites

 

This seems a far cry from the position in the official BNP Activist’s Handbook that there isn’t such a thing as a non-white British person.  I say stop worrying about “culturally british” non-whites.  Preserve British blood and the culture will follow.

Yes it is simple - we either get voted into power or we lose everything.

People dont vote for racialist parties.

 

Uh oh.  Sounds like the BNP is on the road towards aping the Tories or the GOP.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:00 | #

Even supposedly all-white countries like Croatia are not darkie free. They are likely to feature their own Brazilian ‘Eduardo’ in Wednesday’s match against England.

Germany, in Saturday’s contest against South Africa fielded a Brazilian negro, a Turk and a Moroccan. At half-time the DFB (Federal Football Association) aired a promotional spot purporting to be a multicultural garden barbecue featuring a whole ethnic smorgasbord including negros, Asiams and a woman in a burqa with the tagline “Our children play for the German national team’.

“DFB wirbt mit “Integrationsspot” für Multikulti”

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIRCLbsIeb8

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:49 | #

EU White immigration to UK is, unfortunately, useful in the demographic dilution of the racial poison of Third World Settlers.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:51 | #

Mr. Barnes argument looks like the result of letting the Left dictate to the Right the terms and definitions which the Right uses for their own ideology and members.
This keeps the Right on the defense rather than the offense.

As for his point about Americans and White Nationalism, I live in one of the most racially conscience places left here. A place where people don’t hesitate to state aloud that they would never vote for a black President because he is black, and yet I’ve never seen a skinhead or neo-Nazi here in my entire life.

I very much want England to stay English, and Scotland to stay Scottish and Wales to stay Welsh and so on. In fact I see the preservation of Europe and her distinct peoples as the number one goal of White Nationalism.
America could fall, and The West would live on. Australia and Canada could fall and The West would live on. But if Europe falls, The West is lost.

More than that, if England is lost (with the English people being mixed out of existence -even with other European peoples-) then Europe is lost and The West is no more.

I think most people acknowledge, to one degree or another, that, in terms of symbolic representation, for the past 500 years, England is The West and The West is England.

...

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:02 | #

This word Islamophobe is the recurring decimal point of WNP’s comment offering. Why would, say, the Islamophobia of a displaced Yorkshireman in his native Bradford meet with your disapproval, WNP?

Dan Dare is a very erudite fellow, albeit somewhat averse to the Germans’ WW2 narrative, and if you, WNP, intend to influence opinion then you might wish to concentrate on the issues at hand.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:52 | #

I do realise that ‘a displaced Yorkshireman in his native Bradford’ sounds somewhat odd. What I meant to evoke is the unutterable misery of evacuating a sadly immigration prone, uninhabitable area of the city in which a happy English childhood was spent and relocating to a different (and sustainably White?) area.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:20 | #

Greetings people,

As you chose to post on my blog and answered my questions I shall reciprocate and answer your questions here.

First some fundamentals ;

1) The BNP is a political party. Therefore we must get elected into power, that requires a populist apporach. In order to get into power to save our Folk, Nation and Culture, we must be elected. Politics is the art of the possible, not ideological posturing that alienates mass support.

2) Ethno-Nationalism based on indigenous rights and the preservation of indigenous Folk cultures is the basis of British Nationalism. Pan-Euroepan Aryanism, WN or NS is not British Nationalism. Those traditions are despised by the British public who will not vote for them, and they already have a choice to do with the National Front, the once largest nationalist party in the UK - now a pathetic rump of skinheads and die hard nazis who promote the ideology of Nazism wrapped in the British flag.

They have no councillors and no representation. Therefore if the British public wanted WN ideology, even one wrapped in a British flag, then they have not voted for it.

3) We are changing the constitution not because we want too, but because we have too. Those who wish us to adopt a political ‘Titanic Strategy’ and speed up as we head towards the iceberg in order to depict the imminent demise of the BNP as a ‘glorious defeat’ are idiots. We are being attacked not because they think we are a joke, but because they fear that we will evolve at some point into a mass movement.

As I keep saying to people - It is not how you get into power that matters, it is what you do when you are in power that counts.

The politics of nationalism over the last fifty years have been ideologically incoherent, strategically and tactically useless and marked only be perpetual failure. Therefore nationalism must evolve. The era of impotent posturing must be replaced by populist politics.

The Far Left have gone from a tiny group of despised revolutionaries in the 196’s to running every political party and institution in both the UK and US - political correctness dominates all political parties, the churches, the public institutions etc - the Far Left won in the battle between ideas, politics and tactics. The Far Right failed. Therefore we must learn from the Far Left and deploy similar tactics, not adopt nationalist politicial autism and ignore reality. Gramscian, Entryism and political Populism but with a nationalist perspective must replace the failed methodology of the right. Learn from the winners, dont copy the losers.

4) I will now answer some of the points raised ;

       
Firstly I would like to know whether he is familiar with the concept of ethnic genetic interests, and basic race realism. I agree to an extent that as he said, even in American terms, WN is not entirely supported by science. This is only because I find that American WNs are hostile to the idea that whiteness works and is admissible as a kind of social construct, and they speak as though race has a real value beyond the contingent fact that Euro interests are presently linked to a high degree - which as far as genetic identity goes, it does not. However, he might have meant something else.

= Yes I am familiar with the concept of Ethnic Interests, but as the history of Europe shows us - the concept of White racial solidarity is a myth. More whites in white nations have been killed by fellow whites in other white nations than have ever been killed by non-whites in non-white nations. In the US a White Nationalist movement, devoid of any specifity related to ethnicity and national culture other than American, must arise if the US whites are to survive. But in the UK our struggle and situation is different - we are still homogenous ethnic and cultural units ( English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Ulster Anglo) who can coalesce around the British flag as representing our interests. Ethno-Nationalism is a potent force, but the idea of white european solidarity is regarded with almost visceral hatred. The folk memory of our people is still strong about WW2 and hate for the EU rampant - therefore the politics of white solidarity is also despised and revilled.

The concept of white racial solidarity in a european context has merit in relation to forming a nexus of pan-national links to defusing nationalist tensions between sovereign nations, but the ideal of ethno-nationalism is based on localism - ethno-nationalism repudiates imperialism and states that ’ This land is our land, and we want no other ‘- so at the level of ethno-nationalism, racial solidarity is superfluous, as the causes of conflict that could bring down the white nations of Europe will no longer occur.         

Secondly he should clear up his position on ethnic-race and culture, unless he is not at liberty to do this. Does he care about race (or British genetic identity, rather) but think that this must be suppressed for political ends, or does he genuinely not care about it? And if he cares about ethnic-race, surely he should care about his ethnic similars in other countries, even if they are not the focus of his attention.

= The concept of Race re all whites are genetically homogenous is clearly false. If all whites were the same as each other, and ethnic genetic differences did not exist, then the white race as a homogenous entity would exist. It doesnt. Ethnic genetic differences show the white race is now divided into ethnic sub sets.

I depict this a tree symbol.

Our roots are the Cro-Magnons of Europe who are the direct ancestors of all modern Europeans.

Then comes the White Race which evolved in Europe as a homogenous racial entity from the Cro-Magnons. This is the trunk of the tree.

Then comes the branches which are the ethnic sub sets of the white racial group. These are the ethnic national units of the white race eg English, Germans, Welsh etc who have over time evolved into ethnic sub sets with genetic differences between them based on ethnicity and geography.

Then comes the twigs which are family lines.

Then finally the leaves which are the individuals.

Though we all share roots, the fact is the tree has grown.

Therefore whilst I care about the history of my ancestors and my kin in other nations , the struggle I fight today is for the survival of my Folk, Nation and Culture.

These are my specificities and commonalities - that I can fight for, I cannot as a politician who understands that in order to save my Folk, Nation and Culture we must get into power embrace or espouse concepts that will harm the political transition into power.

Ethno-Nationalism is an organic philosophy based on what is, where we are and where we need to go in order to survive.

The 14 Words concept is simply unworkable in relation to contemporary politics, and as the aim of politics is to get into power,  such posture politics must be abandoned for realism.

Nationalists and Racialists have spent too long trying to impose their politics on the masses rather than going with the grain and adopting nationalist politics in order to appeal to the masses.

We live in a world where the masses are enslaved to media conditioning - therefore we must exist in the world as it, rather than as we would wish it.

Nationalism is now at its transition point - we have less than thirty years to get into power in order to save our Folk, Nation and Culture and we cannot waste any more time on the politics and rhetoric of racial and ideological purism.

My goal is clear - get into power, stop all immigration, remove all those in this nation who will not assimilate into British culture and ensure that the indigenous British people remain a demographic majority in their own homeland forever.

As long as the 1- 4 % of non-indigenous Naturalised British Citizens who remain ( as opposed to Ethnic Britons who will be the 96 % ) are assimilated into British culture as opposed to being colonists, then we have won.

Our future is secured. The demographic timebomb is defused forever.

If all other white nations could do this then the ‘white race’ would be saved.

In order to do this we cannot remain a fringe movement on the margins of mainstream politics, we must become a massive political movement that realises comprimise is needed.

Sometimes we must lose a battle in order to win the war.

Churchill realised Dunkirk was a lost battle, but that by retereating it allowed us to win WW2. Hitler was unwilling to retreat from Stalingrad, and thereby lost the war.

The era where ‘No Surrender to common sense’ was the rallying cry of the Nationalists must end.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:03 | #

My goal is clear - get into power, stop all immigration, remove all those in this nation who will not assimilate into British culture and ensure that the indigenous British people remain a demographic majority in their own homeland forever.

As long as the 1- 4 % of non-indigenous Naturalised British Citizens who remain ( as opposed to Ethnic Britons who will be the 96 % ) are assimilated into British culture as opposed to being colonists, then we have won.

Our future is secured. The demographic timebomb is defused forever.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 08, 2009, 09:20 AM

May I ask where those percentages come from?

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:01 | #

Lee,

Welcome to our house.  I didn’t want to face-off with you too much at your blog because my purpose is certainly not to cause confusion among your readers.  Debate-wise, though, this is the US of A, and the regulation reserve which characterises thinking Englishmen in their own homes is ... well, less necessary.

So ...

You write of saving “our Folk, Nation and Culture”.  Let’s look at that phrase a little.  It contains, I think you will agree, a number of assumptions.  It is not chosen thoughtlessly.  The word “Folk”, for instance, does not carry the same resonance as “race” or even “people”.  It is imbued with the association of things lived, of gentle ways, common feeling.  It is not cold and utilitarian and true like “genes”.  It is, essentially, artful, already turning towards the widening of the constituency, already political.

That is important because it shows that you are, at the very beginning, conceiving purpose without the hard edge of certainty of a thoroughgoing empiricist.  A lot flows later from that.

You then write: Politics is the art of the possible, not ideological posturing that alienates mass support.

So now you have gone further and characterised that hard-edged empiricism as mere behaviour and, probably, personal vanity, while at the same time declaring it alienating to the masses.  Intellectualism IS alienating to the masses, Lee.  There’s no doubt about it.  But let’s try a little of it and see where it gets us.

The Sun Absolute in human affairs is genetic transmission, as it is in all Nature.  There is nothing known beyond that, no purpose that we can model or articulate or, and this is important, subject to the falsification process.  And, as children of Anglo-American thought, we are bound hand and foot to these things and, therefore, to this cold, harsh starting point.  We must attempt to understand and explain the world according to our way of thinking.  Anything else - a flight into faith or the romanticism of beauty and glory - will be poisoned by our ineradicable attachment to Truth.

Even Friedrich Braun, a sometime commenter here and a great champion of the National Socialism of the Third Reich, understands the import of this, and disavows his beloved politics outside Germany.  It does not mean that a philosophy of nationalism, should it be possible to build one up in the Anglosphere, has to falsify the human heart as Darwinism falsified Genesis.  It means that Truth is the starting point for everything, and in our nationalist hearts the echo of that is fealty to blood.

So, Lee, that’s the lie of the land, so to speak.  Now, by waltzing with the romantic, with culture, you are moving to a point where you must contest with Truth.  And the nature of the contest will be this:  Is all blood welcome in and to this land?  If the answer is yes, then, as Nick told Andrew Marr, the English are nothing.  Assimilation at any level answers that question in the positive.

I will finish this comment there.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:06 | #

Hi chaps,

I will reply later to your comments but first I would ask that you e mail the individual here about this atrocious article in Newsweek mentioned in the links below ;

Newsweek was set up by Eugene Isaac Meyer (October 31, 1875 – July 17, 1959) was an American financier, public official, publisher of the Washington Post newspaper. He served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. He was the father of publisher Katharine Graham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Meyer

Todays main owner of Newsweek is his daughter Katherine Graham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Graham

In 1988, Graham gave a speech at the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia:[1]

“ We live in a dirty and dangerous world…There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

The Newsweek article is written by mentally ill self loathing white liberals who want to teach white children ‘ethnic guilt’ at the same time as preaching ‘Black Pride’ - these white liberals are mentally and deserve to be rounded up and incarcerated in mental institutions.

This article is total bollocks.

This is a copy of the e mail I have just sent Barbara Vittrup at the University of Texas ;

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I have just read the Newsweek magazine article that references your research work and I just wanted to say that as far as I can see it was the product of a mentally ill, self loathing white liberal who deserves incarceration in a mental health facility.

Your research gave succour to this sickness.

Truly’ Physician heal thyself’.

That idea that brainwashing white children to ignore their natural instincts and loathe themselves on the basis of their skin colour will lead to a non-racial liberal society is the same sort of insanity we saw in the Soviet Union - and these people who listen and read this nonsense are teachers and academics.

They deserve arrest and imprisonment.

Note this bit in the main article ” The other broad category of conversation, in Harris-Britt’s analysis, is ethnic pride. From a very young age, minority children are coached to be proud of their ethnic history. She found that this was exceedingly good for children’s self-confidence; in one study, black children who’d heard messages of ethnic pride were more engaged in school and more likely to attribute their success to their effort and ability.

That leads to the question that everyone wonders but rarely dares to ask. If “black pride” is good for African-American children, where does that leave white children? It’s horrifying to imagine kids being “proud to be white.” Yet many scholars argue that’s exactly what children’s brains are already computing. Just as minority children are aware that they belong to an ethnic group with less status and wealth, most white children naturally decipher that they belong to the race that has more power, wealth, and control in society; this provides security, if not confidence. So a pride message would not just be abhorrent—it’d be redundant.”

Yet in the previous pages of the article the author notes that ;

1) White children are not taught about race by their cringing white liberal parents, so therefore how can children understand they are members of a ‘race’ that has more power and wealth if parents dont talk about race to them ?

2) If children do not understand the notion of equality, how then can they be said to understand the notion of inequality ?

3) How are children taught , and by whom, that whites are more wealthy than blacks - schools dont and parents dont, so this is another proposition with no evidence at all by the idiot who wrote the article

4) How are white children taught about the ‘control of whites’ over society when they do not even know they are white ( they are not even talked to about their race by their parents and do not even understand how to define their own skin colour as ‘white’ according to the article writer in previous paragraphs)

Do you really support this sick, disturbed nonsense.

The idea that white children must be taught ‘Ethnic Guilt’ and Blacks taught ‘Racial Pride’ is like the Nazis teaching children about ‘superhuman Aryans’ and ‘subhuman Jews’.

Is this the Liberal Fascist society in its making revealed here ?

The idea that social engineering will triumph over natural instincts led to the Gulags of the Soviet Union and the Concentration Camps of the Nazis.

My god woman, you should be ashamed of yourself giving succour to the Liberal Fascists that wish to create a dystopia based on teaching white children to loathe themselves, their skin and their racial heritage.

No doubt you will be happy when white kids are found cowering in cupboards painting their skin black so they can eradicate the disease of their skin colour.

People like you are mentally diseased and evil.

You would allow white children to suffer in order to normalise your own sick mental illness of racial self loathing.

Not only are you fetishising blacks, you are projecting our own self hate onto white children.

Your are a danger to yourself, a danger to white children and a danger to our society.

Either resign or condemn this article.

L. J. Barnes LLB (Hons)

Note the article below about a recent article in Newsweek ;

http://cofcc.org/?p=6589

06 Sep

Newsweek’s War on White People: “It’s horrifying to imagine kids being proud to be white.”

CofCC.org News Team

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:24 | #

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

To the extent such is legal and popular, expulsion and not assimilation should be the policy. Selling out there might later come to haunt the BNP (e.g. difficulty arguing against further immigration).

I fear the Brits are heading down the identical path we Americans took.

You write off nonpolitical actions as being less valuable, but that white-history.com website hosted by a BNP member might in the long run do as much good as the BNP itself.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:31 | #

Hi chaps,

Thanks for the invite into the community.

1) The figures are guess-stimates - I anticipate that of the 9 million immigrants in the country about half are willing to assimilate into British culture and half are colonists. That means about half have to leave. I suspect another 1-1.5 million are illegals as we will define them, so I anticipate that after a few years we would have a population of immigrants around 3 million in a nation of around 56 million.

2) The word Folk implies an indigenous people with an organic connection to the land, a national culture and a British Constitution.

Folk is where we are today in Britain, Race is where we were when we evolved in Europe.

Folk for us is Empiricist, Race an abstraction.

As Americans you have a connection to the land based on history, but you are not indigenous to America and therefore I understand that you do not have a ‘Folkish consciousness’ - though I suspect those of you with English, Irish etc roots would understand what a Folk consciousness is if you returned to visit your ancestral homelands where your ancestors evolved and took a walk in an English wood or had a pint in a rual Irish pub or visited Newgrange or Stonhenge.

What you define as intellectualism eg Folk, Nation and Culture, are to us the antithesis of intellectualism - they are the organic realities of our everyday lives as opposed to an ideological viewpoint such as race which is rooted in abstract history and the ‘coldness’ of genetic research.

We live as a Folk, we do not live as a race.

You say ’ as children of Anglo-American thought ’ - well that is what you are.

We are children of Anglo-Saxon culture, soil, nationality and blood - not just thought.

To us race is romanticism, whilst folk, soil and culture are our organic realities.

Your ‘truth’ is not our truth - for all truth (other than scientific truth) is nothing more than a cultural artefact. 

Your truth as an American in relation to your racial consciouness, is not my truth as an Anglo-Saxon with an ethnic consciousness living in the same homeland that my ancestors of Irish and English ancestry have lived in for thousands of years.

We are rooted to this earth, you were torn from this earth and transplanted elsewhere - therefore you have never felt the power or beauty of an organic connection to the sacred earth of a Heimat, a homeland based on a natural and organic connection as opposed to loyalty to abstractions of history and civic nationalism.

The blood welcome in this land is blood of this land.

The Folk welcome in this land are Folk from this land.

The immigrants are not of our Folk and never will be, but as long as we remain the demographic majority in our homeland then we need not worry about them at all.

Better a victory that secures our place as the indigenous people, that secures British culture and that secures the sovereignity of the British nation - than the slow suicide of political posturing.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:05 | #

I don’t think the issue is over folk v. race (many here including myself are “folkists” by your definition), but rather over whether the tree you previously used as an analogy ought to be fused with another tree in some Frankenstein project. Neither Indians nor Russians are British. That an Indian has lived in Britain for two generations doesn’t make him folk.

My concern is in making your Faustian bargain with the Devil for political power, you’ll fail to negotiate the best price. Though God’s an Anglo-Saxon, the Devil’s of a merchant race; and he will bargain.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:39 | #

I don’t think the issue is over folk v. race (many here including myself are “folkists” by your definition), but rather over whether the tree you previously used as an analogy ought to be fused with another tree in some Frankenstein project. Neither Indians nor Russians are British. That an Indian has lived in Britain for two generations doesn’t make him folk.

My concern is in making your Faustian bargain with the Devil for political power, you’ll fail to negotiate the best price. Though God’s an Anglo-Saxon, the Devil’s of a merchant race; and he will bargain.

= The intent is to prune back the twigs in order to save the tree.

Of course Indians are not Ethnic British, as much as Russians are not ethnic british, but the fact is that racial politics do not get voted into power, so we must embrace a populist path in order to get into power.

That doesnt mean we intend to encourage miscegination, the aim is to minimse miscegination by removing surplus non-indigenous British populations from the UK who are here as colonists and leave only those who wish to assimilate into British culture - not assimilate into the British gene pool.

All politics is a Faustian bargain. The idea is to get the best bargain as possible.

The price we are currently paying the devil is far too high and for no reward.

The devil can set the conditions of the present contract only as long as the devil knows he is the one with all the power, for as soon as the devil realises that his power is slipping away then he will be forced to negotiate a bargain with us rather than simply issuing demands and setting terms - and the more power we get after we strike that new bargain - then the more the devil must come back and re-negotiate with us if we demand it.

At the moment we are not even at the negotiation table.

Once we are then who is to say we cannot and will not demand future re-negotiations.

All truly long lasting revolutions are achieved step by step with consent, not with paroxsyms of violence imposed upon an unwilling populace.

You cannot tell the fish to swallow the hook, it must want to take the bait.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:41 | #

Folk is where we are today in Britain, Race is where we were when we evolved in Europe.

No, Lee.  Really, really no.  That is a false distinction.  Google “Gene Map Europe” if you have to.  But get away from the idea that evolution somehow stopped applying to Europe’s ethnic groups twenty-five thousand years ago.  We are not primarily a culture.  We carry genes which are distinct to us.

Folk for us is Empiricist, Race an abstraction.

Well, you are wrong.  “Folk” is noumenon, “race” phenomenon.

As Americans ...

You are addressing Englishmen, Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, an Italian-American and an expat Scot.  And that’s just the ones I know about.

What you define as intellectualism eg Folk, Nation and Culture

One of us is confused.

they are the organic realities of our everyday lives as opposed to an ideological viewpoint such as race which is rooted in abstract history and the ‘coldness’ of genetic research.

I was writing about the big, fat ideational Momma that birthed your mind, whose petticoat you can never let go (though in the English-speaking world she’s actually wearing a lab coat, not a petticoat).

Lee, you are simply repeating the same labelling process which orders your ideology for you.  I know what you think.  Ideology is never very difficult to apprehend.

We are children of Anglo-Saxon culture, soil, nationality and blood - not just thought.

To us race is romanticism, whilst folk, soil and culture are our organic realities.

For my part, I have been explaining the context of your thought as well as mine.  You are not grasping what I have said because you label first and think later.  So, for example, you have decided to diss “race” (and done so for party-ideologoical reasons), but in the process lost your connection to our being.  As proof of that, you label our being “abstract”, exactly as though it did not matter.  “Folk” you label otherwise.  It matters, you say.  Well, when a dumb-ass girl opens her legs for a negro in some club toilet she isn’t passing on half of our “folk” so the resultant progeny can be assimilable, according to you.  Genes are immortal.  She is participating in the killing of our people.  There is nothing abstract about that.  It is all too real.

Only one of us can be right about this, Lee.  And it’s me.

We are children of Anglo-Saxon culture, soil, nationality and blood - not just thought.

Your ‘truth’ is not our truth - for all truth (other than scientific truth) is nothing more than a cultural artefact.

Romanticism.  We are children of the Industrial Revolution.  We are children of the 20th Century wars.  We are children of the postmodern age.  We are many things, and that is the danger of culture.  You must select.  But what makes your selection more true or more defensible than another man’s?  Nothing.  You are merely labelling and constructing a reality for your political purpose.  Step away from that and look at the qualitative value of your thought, if you can.  Don’t just plough on in the expectation that Truth will meet up with you at some point.  Begin with what is true and go on from there.

Your truth as an American in relation to your racial consciouness, is not my truth as an Anglo-Saxon with an ethnic consciousness living in the same homeland that my ancestors of Irish and English ancestry have lived in for thousands of years.

We are rooted to this earth, you were torn from this earth and transplanted elsewhere ...

Very funny.  Sooner or later someone will tell you my ethnicity and where I live, have always lived, will always live.  It’s east of Plymouth Rock, btw.

Better a victory that secures our place as the indigenous people, that secures British culture and that secures the sovereignity of the British nation - than the slow suicide of political posturing.

Lines have to be drawn, Lee.  If you drift onward without clear principles, simply repeating the words of your “Folk” song, you will consign our people to the permanent ingress of racial aliens, permanent miscegenation, and an on-going struggle to survive.  That is the effect of time on the will of men, I’m afraid.

The world of the future has not been set in concrete by the forces which seek to extend their dominion over us through negrification and Asian race-replacement.  It still awaits to be made.  Yes, by all means have your politics ... stay legal ... survive to fight another day.  But if a philosophy of our survival does not materialise we shall not survive.  Should you ever become the masters of our people’s fate under such a circumstance you will not serve us to that end.  That is what you have said.  That is what, as a thinking Englishman, I decry.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:50 | #

That “Letter to the Editor” is very good, btw.  But it just might not get published!

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:02 | #

my responses prefixed by =

Folk is where we are today in Britain, Race is where we were when we evolved in Europe.

No, Lee.  Really, really no.  That is a false distinction.  Google “Gene Map Europe” if you have to.  But get away from the idea that evolution somehow stopped applying to Europe’s ethnic groups twenty-five thousand years ago.  We are not primarily a culture.  We carry genes which are distinct to us.

= really. So no genetic commonalities exist between the Anglo-Saxon English and no genetic differences exist between the Celts. Of course they do. Race has evolved into Folk. 

Folk for us is Empiricist, Race an abstraction.

Well, you are wrong.  “Folk” is noumenon, “race” phenomenon.

= No - race was phenomon, folk is now phenomenon.

As Americans ...

You are addressing Englishmen, Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, an Italian-American and an expat Scot.  And that’s just the ones I know about.

= living in their respective folk nations or America ?

What you define as intellectualism eg Folk, Nation and Culture

One of us is confused.

= no, one of us is refusing to accept reality.

they are the organic realities of our everyday lives as opposed to an ideological viewpoint such as race which is rooted in abstract history and the ‘coldness’ of genetic research.

I was writing about the big, fat ideational Momma that birthed your mind, whose petticoat you can never let go (though in the English-speaking world she’s actually wearing a lab coat, not a petticoat).

= no, you hold the ideational momma of race, unable to stop suckling upon her emaciated and dried up tit for fear of entering into the adult world of reality as opposed to the infantile certainties of childhood where we were all one race.

Lee, you are simply repeating the same labelling process which orders your ideology for you.  I know what you think.  Ideology is never very difficult to apprehend.

= no, you are simply trying to defend an ideological myth as opposed to accepting biological reality.

We are children of Anglo-Saxon culture, soil, nationality and blood - not just thought.

To us race is romanticism, whilst folk, soil and culture are our organic realities.

For my part, I have been explaining the context of your thought as well as mine.  You are not grasping what I have said because you label first and think later.  So, for example, you have decided to diss “race” (and done so for party-ideologoical reasons), but in the process lost your connection to our being. 

= what is this ‘our’, is this another reference to momma white race ?

As proof of that, you label our being “abstract”, exactly as though it did not matter.  “Folk” you label otherwise.  It matters, you say.  Well, when a dumb-ass girl opens her legs for a negro in some club toilet she isn’t passing on half of our “folk” so the resultant progeny can be assimilable, according to you.  Genes are immortal.  She is participating in the killing of our people.  There is nothing abstract about that.  It is all too real.

= so you would rather posture about race and allow that process to occur in perpetuity, than be voted into power and minimse it happening in the future. Spare me the facile posture politics, we have had enough of pygmies in jackboots posturing as political giants in half empty pubs filled with pissed up idiots. 

Only one of us can be right about this, Lee.  And it’s me.

= In your own mind. 

We are children of Anglo-Saxon culture, soil, nationality and blood - not just thought.

Your ‘truth’ is not our truth - for all truth (other than scientific truth) is nothing more than a cultural artefact.

Romanticism.  We are children of the Industrial Revolution.  We are children of the 20th Century wars.  We are children of the postmodern age.  We are many things, and that is the danger of culture.  You must select.  But what makes your selection more true or more defensible than another man’s?  Nothing.  You are merely labelling and constructing a reality for your political purpose.  Step away from that and look at the qualitative value of your thought, if you can.  Don’t just plough on in the expectation that Truth will meet up with you at some point.  Begin with what is true and go on from there.

= Truth is Folk. Race is now myth.

Your truth as an American in relation to your racial consciouness, is not my truth as an Anglo-Saxon with an ethnic consciousness living in the same homeland that my ancestors of Irish and English ancestry have lived in for thousands of years.

We are rooted to this earth, you were torn from this earth and transplanted elsewhere ...

Very funny.  Sooner or later someone will tell you my ethnicity and where I live, have always lived, will always live.  It’s east of Plymouth Rock, btw.

= then wake up, look around and see the world we are living in and stop posturing. 

Better a victory that secures our place as the indigenous people, that secures British culture and that secures the sovereignity of the British nation - than the slow suicide of political posturing.

Lines have to be drawn, Lee.  If you drift onward without clear principles, simply repeating the words of your “Folk” song, you will consign our people to the permanent ingress of racial aliens, permanent miscegenation, and an on-going struggle to survive.  That is the effect of time on the will of men, I’m afraid.

= mere rhetorical nonsense. Our lines are defined by reality, not myths. 

The world of the future has not been set in concrete by the forces which seek to extend their dominion over us through negrification and Asian race-replacement.  It still awaits to be made.  Yes, by all means have your politics ... stay legal ... survive to fight another day.  But if a philosophy of our survival does not materialise we shall not survive.  Should you ever become the masters of our people’s fate under such a circumstance you will not serve us to that end.  That is what you have said.  That is what, as a thinking Englishman, I decry.

= You want us to preserve something that no longer exists, momma white race, and are afraid to let go of her hand and enter the real world. You are defining reality in terms of a will-o-the wisp.

Folk is real. Race is now myth.

Deal with it. It may be hard to let go of momma white races hand and stop suckling on her emaciated, shrivelled and dried up tit but there aint no nourishment in that tit no more, and sooner or later we all have to grow up.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:04 | #

That “Letter to the Editor” is very good, btw.  But it just might not get published!

= I sent it to her at her unibversity. They bounced it back. I think it upset them. Oh dear, never mind.

Posted by Roger Gray on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:13 | #

Not being considered for representation [in the BNP] are others, so-called ‘Colonisers’, who are:

… naturalised British or who are British citizens with naturalised British citizenship but also Dual Citizenship status based on Lex Sanguinis, who have a Right of Return to the homelands of their parents or grandparents and who have come to this nation not to assimilate but to impose their culture, religion, demands and values on the majority of indigenous British and the minority of naturalised British citizens.

Quite how the BNP proposes to separate the sheep from the goats at the point of membership application is not explained.

I’m a goat, and I’m dreading the day my local BNP representative comes knocking. At that point I will be exposed as the interloper I know myself to be. Not born in Britain, y’see. You can be born English, but you can’t become English.

British blood or British culture: I have a claim on both. But I only have to get as far as luggage handling at Manchester Airport to know that a second-generation Pakistani or Jamaican is more British than I am or could ever hope to be. It’s an unbridgeable divide. Culture is about exclusion as much as inclusion. I only have to open my mouth and I get “the look”. No one’s put a brick through my window and called me an immigrrrrrant – yet.

All of this confers an advantage. I’m a BNP member and am happily immune from the charge that my membership is self-serving.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:32 | #

Lee says, “no, you are simply trying to defend an ideological myth as opposed to accepting biological reality.”

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:42 | #

I’m a goat, and I’m dreading the day my local BNP representative comes knocking. At that point I will be exposed as the interloper I know myself to be. Not born in Britain, y’see. You can be born English, but you can’t become English.

= You can be English if you are descended from the English simply be returning home to England. 

British blood or British culture: I have a claim on both. But I only have to get as far as luggage handling at Manchester Airport to know that a second-generation Pakistani or Jamaican is more British than I am or could ever hope to be. It’s an unbridgeable divide. Culture is about exclusion as much as inclusion. I only have to open my mouth and I get “the look”. No one’s put a brick through my window and called me an immigrrrrrant – yet.

= Would those be second generation pakistanis like the 7/7 bombers.

Unless you are wearing a burkha then why would you not be considered British ? 

All of this confers an advantage. I’m a BNP member and am happily immune from the charge that my membership is self-serving.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:44 | #

Anyone got a link as to this theory of Citizenism.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:52 | #

Lee Barnes keeps thinking race means undifferentiated caucasian and only that.  Wrong. 

= For reasons of exactitude I prefer to use Race and Folk as meaning different concepts in order to clarify what I am referring too.

If race can also mean folk, then that confuses what both mean.

My terminology is much clearer and exact.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:53 | #

Lee, google “Steve Sailer Citizenism”.

You know, you are the most labelling-est person I know.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:00 | #

I am a lawyer - what do you expect.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:20 | #

From what I just read Citizenism relates to my emphasis on Culture re non-ethnic british citizens, but appears to miss the fact that Culture is created by an ethnic group - and that if the ethnic group dissapears, the culture dissapears.

Citizenism relates to Naturalised British Citizens having to abide by British Culture - either Assimilate or Leave.

Folk Nationalism relates to the fact the Culture is a product if the Folk, and that the dilution of the Folk via invastion, immigration or miscegination means the culture itself dies.

In order to sustain a culture the Folk must remain the ethnic majority and must also demand that those minority of immigrants allowed into their lands must adopt their culture as well.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:25 | #

In order for race to be a social construct, then someone in charge of that society must be promoting it as a social construct or must be loyal to it as a social construct.

Where in our society is the ‘elite’ that promotes the notion of a white race or white racial superiority or who are loyal to the notion of a white race ?

THERE ISNT ONE.

Therefore the idea that race is a social construct, when no-one in power is constructing that construct, means there is no such construct.

White racial privelige is racist bullshit promulgated by non-whites in order remove the rights of white skinned people simply on the basis of their skin colour.

The myth of white priveliege is the racist myth of the 21st century used to minimise and hide real racism against whites on the basis of their skin colour.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:25 | #

I am nobody.  Perhaps it takes a lawyer to claim asylum for the same client in London and Sydney at the same time.

Look, Lee, any number of our commentariat can see straight away that you are a horrible mess ideationally.  You hop from branch to branch like a sparrow, now laying claim to empiricism, now culturalism, now principle, now exigency, accusing us of mythicisation, accusing us of I don’t know what.  The whole structure is held together solely by sticky labels.  It has no internal logic or consistency, and no relation to the lines of thought of the outside world.

As a result, it is impossible to engage with you from that world.  You just stick a few more labels on whatever emerges from it and contentedly return to your ideological order.  You don’t even have to perform a volte-face.  The labelling sees to that.

In other words, you appear not to have the possibility to engage.  Are there any more like you in the BNP?  That would be a frightening but by no means unlikely state of affairs.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:26 | #

Don’t worry about the troll, Lee.  He is trying to goad someone into confirming his own belief-world.  He is ill.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:33 | #

I am nobody.  Perhaps it takes a lawyer to claim asylum for the same client in London and Sydney at the same time.

= !

Look, Lee, any number of our commentariat can see straight away that you are a horrible mess ideationally.

= No, I think what I believe is very clear.

You hop from branch to branch like a sparrow, now laying claim to empiricism, now culturalism, now principle, now exigency, accusing us of mythicisation, accusing us of I don’t know what.

= I am a Blakean, like Blake I believe in ‘contraries not opposites’ - you believe in opposites. I may be a sparrow hopping from branch to branch, but thats better than being a scarecrow stuck in the mud and unable to go anywhere . 

The whole structure is held together solely by sticky labels.  It has no internal logic or consistency, and no relation to the lines of thought of the outside world.

= The lies I draw are organic, your ideological. The real world is organic, yours is ideological.

As a result, it is impossible to engage with you from that world.  You just stick a few more labels on whatever emerges from it and contentedly return to your ideological order.  You don’t even have to perform a volte-face.  The labelling sees to that.

= You fight a war based on trench warfare. I am an revolutionary nationalist an expert in Guerilla Warfare. 

In other words, you appear not to have the possibility to engage. 

= An enemy you cannot see or pin down is an enemy you cannot fight. The aim is not to get bogged fighting battles you cant win, but to win the war.

Are there any more like you in the BNP?  That would be a frightening but by no means unlikely state of affairs.

= what you mean pragmatists and oppurtunists as opposed to ideologues and scarecrows ?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:59 | #

Lee,

I have already said that thought does alienate the masses.  But what real utility does a mass-oriented politics have without thought?  And I am not referring to strategy here.  Guiding, clarifying, foundational, principle-giving thought.

This is where we began.  This is where the crux of the issue lies.  If you just stop sticking labels all over everything, in place of actual thinking, we might penetrate to something of value.  Because this is an important question: Do political parties produce great change without great ideas?  Or, in terms solely of the BNP, how will the party serve the genetic interests of its constituency if it is, as now, uninformed by serious thought but, on the contrary (since you like contraries) is informed solely by the exigencies of the ballot box?

And the answer to this question is NOT that great ideas already inform the party.  Great or, at least, good values inform the party, but values are not philosophy.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:07 | #

I have already said that thought does alienate the masses.  But what real utility does a mass-oriented politics have without thought?  And I am not referring to strategy here.  Guiding, clarifying, foundational, principle-giving thought.

=  Thats your job. We are politicians who seek power.

This is where we began.  This is where the crux of the issue lies.  If you just stop sticking labels all over everything, in place of actual thinking, we might penetrate to something of value.  Because this is an important question: Do political parties produce great change without great ideas? 

= We have a great idea - its called GREAT BRITAIN.

Or, in terms solely of the BNP, how will the party serve the genetic interests of its constituency if it is, as now, uninformed by serious thought but, on the contrary (since you like contraries) is informed solely by the exigencies of the ballot box?

= Its not our job to act as propagandists for the white race, we are British Nationalists. 

And the answer to this question is NOT that great ideas already inform the party.  Great or, at least, good values inform the party, but values are not philosophy.

= Our values are British, our philosophy Ethno-Nationalism.

Posted by Roger Gray on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:44 | #

Don’t worry about the troll, Lee.  He is trying to goad someone into confirming his own belief-world.  He is ill.

Believing is for children. I’m 50 and I know what I’m about.

I commend you, Lee, for engaging me directly and affirming that I’m considered English. It means a lot to me. Yes, my parents are definitely English, as the term would have been understood in Elizabeth I’s day.

The comment about Pakistanis is not intended to get a rise. It’s just part of my felt experience as I’m sure it is for many others. What is seldom commented on in regard to the question of who is British is the experience of people like me who were born elsewhere, in my case South Africa, and whether we are “allowed” to think of ourselves in this way in our place of birth.

In South Africa at least, if you are a second-generation Greek or Portuguese, say, and refer to yourself as such, no one bats and eyelid. But if I had had the temerity to call myself “English”, people would have laughed. Uniquely, identification with one’s identity is withheld from people of British descent, perhaps as a hangover from the days of the British world order, of which South Africa was a part, when if you had a British passport or could get one, you were a citizen of the world and everyone else was an ethnic. I don’t know.

Incidentally, I share your affection for Blake.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:51 | #

Roger,

That remark wasn’t aimed at you but a character who calls himself antiracist or nonracist.  I will not host his “contributions” any longer.  So you can’t see who I was aiming at.  But others here will know.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:50 | #

Man is naturally racially oriented, and political systems are usually built around this reality.

Those who worship at the false idol of libertarianism are truly neurotic. There is no basis for such a moral system nor is such a system even feasible without an intervening state which itself is opposed to the libertarian faith. All is delusion.

You continually refuse to address arguments presented to you, and your posts are thus nothing more than spam.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:55 | #

I met many superiorly endowed “non-whites” who had more of a clue about the western culture than many “whites”.

You’d need to know something about our culture yourself in order to judge.

<blockquote>full of low instincts</blockqutoe>You mean to say “not fully brainwashed”. Or perhaps the mother who loves her child is also “full of low instincts”?

-

Genetics are a tradition just as is culture. Ancestral traditions are passed down from father to child as are genes.

Posted by DRS on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:24 | #

ultra-extra-Libertarian wrote:

Whenever I run across “mixed” couple with “mixed” children, some hope awakens in me that the stupid superstition of race will eventually disappear.

If race is a “superstition” how do you explain the fact that people who need bone marrow transplants can only find donors from their own haplotype?

<a >Bi-racial bone marrow hard to find</a>

The girl in that video will not get a donor from either of her parents ethnicities. It will have to be white/oriental mixed race individual.

Posted by Roger Gray on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:33 | #

Man is not racially oriented.

Perhaps race is an “operational nullity”. Let’s agree that it has no utility, that it can’t be inputted into any known mechanism to perform any useful function.

But asking Anglo-Saxons to commit suicide by miscegenation in order to show how retrograde and delusional the rest of the lamentably race-conscious world is is far too great a sacrifice.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:35 | #

ultra-extra-Libertarian,

Christ was a racist who went to save his own people first. Every true Christian is; you’re a Babelist. Man is and always has been tribal because the Creator made him so.

You worship Satan.

Posted by DRS on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:37 | #

ultra-extra-Libertarian wrote:

No proofs for the existence of “race” so far, except cherry picking among the scientific “fact” (choosing only those that don’t contradict the racist’s preconceived idea) and wishful thinking.

Anthropological, psychological and statistical evidence:

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Evolution-Behavior-Perspective-Abridged/dp/0965683621

Recent genetic evidence:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/2008-in-review-ethnicity-strikes-back.html

Just because you refuse to look at any of the evidence doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:17 | #

Will you all please stop responding to this sick anti-racist person.  You are not helping him by taking him seriously.  He needs to be denied the gift of a response, so that he will not obtain what, by his sick lights, is confirmation of his thesis and the imaginary self-healing that accompanies that.

Leave him alone.  He must suffer his sickness in the isolation ward.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:22 | #

Lee: some eternal principles ...

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to_do_what_we_must_to_remain_who_we_are/

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:18 | #

I’m afraid that Lee John Barnes is attempting to sell us a bill of goods. His comments thus far indicate an astonishing lack of appreciation for the scale of the demographic transformation that is currently underway. To suggest that the non-indigenous population will be a mere 9 million by the time that a future BNP government might take control, decades from now, and that around 3 million can be culturally assimilated and the rest ‘got rid of’, is panglossian in the extreme. This is what he suggests:

…The figures are guess-stimates - I anticipate that of the 9 million immigrants in the country about half are willing to assimilate into British culture and half are colonists. That means about half have to leave. I suspect another 1-1.5 million are illegals as we will define them, so I anticipate that after a few years we would have a population of immigrants around 3 million in a nation of around 56 million.

First, with respect to the timeframe. The only previous occasion on which a newly formed political party has achieved power (the Labour Party in 1924), it took almost a quarter-century from the time it gained its first seat in Parliament to forming a government, albeit a minority one. In that process, Labour’s rise was propelled by both external events (the First World War) and favourable constitutional changes (Representation of the People Act 1918). Assuming the best case, that similar as yet unidentified disturbances conspire to favour the BNP, it is still difficult to contemplate how the timeframe could be much shortened. We are therefore looking at between twenty and thirty years, say twenty-five as a simple round number, representing six or more general elections from now.

So, assuming the BNP were to achieve a Parliamentary majority in the 2035 election, what might the demographic picture look like at that time? After all, as someone once remarked in regard to such matters: “Numbers are of the essence”, so it is important that we make a serious attempt to divine the future. Of course, nobody really knows the answer, and we are limited to choosing between a variety of different guesses, some more educated than others. The one which I and others find most persuasive, principally because of its scientific rigour and freedom from political spin, is that of David Coleman, Professor of Demographics at Oxford, and advisor to Migrationwatch UK.

In 2006 Coleman published a paper outlining what he termed the ‘Third Demographic Transition’: Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries: A Third Demographic Transition, in which he provides demographic projections for several western European countries, including the UK. Actually he examines England and Wales only, but that is not an issue given the very low ethnic population in Scotland and NI.

He predicts that the population of E&W;will increase from around 52 million in 2001 to 60 million in 2035. Over the same period, he estimates that the non-indigenous (‘foreign origin’, both white and non-white) population will increase from around 6 million ( 11% of the total) to 17 million (28%) in 2035, and eventually to 23 million (36%) by 2051. All his calculations are based on quite conservative projections of ethnic fertility rates and net immigration. Given that the government’s own statistics reveal that 20% of all children in British schools are now non-white (23% in primary schools) it is likely that Coleman is being over-conservative and the outlook is even grimmer than he predicts.

At the same time as the ‘foreign origin’ population is increasing, the indigenous (that is, native British and Irish) population will be gently declining from around 47 million in 2001 to 45 million in 2035. At that point, we can envisage the following demographic scenario:

- Indigenous white British and Irish       45 million (73 %)
- ‘Foreign-origin’ non-white         12 million (19 %)
- ‘Foreign-origin’ white           5 million (8 %)
- Total for England and Wales       62 million  

That’s the world that Nick Griffin (or one of his successors) will inherit. The number of non-indigenes who will need to be considered for assimilation or rejection is not 9 million, as Lee Barnes suggests, but 17 million.

The question then arises, what proportion in each of the ‘foreign-origin’ subcategories can ‘got rid of’? ‘Foreign origin’ white is probably the easiest to deal with, since according to Coleman these originate from ‘western’ countries, and are predominantly European. It’s unclear whether, for example, Turks and Albanians are included, but let’s assume not for present purposes. Lee Barnes suggests that a proportion of these immigrants will be illegal (about a sixth), so deducting those leaves us with a total of around 4.2 million. If these are really ‘western’ i.e. European in origin there seems little reason to doubt that they might all be candidates for naturalisation as Assimilated Defenders of the Culture. Note however that we are already well in excess of Lee Barnes’ ‘guesstimate’ of 3 million for the total assimilated immigrant population.

Turning now to the ‘foreign-origin non-white’ group, let’s assume again that one-sixth are illegals, and can be dispensed with painlessly and without trauma under BNP rule. That leaves ten million non-whites to be evaluated either as potential New Brits to be assimilated, or as Colonisers to be removed. Coleman does not provide a breakdown of this population group by ethnicity, but we can make some reasonable extrapolations based on current trends. Reviewing the Home Office’s annual Control of Immigration Statistics reports indicates that the 10 countries which are providing the most permanent migrants to the UK, as defined by grants of settlement are, in order: India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iraq, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Nigeria, China and Bangladesh. In total, over 80% of Britain’s new permanent residents derive from countries which Coleman describes as having high fertility and ‘low to mid-range HDI’. Over two-thirds of permanent grants of settlement are awarded to dependants, spouses or fiancés of previous immigrants.

Based on these facts and trends, it seems reasonable to assume that, based on their countries of origin and their likely disinclination to embrace ‘British culture’,  three-quarters or more of the legally-resident foreign-origin non-white population, that is between 7 and 8 million people, will be unable to make the cut as New Brit Defenders of the Culture. Let’s then summarise Lee Barnes’ proposition compared to the scenario which presents itself on applying Coleman’s data.

The Lee Barnes (undated) Scenario

Total non-indigenous:    9 million
Less Colonisers:      4.5 million
Less illegals               1.5 million
Total to be deported:      6 million
Remaining ‘naturalised assimilable’ non-indigenous:  3 million
Total population         56 million

Percent non-indigenous 5 %

The David Coleman (2035) Scenario

Total non-indigenous:    17 million
Less Colonisers:      7.5 million
Less illegals               3 million
Total to be deported:      10.5 million
Remaining ‘naturalised assimilable’ non-indigenous:  6.2 million
Total population         51 million (plus 6 million for Scot/NI)

Percent non-indigenous 11 % (UK)

Conclusion

Lee Barnes wildly underestimates both the scale of the demographic problem and the measures that will be necessary to deal with its consequences.

Can anyone seriously contemplate the deportation of over 10 million legal and illegal residents on the grounds of ‘cultural incompatability’?  And even if that were to be possible, the numbers of ‘New Brits’ of foreign origin is still likely to be around the same as it is now, at around 11-12% of the population.

Clearly something more radical will be necessary than Lee Barnes (and presumably the BNP leadership) would have us believe.

Posted by White Preservationist on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:43 | #

LB:A white nationalist welcomes mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indigenous British folk.

He is incorrect.  Maybe some WNists believe that, but most I’ve talked believe that every White nation has a sovereign right to exist without having to import any immigrants, whether they be White or non-White.

That being said, I’m sure that Barnes would much rather import some White/Slavic Poles or Russians in to the UK to do “some of the jobs indigenous White Britons won’t do” instead of hordes of non-White Arabs, Blacks, Asians, etc.  At least the Poles or Russians are still White sub-groups/White ethnicities with an identifiable White culture, whilst the non-Whites are completely alien to White European civilization and they will end up turning the UK in to a non-White nation in due time if they are allowed to proliferate too much.

Posted by Englander on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:33 | #

I wonder if Lee Barnes (or anyone) can point to a single instance where a WN of note has declared that white immigration to Britain is desirable. I think I’d have a hard enough time finding such a viewpoint among the diverse array of posters on any of the WN forums.

Internet nationalism discussion tends to be very America-centric. Most internet nationalists are from the US and American events dominate discussion. Even European nationalists (or I should say nationalists from any of the European nations) tend to talk in American terms due to the American WN influence, but when push comes to shove, they are ethnic nationalists and race is shorthand for whatever their particular ethnic group or nationality might be, when it comes to discussion of the situation in their own country.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people get caught up with the labels and who don’t seem to notice that the American white nationalist scene and its terminology have slipped into the wider nationalist discourse. (I was going to say “slipped into white nationalist discourse the world over” but some people would then make the mistake of believing that I want an American WN model for the whole world, when what I’m really doing is using WN as shorthand for ‘Nationalism in whatever European or European-derived nation any particular individual might hail from’.

The internet has globalized nationalism, but only in online discussion form.

Posted by BGD on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:02 | #

Prioritising culture over race rather puts the cart before the horse.

It is a handy political rubric for those attempting to curry favour by targetting the bad guy ‘Islam’ while trying to quell the disquiet of other ethic groups many of whom (not least Afro-caribs) have integrated to some degree in British culture (whatever that now is).

To use the device of reduction to the absurd that would mean that the likes of Chris Eubanks or Derek Laud are as British as anyone. These monocle wearing, cane carring, hunt ‘em, shoot ‘em pseudo English pantomime dames.

It jars to hear an avowed nationalist promote a fully integrated ethnic minority group as a good thing.

Surely the live and let live (cod)philosophy of each ethnic group having their own gobal patch and their own age-old culture rings truer to us? It also helps to set us apart from them when they are among us and witness how areas have been transformed.

If the various ethnic ghettos across the country suddenly had a cultural Road to Damascus and all (insert your own carcature here) started wearing three piece suits and saying “awright guvnor” would that be better?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:18 | #

Dan Dare wrote:

I’m afraid that Lee John Barnes is attempting to sell us a bill of goods.

I wrote:

One also can further envision Barnes and his ilk actually coming to believe their own bullshit as they rationalize their power getting as an end unto itself, as they preside over the managed decline of the existence of their people all the while telling themselves they did all they could.  This is not leadership, it is sophistry, what any second rate hack journalist can do all day long and does so for a living.

Why don’t you take over Barnes’ job (alleged master of spin) for him Dare?  At least you have a brain.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:43 | #

CC: One also can further envision Barnes and his ilk actually coming to believe their own bullshit as they rationalize their power getting as an end unto itself ...

Much will be revealed in the next two weeks as the leadership explains its constitutional changes.  I will particularly be looking for indications of the emergent character of the organisation.  Are they likely to morph into believers of their own bullshit?  Or are they too steadfast in their loyalty for that?

Lee hasn’t exactly inspired confidence as to the latter.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:47 | #

Sorry GW. My responses sound a little off now too - taken out of context. Oh well.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:09 | #

Lee hasn’t exactly inspired confidence as to the latter.

Barnes is the kinda guy for whom the examined life is not worth living.  The blind attempting to lead the blind.  Maybe the BNP should stop fucking around with Bowden and wheel C.U.N.T. out to give stump speeches.  LOL!

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:42 | #

At this point, Britain’s best hope is foreign conquest by a race conscious regime which could install serious minded local nationalists in power.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:23 | #

This is nothing new for the BNP. In fact it is probably welcomed.

April 8, 2006
BNP split after decision to field ‘ethnic’ candidate in local polls
By Will Pavia

THERE was turmoil among the rank and file of the British National Party yesterday after a Greek Armenian was selected as a BNP candidate for the local elections.

The party, which is preparing for its biggest-ever electoral campaign, has chosen Sharif Abdel Gawad to fight Bowling and Bakerend ward in Bradford.

It describes Mr Gawad as a “totally assimilated Greek Armenian” whose grandfather, an Armenian Christian, claimed asylum in Britain.

But the posting of his name among the party’s list of candidates has caused uproar among members who believe that the party must field all-white representatives.

Workers at the party’s headquarters spent yesterday fielding angry calls from members who refused to accept Mr Gawad’s candidacy on race grounds, “even when it was explained that he was not a Pakistani or a Muslim”. There were calls for the regional organiser responsible for Mr Gawad’s selection to resign, and anger at party bosses.

In 2004 Nick Griffin, the BNP’s leader, tried to force through rule changes allowing non-whites to join the BNP. He backed down after widespread opposition.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article703310.ece

“You’ve got infirm old white Britons out hobbling around, trying to make a difference, with a leadership willing to sell all principles for political expediency. And then when people complain they’re dubbed “mischief-makers who gets off on sowing trouble and discontent”. They are a lunatic fringe.”

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/left_wing_bnp/#c26490

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:04 | #

Who knows Fred. Your guess is as good as any.

In 2006, Lee Barnes was claiming David Duke was a dupe of the neoconservative Zionists.

War for Israel

The fact is that the Neo-Conservatives want this war to be spun to the public as a ‘ war for Israel ‘. People like David Duke are doing exactly what Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle want them to do. This will then mean the attack on Iran(?) will have unrestricted public support from the American Christian Right, the American Media and the many powerful Zionist lobby groups in Washington. The fact that the American Nationalist Right are supporting Islamic regimes and attacking the war on Iran solely in order to attack Israel, will simultaneously alienate the American Nationalist Right even further from mainstream American public opinion and damage any public support for the American Nationalist Right amongst the masses.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:16 | #

I’m working on a response to Mr. Barnes.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:55 | #

At this point, Britain’s best hope is foreign conquest by a race conscious regime which could install serious minded local nationalists in power. - Prozium

Ah yes, if only it were 1940 all over again, we’d make doubly sure not to spurn der Chef’s billet douxs a second time. But chance would be a fine thing!

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:38 | #

The first installment is up now:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/09/09/british-nationalism-and-white-nationalism/

I’m about to start working through the comments and responding to them.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:58 | #

“Defender of Liberty” should change his name to “Neocon” because that is essentially what he is proposing.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:11 | #

At the same time as the ‘foreign origin’ population is increasing, the indigenous (that is, native British and Irish) population will be gently declining from around 47 million in 2001 to 45 million in 2035. At that point, we can envisage the following demographic scenario:

- Indigenous white British and Irish 45 million (73 %)
- ‘Foreign-origin’ non-white 12 million (19 %)
- ‘Foreign-origin’ white 5 million (8 %)
- Total for England and Wales 62 million

That’s the world that Nick Griffin (or one of his successors) will inherit. The number of non-indigenes who will need to be considered for assimilation or rejection is not 9 million, as Lee Barnes suggests, but 17 million.

Posted by Dan Dare on September 08, 2009, 08:18 PM

Thank you Dan Dare!
I had asked where he got his percentages from but I saw no response.

As for the topic of assimilation,  I would advise the use of the language be dropped from the lexicon.
It’s a bit of a myth thanks, mainly, to America.

Britain is a little place (about the size of the state of Oregon) and an ancient place with an ancient people. It can’t afford a game of ethnic semantics on what it is to be English.

America, as a functioning nation state, is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to assimilation. And that canary is no longer twitching.

...

Posted by Mark on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:10 | #

All this comes down to what exactly is white nationalism and what is the definition of white.

All Americans don’t agree on this.

However, historically speaking racialism in America has never been a pan-Caucasoid idea.  It was and still is very similar to what the BNP advocates. 

White America is primarily Celto-Germanic in race and culture.  It is not equally pan-European or Eastern Mediterranean.

The American Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe, preferring northwestern Europeans.  This continued up until 1965, when the anti-white revolution was in full force.

I would not consider Sharif Abdel Gawad white, nor would most American racialists.

If that standard changes then I will be against it.

Posted by Mark on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:15 | #

“Prozium said:

At this point, Britain’s best hope is foreign conquest by a race conscious regime which could install serious minded local nationalists in power.”

As you’ve been discussing on your website, that was tried before, but they rejected it.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:43 | #

American segregationists made a fatal choice in mid-1960s when they started backing “sneak up on the liberals” aracial conservatism out of the practical need to stay politically relevant. Lee John Barnes is proposing to take the BNP down the same Culturalist road that turned 1965 Wallace Country into 2005 Bush Country. The inevitable result will be deracialization and eventual GOP-style surrender to liberalism.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:46 | #

It is better to stay politically irrelevant and racialized than powerful and deracialized. If the BNP ever has a Prime Minister like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush it will have been utterly and completely defeated.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:33 | #

Re: Politics.

I completely disagree. Allow me to restate your argument from a different perspective:

“The Communist Party USA is a political party. Therefore we must get elected into power, that requires a populist approach. In order to implement Marxist-Leninism, we must be elected. Politics is the art of the possible, not ideological posturing that alienates mass support.”

Your fundamental mistake is identifying power with the ballot box and engagement in democratic politics. In the U.S., the Socialist Party and Communist Party USA were able to get much of their agenda passed in spite of their political irrelevance. In contrast, the Conservatives who support the GOP have 40 years of electoral victories under their belt and almost nothing to show for it. A small minority of ideologues has utterly triumphed over millions of pragmatists.

The Left always wins in the end because it understands that power is about controlling discourse, not winning elections. The Right (like Barnes here) operates on the latter assumption, wins pyrrhic victories, then capitulates and surrenders. That’s why the British Left is trying so hard to force the BNP to change its constitution. In surrendering the language of race, you’re doing exactly what they want you to do; allowing the Left to control the discourse and dominate the national conversation on its own terms.

The inevitable result will be deracialization and a softening of nationalism. The boundry marker of legitimate public discourse will shift to the left. It is better to make a stand and push in the opposite direction even if it is politically expedient to do so.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:59 | #

= Thats your job. We are politicians who seek power.

Like all conservatives, you have it ass backwards: win the cultural war over discourse and power will follow; securing council seats and MPs is pointless unless you control the culture ... you won’t be in a position to change anything without a public uproar.

= We have a great idea - its called GREAT BRITAIN.

You’re not doing a very good job of presenting it.

= Its not our job to act as propagandists for the white race, we are British Nationalists. 

The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

= Our values are British, our philosophy Ethno-Nationalism.

1.) Define ‘British values’.

2.) It is amusing to see you equate White Nationalism, a version of racial nationalism, with National Socialism, a version of ethno-nationalism.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:43 | #

All truly long lasting revolutions are achieved step by step with consent, not with paroxsyms of violence imposed upon an unwilling populace.

Actually, I would argue that “long lasting revolutions” are “achieved step by step” in fights over discourse. In France and America, the rhetoric of liberty and equality triumphed before the first shots of revolution were fired. In the aftermath of World War II, the rhetoric of ‘human rights’ triumphed across the British political spectrum before the full implications of that idea were worked out in later decades. In the 1960s, Americans didn’t know that ‘civil rights’ implied self hating masochism or the worship of ‘diversity’. Ideas are always entertained before their consequences become apparent.

You’re proposing that British nationalists surrender the discourse of race out of short term political expediency. I’m beginning to think you don’t have the stomach for revolutionary political struggle. Persecution by the authorities, going to jail for one’s beliefs, refusing to compromise on principle, enduring hate and violence, even martyrdom come with the territory. It is what creates the necessary sympathy for a vanguardist cadre to metamorphize into a mass movement.

The word Folk implies an indigenous people with an organic connection to the land, a national culture and a British Constitution.

Is this an accurate description of contemporary Britons, in particular the working class, a majority of whom have lived in urban conditions for almost a century now, or is it instead a romanticization?

As Americans you have a connection to the land based on history, but you are not indigenous to America and therefore I understand that you do not have a ‘Folkish consciousness’ - though I suspect those of you with English, Irish etc roots would understand what a Folk consciousness is if you returned to visit your ancestral homelands where your ancestors evolved and took a walk in an English wood or had a pint in a rual Irish pub or visited Newgrange or Stonhenge.

Anglo-Americans are as indigenous to the United States as the Normans or Anglo-Saxons are to Britain. A folk consciousness exists in rural areas of the American South as surely as it does in Britain, probably even more so given the leftward tilt of the British political spectrum, itself a product of urbanization.

What you define as intellectualism eg Folk, Nation and Culture, are to us the antithesis of intellectualism - they are the organic realities of our everyday lives as opposed to an ideological viewpoint such as race which is rooted in abstract history and the ‘coldness’ of genetic research.

This ignores the fact that White Nationalism was an organic response to the conditions of the American frontier experience: in the wilderness of North America, the racial differences between White, Black, and Red were naturally more salient than the ethnic differences between racially homogeneous Europeans. The ideal that America was a ‘white man’s country’ emerged long before the advent of genetic science or the first attempts at scientific racialism in the late eighteenth century.

We are rooted to this earth, you were torn from this earth and transplanted elsewhere - therefore you have never felt the power or beauty of an organic connection to the sacred earth of a Heimat, a homeland based on a natural and organic connection as opposed to loyalty to abstractions of history and civic nationalism.

Judging from the whiggers and chavs that now populate your country, I don’t see this organic connection to the land of which you speak so highly. Undoubtedly, it once existed in Britain (prior to the seventeenth century when ‘enclosure’ destroyed the British peasantry), but those days are long since passed. Like the Dutch, the British have been an urbanized people for over a hundred years now.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:33 | #

Go to his website and carefully read his initial post. That’s not what he is suggesting. He’s saying that roughly half of the non-White settlers in Britain are ‘assimilable’. Barnes is arguing for inclusion of non-Whites in the BNP on the basis of Culturalism (to conform to the Equality Commission). His talking point about Eastern European immigrants is nothing more than spin meant to distract attention away from the real issue (the litmus test of BNP membership). In fact, he is expanding the definition of ‘Britishness’, not narrowing it.

The neocons whinge endlessly about “culture” and “shared values” when arguing against multiculturalist liberals. They are ideologues, not ethnonationalists. Like the neocons, Barnes associates racialism with Hitler and Nazism. Barnes is saying we should accept non-Whites into our fold who ‘share our values’. How is this substantially different from Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity? It’s not.

His proposal essentially substitutes neoconservatism for ethnonationalism. It treats and harps on the symptoms of our decline, not the disease itself. It proposes an electoral strategy (not a cultural one) to ultimate victory. It is founded upon the textbook conservative argument that racialists are unelectable fringe extremists and the ‘pragmatic’ thing to do is to tailor one’s message to reflect (rather than direct) public opinion. It substitutes the ethnic basis of membership for an abstract/ideological one, albeit smuggled in the Halloween costume of ‘folkishness’.

The next logical step is to water down the message even further into Geert Wilders neoconservatism: a full throated embrace of Zionism and philo-Semitism combined with an aggressive posture against Islam in the name of defending liberal values.

Posted by BGD on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:28 | #

How do you draw the line between the colonists and the assimilable? If they turn up at the government review wearing a hijab then they’re out. If they take it off before they come in and put on a baseball cap they’re in?

If they get caught and promise not to be so naughty next time?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:09 | #

BGD: How do you draw the line between the colonists and the assimilable?

That is actually a good question, and one I’ve disagreed with CC on a couple of times.  The two possible lines are:

1. passing a genetic test (which itself requires line-drawing).

2. passing a test of descent.

CC argues for purity.  I’ve suggested the more open filter of the descent test, with inclusion of all those whose lines of descent are unmixed with non-natives after 22nd June 1948 (in the UK) - excepting Jews (another line-drawing exercise required) who may require separate en bloc consideration but, as a long-time settled population, pass the general test.

It goes without saying that neither proposal is saleable to the postmodern voter.  Proze is right.  The voter takes his postmodernity from the ideological air he breathes.  Change the air and he is yours.  Ignore that and make his adopted sensibilities your politics and you relinquish all claim to principle and all control over where you will, in the medium-term, wind up.

If our blogs and boards have any historical purpose at all it lies in the refining of arguments for the younger generation of readers to take forward into life, into postmodernity, for the waging of a second war of political culture.

Speaking for myself, I’m not happy just to sit back and rely on Inevitablism.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:16 | #

Actually, in all this, there is great uncertainty about the extent to which Lee John Barnes reflects official party thinking with respect to the forthcoming constitutional proposals, or whether he is merely indulging in a little private kite-flying.

I recall on an earlier occasion asking him whether, in taking it upon himself to respond to the 85 Questions for the BNP dreamt up by the ‘British Asian’-oriented blog Pickled Politics he was speaking officially for the party, but he declined to answer.

I think as GW suggested earlier, we should perhaps just await the outcome of the ongoing constitutional review before getting too excited about Mr. Barnes’ pronouncements.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:27 | #

Mark,

the various nativist groups were picky to be sure. Ah, I still think as they do, but the power balance has changed over here…

-

Prozium writes:

American segregationists made a fatal choice in mid-1960s when they started backing “sneak up on the liberals” aracial conservatism out of the practical need to stay politically relevant. Lee John Barnes is proposing to take the BNP down the same Culturalist road that turned 1965 Wallace Country into 2005 Bush Country. The inevitable result will be deracialization and eventual GOP-style surrender to liberalism.

Yes, so true. Reagan wiped us out.

As a Southern-American, I don’t presume to know what Britain ought to do. But I do hope they’re made aware of what happened to us.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:34 | #

We ought to revive the Native American Party and run Buchanan, an Irish Catholic (lol), for the Presidency.

Ugh, so little of true America is even still alive.

Posted by Quent on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:34 | #

I’ve read through the thread.  It seems to me that this is mostly a quibble over terms.  ‘White Nationalism’ is an awkward term used in America to address an American situation.  To the extent Australia and Canada have followed the American immigration model, it probably also can be used there.  However, I’ve never communicated with an American White Nationalist who wants to see the indigineous people of Europe replaced in their own countries by other Europeans, or mixed into a European ‘mass.’  In this regard, I think Mr. Barnes’ unhappiness with ‘white nationalists’ is much ado about nothing.  He’s said, to my satisfaction at least, that when he says ‘folk’ he means ‘blood.’

Many white/folk nationalists have passed through a ‘nazi’ phase, including Nick Griffin, Andrew Brons and John Tyndall.  I suspect it is because they were groping toward something, and national socialism, with its striking symbolism, provided a clear model and an alternative to young men looking for answers.  In a recent interview, Mr. Bros dismissed this by saying something like ‘young men do silly things when they are seventeen.’

The real concern here, however, is that the BNP not become so obsessed with politics that the members lose sight of what they are about.  A slightly more ethnocentric version of the Labour Party isn’t going to be of much use. 

I hope the BNP wins some elections, but I believe its real purpose is to radicalize the English public by way of the political process.  Mr. Griffin said as much in an interview with David Duke some years ago.  If any of you have a video of that interview, please post it on one of the video sites.

Posted by Quent on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:50 | #

Here is an additional comment.  Culturally, I’m an American.  I will likely stay here at all costs.  However, ethnically I’m completely English.  I assume that people in my situation, if we decided to return to the ancestral homeland, would be given preference over Pakis or blacks who have been in England for generations.  That is real the acid test of ‘folkishness.’  If the BNP quibbles or equivocates about this issue, there is a real problem.

Posted by Bearded Man on Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:47 | #

Lee Barnes,
            There is no real constituency for ‘white nationalism’ as you describe it, other a few posters to US sites.
The history of opposition to colored mmigration into Britain has always been strictly reactive in response to the sheer horror of seeing black and brown faces for the first time and later of seeing the truth of black criminality and pakistani culture.
I have no need to tell you that commonwealth immigration was mandated by government act in 1948 - defended against massive popular discontent by the government and reached its climax in the 1968 Powell speech.
  As I say opposition was purely reactive popular discontent against black and brown faces - it had no deeper roots though some in the NF leadership might have been ideologues, I doubt if NF voters of the time were deeply versed in theories of blood and soil culture, but instinctively, I guess they were fully cognizant of EGI and this was the basis of their instinctive hostility and horror.
The mass migration of eastern euros is a very recent phenomenom - due to Blair’s stupidity and globalist fetish.This is solely down to the EU (which Powell also warned against), depriving Britain of any real independence.Poles simply were not an issue for NF, BNP or any other ‘racist’ or ‘nationalist’ party or movement 15 years back and show just how organisations are forced to evolve with political circumstances.
The mass migration of Poles is deeply unpopular as it (as intended by the globalists) has undermined working class wages and suddenly brought in a huge population of a markedly different culture.
Now I decry the recent mass east Euro immigration of Poles as much as you do.It should never have happened and a wiser leader would have prevented it.
But all I am saying is please give fellow Whites a bit more respect (I know they shouldn’t be here), and save your anger for the real menace - those who tried to blow a dozen jumbos out of the sky.

Posted by Kulaks Never Learn on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:04 | #

“It is better to stay politically irrelevant and racialized than powerful and deracialized. If the BNP ever has a Prime Minister like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush it will have been utterly and completely defeated.”
__

SO TRUE PROZIUM, SO DAMNED TRUE!!!!!

To all BNP members,

PLEASE ACCEPT Proz’s insight and advice on this, for this ‘respectability’ thing is just a tool of the Jews — and Mammon — to get control and ultimately to DESTROY YOU.

PLEASE ALSO EDUCATE your fellow British ‘Kulaks’ on the truth of this matter, and never lose your integrity and character … and, more importantly, surrender your TRUE POWER as examples of how WHITE MEN, rather than ‘White boys’ are to behave and carry themselves.

On the respectability thing, be more concerned with being ‘respectable’ to those WHO MATTER, your brave comrades and your Anglo-Celtic kinsman!

*For all that your party has done to be a shining example not just to British Whites, but to WHITE PEOPLE the world over, I wish to play this song in all your honour -

THE BRITISH GRENADIERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7×0aE14YoAc&feature=related

Full Version -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTJfKrT-ddE&feature=related

*

“… BUT OUR BRAVE BOYS DO KNOW IT,
AND BANISH ALL THEIR FEARS. …”

Posted by Kulaks Never Learn on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:12 | #

Corrected first link -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x0aE14YoAc&feature=related

*Thought you all might like this one also -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XPHL4Q86t4&feature=related

“The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves:
“Britons never never never will be slaves.”

*Your country Britain IS FALLING TO TYRANTS, and the BNP is THE ONLY HOPE FOR ITS ULTIMATE REDEMPTION!

Why, in the hopes of becoming ‘mainstream’ and ‘respectable’ wish to JOIN THE TYRANTS?

“Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves:
“Britons never never never will be slaves.”

MEN of the BNP: Your JOB is to fight the tyrants and their Mammonite regime and all their ‘attempts to bend thee down’ … not look to attend their cocktail parties.

It is UP TO YOU, MEN of the BNP, to *SOLDIER ON* for Britain in its most DARKEST HOUR, and to help ‘arouse thy generous flame’ of YOUR PEOPLE.

Posted by Phil on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:21 | #

Many of the white youth of today in Britain’s inner cities speak with a Jamaican patois and listen to hip-hop. Blacks have not ‘assimilated’ into our culture, we have assimilated theirs. Will we kick out the ‘wiggers’ too? What is the test, what are the values, that we have to accept to prove we are British? This problem will be much worse if it takes decades for the BNP to come to power. You are making culture everything at the very moment our culture is disappearing.
What is British culture? Are you talking about the pre-1948 culture….when Britain was WHITE? If so, do you really think the Left will not still accuse you of racism?
“We don’t want an all-white Britain, just one where everybody acts white”
Also, how do you keep the immigrant-stock at a ‘manageable’ 3% What does the 3% figure even mean if you consider them to be fully British? If the 3% breed at a prodigious rate will you celebrate the rise in British fecundity?
As a BNP member, I find these developments worrying. I think it is more important that the BNP keeps alive the true meaning of what it means to be British than gets into power having lost this knowledge. Even if this means having to write off areas of Britain and fighting for cessation for the remaining white areas of the UK.
As the UK becomes blacker, so the vision of what you define as ‘British’ will seem more starkly white. The Elites have moved well beyond the first phase of multiculturalism. We are now expected to conform to the norms of non-white society. There will be no escaping the racist tag without complete submission. You cannot get away from race, it is real, and it is a weapon that will be used against us. Accept this. Even the UKIP plan for a 4-year suspension of mass immigration was described as ‘controversial’. You will be forever triangulating leftwards, Lee.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:53 | #

Soren: Mr. Prozium, Mr. Guessedworker, are you aware of how close your thinking runs to that of Mr. Linder? It isn’t very far from my own either.

I can’t speak for Proze, but I don’t see myself as being ideologically close to Alex at all.  I see him as a reactionary.  That is, he takes his political bearings from the actions of others in order to oppose and defeat said others.  He does not have a clear vision of “what next”, after the enemy is routed.  He just assumes a bright new dawn will be ushered in and we can all settle back into a natural European modus.

I am a revolutionary primarily interested not in forces, like Alex, but in ideas.  I know about the forces.  But I see them as beneficiaries, and utterly ruthless exploiters, of the general ideological milieu ... of modernity.  Actually, the effect of their exploitation has been to advance modernity into postmodernity, into a milieu which is toxic to European Man.  From my perspective, we begin with introducing a philosophy of European survival into the intellectual and artistic domain.  We cannot begin with “going through” the forces.  But we will surely end with it.

Posted by exlinderite on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:10 | #

He does not have a clear vision of “what next”, after the enemy is routed.

In fact he does. Listen to his Radio Istina more closely. But, perhaps he has more tact than making proposals for a future he knows he can’t secure. America does not belong to us. It is childish to talk about what we’d do with it if it did. There’s very little fantasy in the ideations of Alex Linder. Banning bagpipes and creating a new Switzerland, is about all. What happens next, Linder says, won’t be the best of all possible worlds, but it’ll be better than the present one.

He just assumes a bright new dawn will be ushered in and we can all settle back into a natural European modus.

You are absolutely wrong. He does not assume anything. He repeatedly says if this, if that, etc. Belief in the bright new dawn is common among his readers—and yours. He has repeatedly stated, and again listen to RI or Goyfire, that getting rid of Jews won’t solve everything, but will allow us a freer hand in addressing our problems. That’s all. You’re making a caricature of Linder here that simply does not match up to statements he’s made on record.

Posted by exlinderite on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:13 | #

Once again, Europe dwellers like GW, CvH, and a Finn may not see the magnitude of the Jewish role

You better believe CvH “sees” it. He just delights in denying it, or affirming it in an exaggerated way to delight in offending us. In short, he plays games with the truth for kicks. So I don’t know why anyone takes that lisping jackass seriously.

Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:25 | #

It’s truly amazing.  Has Barnes learned absolutely nothing from the American experience?

Approximately forty years ago, American conservatism completed its transformation into aracial conservatism.  From that point on, the idea of protecting and promoting the existence of white Americans as a people became taboo.  Sure, there were still some winks and nudges, some speaking in code.  But the overt racialism was jettisoned.  Conservatives were going to “sneak up” on the Left. 

How did that work out?  Look around America today.  Ever since the switch to aracial conservatism, it’s been nothing but disaster after disaster.  Decade after decade of nothing but loss after loss.  The culture moving ever leftward, the population growing ever more non-white.  And why wouldn’t it? If you go down the same road, you’ll experience the same disaster.  Once you give in to the Left on race, why shouldn’t the white girl bed down with the black?  After all he plays cricket.  That should count for something, right?

Once you give in to the Left on race, why shouldn’t immigration be mostly non-white?  After all, most of the world’s population is non-white, so it makes sense right?  And why shouldn’t the emphasis be taken off of England’s traditions and heroes of old?  They were white, after all.  A new tradition, a new order must include the more recent “British.” You know, the negro/white/Paki hybrids that giving up on race will inevitably spawn.  So long as they play cricket, they will be just as English/Scot/Irish/Welsh as the next guy.

You’ll need to transform your educational system, your culture, your sense of history, all to accommodate the new “British.” 

In other words, once you give up on race, Leftist insanity actually begins to make sense.  The Leftists may be crazy, but they aren’t idiots.  What they do makes perfect sense once white racial preservation becomes unacceptable.  The idiots are the aracial conservatives who think that they can give up on white racial preservation…and yet remain conservative.  It doesn’t work that way because it can’t work that way. 

There is a reason why the Left will tolerate dissent on almost all matters, but will go absolutely nuts when challenged on race.  They understand that race is the key pressure point, the key upon which the whole thing turns.  If they can win on race, they will win on everything, given time.  If they lose on race, they will lose on everything, given time.  They understand this.  They are determined to control the key pressure points of culture and political power.  You seem determined to cave in to them. 

And as to this ludicrous idea that most white nationalists want Britain to be submerged in a sea of Polish immigration, well, thanks for the straw man argument.  As I’ve said elsewhere, most white nationalists would love nothing more than to reclaim ALL of our homelands and restore them fully to their rightful peoples.  I no more want Scotland overrun with Poles than I want Poland overrun with Scots.  I will say this however: IF, and only if, we are able to achieve only one white homeland on the entire planet, then I would support the right of both Poles and Scots to move there.  In such a scenario I could not sit idly by and watch either of those peoples destroyed by the non-white hordes.  I feel an affinity to both of these peoples, as they are different branches of the broader white family. 

But let’s try to do better than just one white homeland.  Let’s try to restore them all, or at least as many as we can.  At which point the different branches should maintain their own distinctivness as much as possible. 

What’s the problem here, Lee?  I’ll answer that for you: your problem isn’t those awful white nationalists.  Your problem is that you are too ready to cede a primary pressure point to the Left.  You think that you are outsmarting them.  No, they are outsmarting you.  The pragmatist thinks that half a loaf is better than none.  In many areas of life, that would be true.  Race isn’t one of them.  The Leftist understands that, if you concede the issue of race to him, he’ll get 100 percent of the loaf over time.  He’s not splitting the loaf with you, at least not as you would understand it.  He’s merely taking half now, knowing that he’ll get the other half soon enough.  Look around.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:44 | #

Fred,

the CofCC has an article up today: “Israel government funded agency launches campaign against ‘mixed marriages.’”

Of course the goal isn’t to encourage their mixing but rather their acceptance that mixing is bad, which may then apply to us worthless Goy. Note the Orthodox are not intermarrying and are having more children - tradition and religion once again show their strength, albeit their temples don’t preach the crap our Judeo/Marxeo/anti-Christ-“Churches” do nowadays…

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:31 | #

Very good points by Trainspotter.  If a man is unwilling to fight to protect his children and descendants from the mudslide, it’s only a matter of time until he caves in on any issue you can name.  (BTW, thanks for that link to your Rotten Tomatoes thread.  I only got through a few pages though before the noise from the degenerate homos and muds got to be too much).

I really hope that Barnes’ confused thinking on race and ethnicity isn’t contagious.  Nick Griffin’s line that “if Trevor Phillips is English, then the English are nothing, and that’s a racist position and it’s wrong” was one of the best I’ve heard from any English-speaking politician.  Hopefully that’s the sort of clear thinking that will guide the BNP, no matter what concessions have to be made to avoid legal censure.

The neocons, who are Jews (plus a few Euros who function as extended Jewish phenotypes), want forced race-replacement of Eurochristians in all the traditional Eurochristian homelands:  they specifically want non-white population transfers into white lands on a massive scale.—Fred Scrooby

This is certainly true on average, but I’ve noticed that there are a number of neocons that are very critical of the Hispanic invasion (e.g. Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Murray).  Perhaps it’s just a bone being thrown to dispossessed White Americans to keep them on board for the other elements of the neocon platform.  Hanson, in an interview, said that the problem with the large number of Hispanics is that it allowed them to isolate themselves, preventing them from properly miscegenating with native Whites.  That’s the bone he throws to appease the Ben Wattenberg types.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:12 | #

Many of the issues of European vs. non-European could perhaps be resolved by an allocation formula that takes genetic similarity into consideration.  Let’s say you design it around the largest group that is most similar to the native English (assuming this would be the Irish) such that none of them would have to be repatriated.  Then you come up with a coefficient that would result in some small number of Africans/Aboriginals/etc.  Repatriation would be determined based how an ethnic group’s numbers match up with their allotment.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:19 | #

From whatever vantage point Hitler is viewing current events in the UK, he must enjoy seeing British EGI being damaged by a wave of Polish immigrants.  Fate, it would seem, does hold a grudge.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:56 | #

How would you decide how small or large ethnic groups are? For example do we count Pakistanis, or Punjabi, Makrani, Sindhi, Balochi etc.?—Loriver

One solution would be to just use bins of FST distance.

Another would be to define ethnic groups on national borders.  You would use a classifier to assign someone to a country of origin.  The number of allowed immigrants from that country would be based on its FST distance.  It might cause problems for smaller countries, or countries made up of very different ethnic groups, but that could be handled by leaving some countries out of the classifier.

The first solution might mean that some number of Irish don’t get included, but that could be solved by implementing a reduced version of the second option that would permit a buffer for national ethnies. 

If there was concern about ‘doing the right thing’ for the non-Whites who have been in the UK for many generations, you could apply GW’s suggestion of the June 22nd, 1948 cutoff.

The whole thing will, of course, lead to some, presumably small, number of bizarre exceptions, but you could also have an appeals court that would handle disputes.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:23 | #

Another foolproof method would be to have prospective New Brits listen to one of Alan Bennett’s radio plays such as ‘Forty Years On’ or a story like ‘The clothes they stood up in’.

If they get it they’re in, if not they’re not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:58 | #

On balance, I think we’ll just keep our home for ourselves.  No compromise.

Posted by a Finn on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:58 | #

Scrooby: “Once again, Europe dwellers like GW, CvH, and a Finn may not see the magnitude of the Jewish role as someone like Alex does because ...”

- I may be repeating myself. I see the magnitude of the Jewish role. From this, quite natural consequence is to create political pressure against liberal/ leftist/ neocon Jews and blissful safe haven magnet in Jewish paleoconservative/ traditional conservative/ pro-white circles. I am not supporting shotgun organizational marriage between pro-European-Americans and Jewish pro-whites. You have the right to form separate organizations and communities and you should do so. Normal reciprocity in this situation points toward treating Jewish paleo/ traditional conservatives and Jewish pro-whites fairly in the societal level.

Jews have changed since the 19th and 20th century, e.g. secularized, and become more individualistic and culturally assimilated, so they are more receptive to the European-Americans’ messages, morals and ideas.

Also, my observations and studies tell me that European-American elite’s part in the downfall of Usa is underestimated. They did not give up to the Jews etc., they actively chose, based on immoral short term self-interests.

About Barnes. In a good day I would let him hold barbeque sticks.

Folk in itself can’t and will not preserve anything. Left to it’s own devices it will just slowly assimilate all the pigmented entities floating in society, becoming non-British in the process. Folk has meaning only in connection to something that gives it direction and endurance to it’s continuity.

Without any pompousness, I told you several times that endogamy can’t be left to party or state and I was right. They are corruptable, compromising and individualistically self-interest oriented (vs. ingroup loyalty and altruism) by their nature. They will let you down if you depend on them in your people’s continuity. Network of communities is the only way to ensure people’s continuity. By giving up it’s selective membership policies BNP is using the British people as a political tool. British communities should use BNP as a political tool, always. This is the right order of things.

Suitable starting point to this change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4g1bGITLc

Posted by Phil on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:45 | #

Fred Scooby-

”The Elites have moved well beyond the first phase of multiculturalism.  We are now expected to conform to the norms of non-white society.” (—Phil)

Lo and behold, I just ran across the following, illustrating Phil’s point:

”The mayor of London, the ‘conservative’ journalist Boris Johnson, has called on Londoners to observe Ramadan fasting and break the fast at a mosque.”

Fred—funnily enough, I was the Philip M who sent that article to the site you are linking to, and I was thinking largely of that very story when I wrote the above. I guess the blogoshpere is a small world.

I like this site, and I like View From The Right. It’s a shame you guys over here (not Fred) slate poor Lawrence so much. It makes me feel like a traitor for coming here, because I like him. He has much to say which is insightful and original.

Posted by Prozium on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:00 | #

Membership in a British ethnostate should be on the basis of British descent, and any non-British elements should be there only due to practical necessity or, depending on the motivations of the parties involved, perhaps some kind of goodwill (although that would be strongly limited with regard to EGI). Neither of those considerations necessarily leads to discrimination between Europeans and non-Europeans, there is no particular reason to draw the line of ‘assimilable’ around Europe.

There are already plenty of ‘assimilated’ Whites in Britain who have non-British ancestry. In my previous post, I mentioned Winston Churchill (1/2 American) and Queen Elizabeth II (German background) as examples. I don’t see anyone here calling into question their ‘Britishness’ in spite of their mixed ancestry.

As an American, I honestly don’t care where you draw the line. It is an internal question for you people to decide as far as I am concerned. I’m not in the habit of writing about Britain on a regular basis. My current posts about the subject are an unusual exception and were prompted by Dan Dare’s comments in the recent Churchill thread.

Many British nationalists would agree that the aforementioned considerations might well lead to individuals from neighbouring ethnic groups, with whom we do not have a clear-cut uneven immigration problem, being allowed to say. However it is disingenuous to refer to people with partial Irish, Dutch or German ancestry, without mentioning Poles or any more distant European ethnic groups, to gain approval for the idea that Europeans in general are somehow qualitatively different to non-Europeans in their ‘assimilability’.

It wasn’t “disingenious” in the least. Irishmen, Frenchmen, Dutch, Germans - they’re all “non-British” by ancestry. Should they be excluded or not? Sometimes when I read you people, I honestly can’t tell your position on the matter. You have a strange fixation on ethnic integrity that Americans (who are racial nationalists) simply do not share.

Again, why should membership be on a ‘white’ basis?

I never said it should. I was only clearing up Barnes’ misrepresentation as to what “White Nationalism” would entail if adopted in the UK. I haven’t said anywhere that Brits should be White Nationalists. If you bothered to read the comments to that thread, you would have quickly that I said exactly the opposite.

What has ‘whiteness’ got to do with Britain? Here is an example of the kind of thing Lee Barnes is criticising, albeit it is more subtle than he implies.

Barnes was attacking an absurd straw man that WNs advocate open borders between the UK and Europe and that White Nationalism would reduce native Britons into a minority in their own country. As for what ‘whiteness’ has to do with Britain, it could be used as a criterion of ‘assimilable’.

Some European borders are more artificial than others. For example Great Britain is an island, and the sea is a substantial barrier to gene flow so there is a genuine discontinuity that divides mainland Britons from other Europeans.

I didn’t have Britain in mind when I wrote the above. I was thinking of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Croatia. These are linguistically defined nation-states that do not correspond to genetic differentiation. Plainly, ‘Italians’ are not genetically homogenous and discernable from, say, the Swiss.

The point Lee Barnes is trying to make, although he may not know it, is that in order for British EGI to be maximally conserved intra-European differences cannot be ignored, and there is no qualitative difference between Europeans and non-Europeans in this equation. The issue of cross-ethnic similarity is a potential complication, but it exists in any form of ethno-nationalism, and it certainly does not encompass all of Europe.

Look, if you want to deport the Poles, 1/4 Germans, 1/2 Irish, 3/4 Italians, or establish anti-miscegenation laws in the name of EGI to prevent the Welsh and Scot-Irish from interbreeding, or Brits with Romanians ... again, I honestly do not care, as it is not my concern and or any of my business.

My own personal view is that the white ethnics who are capable of assimilating should be allowed to stay and the borders should be closed. They could be absorbed over time like the Huguenot or Irish minority in your country. Britain would remain essentially the same country.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:52 | #

Plainly, ‘Italians’ are not genetically homogenous and discernable from, say, the Swiss.

Proze, multi-array DNA analysis - itself a technology in the course of being overtaken by new developments - can situate populations geographically down to a resolution of 100 miles.  We will have the means to be really quite precise about this subject - not that I am advocating universal testing.  But technology won’t be the stopper there.  Ethics will, which is why we should be addressing this issue from the ethical perspective.

Posted by Prozium on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:30 | #

I don’t see the new genetic testing validating the linguistically defined nation states of Europe. France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Croatia and so on are mixtures of all types of subraces. Despite what some might think, Britain isn’t ethnically homogeneous either.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:13 | #

I think that a philosophy of European life would, to use the precise word, militate a reversal of all modernity’s paradigms which are incompatible with its scheme.  The trend towards the loss of genetic differentiation is one such.

We should not view history as being one of endless gene flow leading to some future people not like ourselves.  The opposite dynamic is the natural order, and would be ours too given an appropriate mind-world in which to live.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:40 | #

Despite what some might think, Britain isn’t ethnically homogeneous either.

To be sure. But they’re all closely related at least.

I’d include Irish in a neo-British definition. I’m Ulster Irish, Scottish, English, and French; but I doubt the Irish are much different.

Though I don’t consider Nordics as all that different either - my being an American that shouldn’t be surprising. My ethnic boundary’s pretty large relative to an Englishman.

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:18 | #

Despite what some might think, Britain isn’t ethnically homogeneous either.

I’m not sure who thinks this.  Does anyone here think that?  It’s the racialist version of ‘race is only skin deep’.  Where the line is drawn for ethnic groups is partly a question of political expediency.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:25 | #

Fred,

you probably already know, but Japan is an example of a country using the carrot right now.

America will surely have to expel its illegals soon too: Operation Wetback II. And along with them, maybe later we may entice the other resident aliens (the nonwhites) to leave…

Posted by Frank on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:27 | #

I’m not holding my breath, but who knows. Secession and/or expulsion…

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:40 | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ghMDXhWVGI

At 6:00 in this video, Norman Lowell presents one strategy for getting Negroes to leave.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:56 | #

Secession and/or expulsion…

Full-scale mudpulsion as the fool proof method of preventing mudcegenation - I like it.

maybe later we may entice the other resident aliens (the nonwhites) to leave…

It doesn’t matter that they want it so much as we want it (i.e., fuck their feelings).  Besides, it ain’t as if it’s a one way ticket to the gas chambers.  But for us their presence among us pretty much is.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:36 | #

Despite what some might think, Britain isn’t ethnically homogeneous either. - Prozium

I’m not sure who thinks this.  Does anyone here think that?  It’s the racialist version of ‘race is only skin deep’.  Where the line is drawn for ethnic groups is partly a question of political expediency. - Dasein

Actually Britain is remarkably homogeneous, genetically speaking. Some 80% of British males (higher in Ireland) belong to Haplogroup R1b, which is also the dominant Y-Hg throughout western Europe as far north as Jutland and as far east as the Elbe.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:26 | #

Full-scale mudpulsion as the fool proof method of preventing mudcegenation - I like it.

Secession alone would be fine; but I was thinking there that if Operation Wetback II was put into action, it’d be a small step from there to encourage legal immigrants to leave etc. There’s a chance nativist sentiment would spread like wildfire.

No one ever knows what will happen in a country run by the lowest quality voters (the masses). Some silver tongued demagogue gets up on stage or on radio, or some right wing website takes off in popularity; and you don’t know what will happen. If we want to make an impact, we just need acquire such skills to make such an impact - at least going by what I understand from Francis.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:29 | #

For an America-wide appeal, dropping both the so-called Civil War as well as WWII would likely be necessary. Though, an America-wide appeal isn’t the only possible approach. It might have better results to appeal individually to Southerners and German-Americans and to allow others to take on other groups.

I guess that’s all common sense like most everything else I go on about.

Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:04 | #

It wasn’t “disingenious” in the least. Irishmen, Frenchmen, Dutch, Germans - they’re all “non-British” by ancestry. Should they be excluded or not? Sometimes when I read you people, I honestly can’t tell your position on the matter. You have a strange fixation on ethnic integrity that Americans (who are racial nationalists) simply do not share.

Indeed.

White is White over here, plain and simple.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:50 | #

The ‘strange fixation’ on ethnic integrity that Prozium mentions encapsulates very well the essential difference between European ethno-nationalism and American-style white nationalism.

The latter simply does not exist in Europe, depite Lee John Barnes’ invocation of it. I suspect what he has in mind when referring to white nationalism are the various grouplets that have spun off from the BNP and the NF in recent years (including the contemporary NF itself) as well as the unreconstructed Tyndallites who hold court at the British forum on Stormfront. That aside, it is simply a chimera of his own making.

As for the matter of intra-European (or intra-Eurosphere) migration that is almost irrelevant. As long as the bi-lateral flows remain roughly in balance, which they were until the EU expansion in 2004, there is absolutely no issue. In fact there are many cultural and economic benefits to be gained from such migration, provided it is restricted to exchanges between societies which are culturally compatible and of the same (high) socio-economic status and HDI level.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:58 | #

In fact there are many cultural and economic benefits to be gained from such migration, provided it is restricted to exchanges between societies which are culturally compatible and of the same (high) socio-economic status and HDI level.

It would bring Europeans closer together were they to share more blood, but otherwise I don’t see the benefit.

If you bring in many elites from another country who decline to fully mix in or who don’t appreciate the native customs, they might sit on the top and act somewhat like Jews.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:08 | #

Tourists and traveling merchants and such would inevitably mix in the absence of what we’d deem authoritarian laws. So some degree of mixing would result even without allowing in foreign workers.

The again only benefit would be international relations.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:25 | #

Im with Dan Dare on that.

Reading this whole thread I think I must fall more towards WN than I realised. Of course WN is applicable to the US and I suppose Australia etc in way it isnt to Europe

For instance someone said about not drawing any particular line around Europe as regards immigration. So only one step away from not priviledging South Africans over Somali ex-pirates for example. Whoopee fucking do! And in fact, by an incredible piece of luck, thats already the kind of immigration policy in place in the UK. Guess thats one policy the BNP wont need to tinker with.

Many white Europeans are priviledged over non-whites only via the EU. And thats something we know the EU is anxious to reform.

In the ideal world there would only be minimal populatuion movements even between white countries but we are not in the ideal world. Im really glad we are thrashing out reasons now why Poles shouldnt be in the UK, because thats like, you know, a real pressing issue compared to the trivialities of that large grey mammal with the trunk currently demolishing every stick of furniture in the living room.

Has anybody totted up the lost EGI due to Poles being here compared to that of our more vibrant pals?

200,000+ Poles settled here after WW2, this was formalized in 1948 through the Polish Resettlement Act. 1948, didnt something else happen that year? Why yes, the very same year as the arrival of the blessed St. Empire of Windrush with its precious cargo of a few hundred West Indians. But guess which of the two events is billed as The Greatest Thing Ever To Have Happened To Britain? Well you already know, so no need to guess.

Anyhow, we never hear a great deal about this very large Polish influx, really almost nothing at all. It really has dropped right down the memory hole. As far as I can tell they have been quite unremarkable as immigrants. They dont noticably out or underperform the natives academically, criminally, economically etc. As far as one can acertain they dont stand out positively or negatively. In that respect, they are the model immigrant group, their very invisibility proof of this. They havnt formed noticible enclaves or ghettos, they (their descendants) seem to be scattered all over the place.

Immigration cheerleaders constantly tell us race is an illusion, so why doent they use the Polish story when telling us just how lucky we are to be getting lots of nice Somalis living here now. After all them and the Poles, its all the same thing innit? One hears far more about the tiny batch of Ugandan Asians booted out by Amin than we ever do about the Poles though, in fact we as I said, we never hear about them at all.

The left/libs know that race is important, they know the Polish story destroys their race blind argument. They do draw a line around Europe, they do priviledge non-whites over whites (just as we are not going to priviledge whites over non-whites it seems), they dont draw lines between white ethnic groups with regards to immigration. Because they know implicitly, that when push comes to shove the fault line is white/non-white.

So we can sit here discussing whether we should let X number of Poles or Y number of Latvians live in the UK or none at all. Meanwhile our left/lib pals meanwhile know they just have to keep piling on the non-whites, wherever they come from.

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:47 | #

Fred Scrooby: “We’ll agree to disagree on the Jews, Finn.”

Ok. I just remind you that life is not a beauty contest. You will not get any “points” by being politically pure, but you will get an endless torrent of “points” by being endogamous. Do you want create a political situation where each and every Jew have to resist you politically or a situation where substantial part of Jews are politically synchronized with you? Do you want to create a situation where your right hand is helping Europeans and your left hand is accumulating all kinds of obstacles to their way? Fred, you talk like there would be all kinds of political luxuries. That is the mind set of world empire not under threat, which is concerned about winning or losing. You should adopt the traditional European mind set which is death or survival. It would remove the contradictions and non-essentials from your thinking, give it sublime clarity and concentrate it towards the crucial things.

All the people here, whatever they advocate, talk about all encompassing single systems where almost all or all British people would belong. Problem is that all human systems will degenerate when time passes, including the system I advocate, i.e. endogamous community networks. All kinds of incentives; pressures; differences between individuals and subgroups; grievances; stupidity and ignorance; dynamical interplay between culture, economy, fashions, goals, changes in environment and infrastructure, etc.; etc.; will degenerate any endogamous system. If the endogamous system is all encompassing, decay in one part of the system will threaten the whole system. When these incidents accumulate the whole system eventually decomposes. The saving part in community networks is that there are differences between different communities, so if there is force there is always greater counterforce. When one or more communities decay, other communities become alarmed and they strenghten their endogamy and their communities in general. They protect themselves from the bad influences. They create political and public pressure against decay. They compete economically and in other ways with the persons which have become loose individuals. Communities are more efficient economically etc., so the loose individuals feel increasing pressure. If the loose individuals still stay loose, they serve as abrupt contrast and opposition, thus they unintentionally help the endogamous communities.

I hope that the British are reasonable enough so that their endogamy preserves the separateness of the British and excludes e.g. me as a Finn. It is their decision of course.

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:56 | #

Addition: Additional good thing about community networks is that it allows all endogamy options in different communities, ranging from British regional endogamy to white endogamy. That said, I still hope they preserve British ethnicity.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:04 | #

Dare places the alleged benefits of cultural and economic exchange above EGI.  In response to unanswerable challenges regarding the suicidal involvement of the English in WWII he posts beer ads and the drivel of slap happy liberals.  Apart from dredging up some stats and statutes available on the Internet, a pretty sad record.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:59 | #

Im concerned with EGI but the real attack on the EGI of any white ethnic group is not coming right now from related groups, its coming from non-white groups.

And who is directing the attack, not people who are concerned to destroy English, German or Polish EGI but to destroy whites, EGI and all, wholesale. Sure we have the example of Irish nationialism, they have been pretty successful in their own way especially (in fact only) with regards to separating themselves from the English. Phew at least their EGI is safe from those other pesky whites, the real threat. And all that 3rd world immigration, who cares eh? If only we had a few more successful nationalists like that standing up for their own EGI, we would have nothing to fear in the future.

Im not aware the main threat to any white ethnic groups EGI is currently coming from another white group, certainly not the extent thats its coming from non-whites.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:52 | #

Im not aware the main threat to any white ethnic groups EGI is currently coming from another white group

How convenient. Let’s just forget the past shall we?

http://vdare.com/devlin/090122_grant.htm

It’s so fucking obvious. Discrimination is indivisible. One begets the other.

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:42 | #

Lurker, in Usa the situation is different and pro-white is the natural center. Here in Europe things function a little bit differently, but it should be seen as friendly separation that don’t harbor hostility or ill will towards other whites. It shows friendly concern and respect towards other Europeans and their uniqueness. I remind that the policy that I advocate excludes me from all the other European nations and it doesn’t offend me at all; on the contrary it makes me satisfied, because Europeans’ best interests are realized.

Irish Republican Army is a communist terrorist and criminal mob, only bad things can be expected from them. It doesn’t apply to this situation at all.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:04 | #

Irish Republican Army is a communist terrorist and criminal mob, only bad things can be expected from them. It doesn’t apply to this situation at all.

I have friends in the USA that harbor and abet and I don’t know what to do.

My wife is English for Christ’s sake…

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:17 | #

Daniel, IRA advocates mass immigration from the third world to Ireland and anti-Irish policies. This is the consequence of their communist/ socialist ideology and this is how they “defend” Irish interests. Now that the low level warfare has ended, many of it’s members practice organized crime.

Maybe in Usa some people still have romantic view of IRA?

Posted by Bill on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:22 | #

Guardian 12 September 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/english-defence-league-chaotic-alliance

How are the BNP going to handle this?

Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:12 | #

Maybe in Usa some people still have romantic view of IRA?

We have no great war.

Some of the less stable become Neo-Nazis and IRA types.

It is sad. He has a lot of potential. Supreme manipulator.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:13 | #

He isn’t pro-immigration and neither are any of the Irish immigrants I know. (My friend I’m speaking of isn’t an Irish, Irishman)

It is just “What’s good for the Irish?”

Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:26 | #

Irish Republican Army is a communist terrorist and criminal mob, only bad things can be expected from them. It doesn’t apply to this situation at all.

Exactly! I get the feeling they are pro-Palestinian first, to the extreme, and anti-Israel only second.

Plus, they almost killed my wife a few times back in the day with some explosives…

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:53 | #

Yea as Fred says our side has always been tolerant of Jews within a wise limit, it’s Jews who are so obsessively anti-white, including “right-wing” Jews.

If they ever bother changing, we’ll be here. But working with Jews doesn’t mean blindly following them or blindly supporting Israel etc.

If they ever wake up to see WWII is over, perhaps they’ll cease with their insanity.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:00 | #

Clarification: working with them where common interests lie. Working with them again does not mean working for Jewish interests as most right wing Jews seem to believe. We both want to stop Mexican immigration, but we both do not have an interest in the Middle East.

What happens in Iran or Iraq isn’t a concern to me, and I oppose US moneys and troops being sent there to waste. Imo, conflict in those areas are also opposed to Israeli interests; but right wing Jews aren’t rational on those issues.

Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:38 | #

Just a thought:

A lot of this comes down to competing narratives.  The narrative that we have been taught since World War II pretty much boils down to this: any defense of white interests in ANY form inevitably leads to those whites engaging in oppression and genocide (remember Hitler!).  Therefore, to avoid oppression and genocide, whites must cease to exist as a group and blend with the non-white hordes.  (the fact that this approach leads to genocide of whites…well, don’t think about that!!).  The sooner they are mixed out of existence, the better.  But as long as any remain, they must be gelded.  They must be taught to believe that any defense of themselves as a people is immoral and downright rude.  Oh, and it’s also for dateless losers. 

I never said the narrative that we have been taught made much sense, but there it is. 

Notice I said defense of white interests in ANY form.  The leftist/liberal/Jewish power structure wants whites gone, or at least gelded.  Period.  Whether whites choose to organize as pan-Europeans, or simply as British, or what have you, is rather beside the point - at least from the standpoint of our enemies.  Unless your political organization cheers on young white girls bedding down with negroes, you are their enemy.  You are a nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews. 

That’s it.  That’s the bottom line of the narrative.  Yes, it’s Orwellian and crazy - white preservation equals genocide…therefore genocide the whites first, so as to avoid genocide(?!?) - but there it is. 

You can’t play games with this, you can’t sneak around it.  Lee, you aren’t going to fool these people.  They want you gone - bottom line.  Attack white nationalism all you want, but you aren’t going to snooker anybody.  Your enemies want you gone, gone, gone.  They don’t care whether you call yourself British nationalists or white nationalists.  And if you teach your children to bed down with Pakis, negroes, and other mystery meat, they will have won.  Completely.  Your enemies understand this.  Do you?

And if you do the right thing, and refuse to condone white children bedding down with Africans, then you become the implacable enemy of leftists and Jewry, no matter what you call yourself.  Calling yourself a British nationalist is fine.  But don’t imagine that it will placate the people that want you gone. 

Needless to say, my narrative is quite different from the one above.  However, there is one point on which I agree with the competing narrative - nationalism can definitely get out of hand.  Whites have slaughtered one another for centuries.  The slaughters of the twentieth century have opened the door to our possible extinction. 

Simply put, we can’t afford to butcher our fellow whites anymore.  We need to move beyond that.  Does this make me anti-nationalist, as Lee would suggest?  Not at all.  I support nationalism up to the point of each white nation maintaining its own sovereignty and cultural/ethnic distinctiveness.  As I’ve said before, I don’t want Scotland overrun with Poles anymore than I want Poland overrrun with Scots. 

But we have to be pan-European enough in our sensibilities to avoid slaughtering one another, and perhaps to form a military/economic bloc capable of standing against the rising Asian behemoths.  Perhaps we should view ourselves as a collection of clans that, together, from a broader tribe.  Whatever.  The point is that we must feel a connection to one another, to whites wherever they may live.  So yes, Lee, on a certain level - ORION.  Our Race is Our Nation.  No need to take that too literally.  On another level, we want to keep our individual sovereignty and distinctiveness.  It’s not either/or, as Lee would disengenuously have us believe.  These approaches work perfectly well together, and in fact complement one another. 

This needs to be part of our narrative to compete wtih the dishonest and evil enabling narrative promoted by the enemies of our people, or if you prefer, our peoples.  I don’t know about Lee, but I won’t get fooled again. (hat tip to The Who)

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:09 | #

Trainspotter,

European peoples never once decided to slaughter other European peoples.  All wars, at least since the time of the Norman Conquest, have been fought for and by power elites.  It is elites not peoples who are murderous.  They use nationalism, yes.  They use liberty.  They use democracy.  They use faith.  They use “national interest”.  They use anything they can, none of which they really believe in.  There is only one belief among the elites, and it is the belief in power and the possession of power.

People’s instinct is for peace, and this you can trust.

Posted by Q on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:56 | #

Excellent insights! I think if we could amalgamate those last three posts by Trainspotter, GW, and Fred Scrooby and pour that brilliancy into the ears of the BNP leadership, we’d see a massive takeover.

Posted by Trainspotter on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:11 | #

Guessedworker: “European peoples never once decided to slaughter other European peoples.  All wars, at least since the time of the Norman Conquest, have been fought for and by power elites.  It is elites not peoples who are murderous.  They use nationalism, yes.  They use liberty.  They use democracy.  They use faith.  They use “national interest”.  They use anything they can, none of which they really believe in.  There is only one belief among the elites, and it is the belief in power and the possession of power.”

I understand what you are saying and am more or less in agreement, but at the end of the day it is easier for the elite to whip up hatred against the “other” tribe than against your fellow tribesmen.  Obviously, this is not always the case, and in fact internecine conflict can be particularly brutal. Still, the general rule stands. 

The reality is, controlled by elites or not, Europeans have slaughtered one another with great relish.  This must stop.  It is critical that a Scot feel at least some affinity with the other white nations.  Considering everything from culture and history to simple EGI, this makes the most sense.  And particularly in a world with rising non-white powers, it is all the more critical that we maintain, at the very least, a collegial affection for our fellow whites regardless of nationality.  We must have a “special relationship” with one another.  We must recognize that we are part of a broader family, that our own nation is one branch of many.  The core tree of which we are a branch must be respected.  I don’t think we did a good job of that in the past.  Sure, there has long been a recognition that there is such a thing as a “Europe,” from the Holy Roman Empire to the Concert of Europe to the monstrosity of the European Union.   

But, at the end of the day, that didn’t stop white piloted bomber groups from engaging in the mass slaughter of white women and children in World War II.  I think with a stronger dose of a broader white nationalism, there would be more hesitation to do something like that.  Or, to take from the groids, “No more brother wars!”  I believe that this must be actively promoted, not just assumed. 

On the one hand, there is the need to maintain our ethnic and cultural distinctivness, not to mention sovereignty.  On the other, there is the need to maintain strong relationships with other European peoples, and to have a greater affinity for them than for non-whites.  Our new white nationalism must do a better job of balancing these needs than it has in the past.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:08 | #

Im with Trainspotter there, thats kind of what I was trying to get to.

We are attacked as whites per se, not separate nationalities. Some kind of revitalised nationalism can easily be diverted off into other conflict with other whites (come on down IRA) and that gets us nowhere. We have already been there big style WW1, WW2 and so on.

The Jews never fight each other, except on a low level individual basis I suppose, but not at any significant group level. They know what the game is.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:02 | #

Scrooby: “They supported it before they got blamed.  That’s why they got blamed.  The things that made them support it then make them support it now, not blame.”

- Original reasons for Jewish immigration extremism has faded, new reasons are replacing the older ones, the Jews themselves have changed and are changing. Brenda Walker, Lawrence Auster,  Kvetcher, Michael Levin, Michael Bernstein, Nicholas Stix, Paul Gottfried, Ed Rubinstein etc. are some of the visible results of this change. They are immigration restrictionists and/or pro-whites. They are all pro-Jewish, and this makes them more trustworthy (All cards on the table; transparency, compare this e.g. to the false identity Jewish leftist radicals). Pro-white Jew, who shows no Jewish interests might invite suspicions of fraud. It is easier to negotiate and cooperate in some form, if wanted, with people whose interests are honestly visible.

I see it as a reasonable policy to create such a political environment that they uphold their opinions and develop them.

Fred, what do you want to say to these people? Would you like to pressure them towards liberalism and open borders policy, because “They are hostile frauds anyway, the Jews can’t do anything right, whatever they do”, and then scare them with the best of your ability, say, in J. Richards’ style?

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:23 | #

Addition: I suspect that the present mentality in this site is at least partly engendered by the present situation. The ideology of this site is suspended in the air, it is an abstraction, thus it is precarious and it is scary. If a Jew is given even an alphabets worth of credit or if he touches our imaginary organization with his little finger (gently) the whole structure comes crashing down.

This is one of the reasons to establish communities. When your policies are tied to something concrete,  permanent and enduring, it gives security and thus freedom of maneuver in politics.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:28 | #

Guessedworker: “All wars, at least since the time of the Norman Conquest, have been fought for and by power elites.  It is elites not peoples who are murderous.  They use nationalism, yes.  They use liberty.  They use democracy.  They use faith.  They use “national interest”.  They use anything they can, none of which they really believe in.  There is only one belief among the elites, and it is the belief in power and the possession of power.”

- Be careful Guessedworker. I might start to believe again in this site and it’s possibilities.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:42 | #

Finn,

Original reasons for Jewish immigration extremism has faded, new reasons are replacing the older ones, the Jews themselves have changed and are changing. Brenda Walker, Lawrence Auster, Kvetcher, Michael Levin, Michael Bernstein, Nicholas Stix, Paul Gottfried, Ed Rubinstein etc. are some of the visible results of this change. They are immigration restrictionists and/or pro-whites. They are all pro-Jewish, and this makes them more trustworthy (All cards on the table; transparency, compare this e.g. to the false identity Jewish leftist radicals). Pro-white Jew, who shows no Jewish interests might invite suspicions of fraud. It is easier to negotiate and cooperate in some form, if wanted, with people whose interests are honestly visible.

I don’t see the pro-Jewish cards on the table, though.  I see them - they are held behind the back.  But that isn’t the same thing at all.

For me, the sign of good faith amongst these Jews would be that they are taking the pro-white platform into Jewish intellectual life.  They do not do that.  Instead, they concentrate on telling us not to think too hard about “who is white”.  They tell us not to think beyond traditional conservatism, beyond citizenism even.  Meanwhile they triangulate against Duke and MacDonald through mouthpieces like Jobling.

Does this seem like a promising development to you?  Does it look like a display of good faith?

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:05 | #

Guessedworker: “I don’t see the pro-Jewish cards on the table, though.  I see them - they are held behind the back.” 

- Really. Was my hermeneutics of e.g. all those pro-Israel and other comparable articles of Auster just the effervescent droplets of my imagination?

“For me, the sign of good faith amongst these Jews would be that they are taking the pro-white platform into Jewish intellectual life.”

- Stephen Steinlight is taking the immigration restriction -message to the American Jewish Committee and other high level Jewish organizations; Auster has his Jewish followers; Levin, Weissberg and Bernstein are high status targets of emulation to Jews in Amren, etc.

“Instead, they concentrate on telling us not to think too hard about “who is white”.  They tell us not to think beyond traditional conservatism, beyond citizenism even.”

- As a default position, Jews come to pro-white politics with a bundle of insecurities. They fear that they become excluded or discriminated at the societal level; they are uneasy about their genotype and phenotype in pro-white environment; history and it’s interpretations haunts their minds, etc. Auster includes in his definitions of whites middle-eastern people (Surprised, anyone? Still, he accepts and advocates separate communities in society and the free association -principle); Weissberg of Amren hopes that society stays (sufficiently) diverse and multicultural; Steinlight is not the strictests immigration restrictionist, etc.

There are numerous ways to defuse these bundles.

We define our communities,  endogamy and ingroup practices. They are ingroup matters. We don’t consult the Jews in this topic. Why even bring their opinions to this discussion like they would be part of our decision making? Do you think that endogamous orthodox Jews read about white liberals’ universal exogamy opinions like they would be some kind of guidance, wringing their hands helplessly when it is the exact opposite of their practice; “Oh Hyperstein, I guess we have to now all take schwartze wives from Africa”. Of course not. So it is not necessary to the Jews, ever, to have the same opinions than us in this matter, but if they have, it is a little principled plus. We can flaccidly try to harmonize these opinions with them if we happen to remember.

In the other things I would recommend reciprocal arrangements which reduce the pro-white Jews’ fears and insecurities. Ask yourself in each matter what would be acceptable, trustworthy and beneficial to both parties.

“Meanwhile they triangulate against Duke and MacDonald through mouthpieces like Jobling.”

- Jobling is not somebody’s mouthpiece. His site is too dead, arranged in such a way that it doesn’t entice many readers. MacDonald’s work can be used as a guide to starting and upholding friendly relations with at least the pro-white Jews. It could be marketed in this way to them. Orchestrated by their fears, they see it now as a Do It Yourself a New Holocaust -guide.

Generally, extremists and extremist trolls in pro-white sites are creating distorted images of pro-whites.

In politics opinions doesn’t have to be harmonized. Politics is based on cooperation between parties that hold different opinions. If everybody would have the same opinions, politics would cease to exist.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:07 | #

Finn, I don’t think you fully realize the degree to which a people becoming awake to themselves, or at least elite group members who serve as leaders - which is a necessary condition in realizing the former - is akin to “self actualization” on the individual level.  That achieved awareness was itself an act of striving, or would have been experienced as a gratefully received gift.  Having gotten there, a person, a people, wants more of it, wants to fully realize their potential in the continued vein of their awakening.  That, taken to its logical conclusion, means building a society of their own consonant with their ideal actualized being free of the gainsaying sabotage of the Jew.  Further, you seem to neglect the very real sociobiological differences in the respective mentalities of Jews and Europeans.  Merely going on as before with the political process except now the added ingredient of a spontaneous materialization of European group strategizing as the latest edition to the multi-culti mishmash would leave us at a permanent disadvantage.  We are less ethnocentric than Jews, we are more indoctrinable than Jews, Jews hold positions that shape the opinions and evoke the desires of our people; it will not work.  Also, there will be no sheering of a sufficient number of our people away from the mainstream trends of racial dissolution so long as the Jew is conceded the high ground of his power base in finance, media, law and academia are conceded to him.  The Jew must be dislodged.  And once done, why not then take the additional step of removing him from our living space all together?  You cannot argue it would not be in our best interest to do it, all else being equal.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:33 | #

Of course dislodging the Jews from their positions of influence manufacturing doesn’t necessarily mean we would then merely assume their roles, it could mean the intentional destruction that infernal machine of mass media - which accommodates decentralization nicely.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:48 | #

People’s instinct is for self interest, it’s that evolutionary nature you can trust. An elite will evolve and change (not be permanent), because inherent differences exist not just at the group level but at the individual level. Preindustrial England was a society of great social mobility, with no permanent upper class. The target is not an elite but self-interest. It’s not just leftist and Jews targeting whites but a coalition of non-founding white and non-white ethnics that targeted founding peoples because it served the various ethnic interests. The historical record is crystal clear.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:36 | #

CC writes:

Having gotten there, a person, a people, wants more of it, wants to fully realize their potential in the continued vein of their awakening.  That, taken to its logical conclusion, means building a society of their own

So true!

Really what it is is the populace must be of one spirit. And since blood is so important to us, blood would be requisite. In a time where religion is more important, it could become more important.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:42 | #

The historical record is crystal clear.

It’s not merely Jews hating whites, but surely no one here is making that claim. Liberal Christians and self-serving elites are also to blame. The Jewish role is just overwhelming though.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:49 | #

Sir Arthur Keith, in his Evolution and Ethics, comments on Krauts:

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was
to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific
basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning
Hitler’s evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf,
extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years,
and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio-Political Foreign Correspondenee),
published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and
circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living
abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English
the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply
to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that “the German race theory”
stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler
maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; “it will bring about a real
understanding for the first time.” “It is not for men,” said the Fuhrer, “to
discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to
recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation.” I may
remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer,
like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution
as God’s mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore “the
noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the
purity of the blood which God has given it.” Here we have expounded the
perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it
should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the “greatest racial
sin” - that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive
“genes” which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept
uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German
people without impediment.

Posted by Frank on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:18 | #

CC,

I like that a lot.

The quote I was channeling when I wrote my previous comment was from Aristotle (you’ve probably seen me quote this before):

Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution; for example, the Achaeans who joined the Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, becoming later the more numerous, expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Thurii the Sybarites quarrelled with their fellow-colonists; thinking that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven out. At Byzantium the new colonists were detected in a conspiracy, and were expelled by force of arms; the people of Antissa, who had received the Chian exiles, fought with them, and drove them out; and the Zancleans, after having received the Samians, were driven by them out of their own city. The citizens of Apollonia on the Euxine, after the introduction of a fresh body of colonists, had a revolution; the Syracusans, after the expulsion of their tyrants, having admitted strangers and mercenaries to the rights of citizenship, quarrelled and came to blows; the people of Amphipolis, having received Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by them.

Politics.

Posted by Frank on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:23 | #

Here’s a good specimen of “Western Society”, lol. As European as his Afro…

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:07 | #

CC: “Further, you seem to neglect the very real sociobiological differences in the respective mentalities of Jews and Europeans.  Merely going on as before with the political process except now the added ingredient of a spontaneous materialization of European group strategizing as the latest edition to the multi-culti mishmash would leave us at a permanent disadvantage.  We are less ethnocentric than Jews, we are more indoctrinable than Jews, Jews hold positions that shape the opinions and evoke the desires of our people; it will not work.”

- Not at all. Your bunker mentality is normal and reasonable survival instinct in the above situation and I will not say anything against it. However, the problem is that it is all there is and it is all or nothing position. Keep the bunker mentality in the ingroup, but why not add to it elements that make you politically viable. How do you expect politically to achieve anything, let alone “all”, if you are permanently ensconced into your bunker, brooding thoughts of disadvantages, waiting and refusing to come out until “all” have been achieved. Politics means finding all kinds of distinctions in peoples and their opinions and utilizing any of these differences. Politics means being there when it all happened. Politics means becoming dirty, corrupted, compromising and ugly, but never let them to reach the ingroup. Separate precipitously ingroup and outgroup matters.

I remind that politics is just one part of influencing the matters outside.

Those who are pro-whites now, are likely to be considerably more ethnocentric than European people in general. We are not disadvantaged in this matter, but we surely are disadvantaged in every practical realization of it.

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:37 | #

“The socio-political behavior of the Jewish Jewishists( ** ) in the Russian Empire during the 1860s and thereafter was identical to that of the Jewish Jewishists in the U.S. during the 1960s and thereafter.  I don’t see what has changed significantly.  The Jews in the Russian Empire tried to destroy Russia using extreme so-called “leftism” as the weapon and finally succeeded, the Jews in the Austrian and German Empires tried to destroy those societies using extreme “leftism,” the Jews in the U.S. tried to destroy the U.S. using extreme “leftism” and succeeded.  Wherein have they “changed”?”

- Young Jews are increasingly conservative and changing fast to this direction (in political time scale). Even if many of them are mainstream conservatives (read: pseudo-conservatives), it is significant change. Large part of this can be explained by the success of Jewish liberals and radicals. The changes they wrought had the unintentional effect of atomizing, secularizing, assimilating and mixing the Jews to a large extent. This made them more receptive to European-American values and morals. Additionally they are seeing more clearly in practice, what kind of hell awaits them at the end of the liberal road. In the sixties the Jewish radicals and leftists could live in the belief of abstract leftist utopia lie they had created inside their mind, but this is becoming harder day by day.

It would be foolish to not utilize this trend, although there is much more in politics than the Jews (Yes, even in the Usa).

“But whether or not that’s right in this or that specific case, muzzling expressions of the truth of sincere and honest opinion on grounds Jews will take offense isn’t reasonable.  It’s wrong.  What purpose is it supposed to serve?”

Apart from how many facts it may contain, do you think that e.g. J. Richards method of political discussion is reasonable. How about making poltical ad with his cartoons? Success and European American receptiveness? “One world nazi-party”, anyone? Reasonable self-restriction is an asset.

“If a degree of blame be rightly laid at the feet of the Jews — Jews as Jews, not as generic non-specific “liberals” — honest Jews should join in laying it there, not run yelling and screaming from the room and switch to the opposite side in reaction.”

- That is common psychological misconception. Those who readily accept or can accept blame are sociopaths, psychopats and reckless rebel personalities, who don’t care about what other people think about them. Even sociopaths and psychopaths are prone to imitating social behavior, even if their feelings and thoughts doesn’t conform to it. This caring about what others think is one of the basis of ability to belong to a social group, to conform to it, to be a responsible and caring member of it. Thus, by not accepting blame the Jews unintentionally reveal that they care about what others think about them, that social pressure and social punishment - social incentive arrangement changes them to a better direction, that it is possible to Jews to be non-hostile members of society. Use it.

Just remember at the same time to put a wedges between Jewish liberal elites and ordinary Jews and destroy the high status image of rich liberals, so that they are not suitable targers of imitation (indirect bias). Create, support and advertise better high status conservative imitation targets.

“A community or communities will gradually evolve spontaneously”

- No, they will not. Separated living areas might develop spontaneously, but they have no endurance. They are loose collection of individuals and will stay that way, if there are no determined opposite efforts. Those who want to know what kind of complex, wide and special arrangements ethnic endurance and endogamy requires, could read John Hostetler’s Hutterite Society (Endogamous Christian group).  I am not advocating exactly the same kind of ethnic arrangements, but it gives a lot of usable, applicable and important information.

This can be supported by Joseph and Natalie Henrich book Why Humans Cooperate.

If you want Europeans to become brown mixed race, don’t read those books.

“The Jews who are politically active are very tough, very aggressive types who aren’t cowed by that stuff.  Your or my Jewish next-door neighbor is, perhaps, but Jewish political activists are not.”

Well, after quarrel debates with Dennis Mangan (not via e-mail), Conservative Swede, Dennis Mills (pen name Undercover black man) etc. Lawrence Auster said that he tries to avoid responding to e-mails from unknown people and forming discussion relationship, because they might turn to negative phenomenoms and his mind is not made of metal plates. KGS of Tundra Tabloid videotaped some international muslim representative in a conference and asked him questions, his camera and voice shaking considerably. (Possibly aggressive) Jewish activists who are not cowed, are guided in large part by their fear, which is more pronounced than average Jewish fear concerning Jewish group and it’s interests and continuity. This is the main fuel of Jewish political aggressiveness and toughness.

“The Jews support Europe’s Islamization as a broad political position:  does that sound like people who are spooked by “anti-Semitism”?”

- You ignore the fact that many of them oppose it. Follow e.g. Gates of Vienna links, most of them Jewish sites. But Jewish liberals in Europe and America have started to believe their own lies and they are visibly naive and stupid. Once they have dig the deep liberal pit to themselves (or is it grave?), it is hard for them to get out of it.

” ... than from sheer age-old Jewish anti-Christian prejudice.”

- Yes that is ugly.

“... namely Jews are not the innocent”, warmly-disposed-toward-everybody, shy, hoping-only-to-be-liked-and-accepted, wishing-no-one-any-harm shrinking violets ...”

- Of course not. They have excessive bitterness, hatred, prejudices etc. That is the mental snake filled field they have to plough.

Angelic Hollywood Jews are distortions.

“The Jews always come up when these topics of our group-survival do because they are involved in our decision-making, having insinuated themselves in it.”

- You can use methods with which you exclude hostile information and persons in your networks and relations. Learn from the Jews and Muslims. You can use also their methods with which you can thrive in legally hostile environment.

“Our side should have no quarrel whatsoever with the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, none.  Those aren’t the ones perpetually getting involved in fanatically pushing every manner of degenerate politics and societal derangements onto us.”

- They are less involved in liberalism than other Jews, but e.g. Shmuley Boteach is an extreme example of liberal orthodox Jews. His liberalism created quarrel when he tried to get acceptance from orthodox Jews to his Jewish friend’s mixed marriage. Orthodox Jews seem to have a large criminality problem that is embarassement to secular and other Jews. Still, this is much less destructive than liberal Jews.

“The Negroes here are anti-Semitic ...  Activist Jews nevertheless do not hesitate to support anti-Semitic Negroes”

- That and other things have largely destroyed the relationship between Jews and blacks. But blacks were from the beginning just a tool for liberal Jews.

“Wrong.  They see MacDonald’s work as the product of an evil anti-Semitic mind. ... There’s no way you can market it to them.  You can try all you want, they’ll dismiss it as anti-Semitism.”

Read MacDonald, use it insights and information, and build a system between pro-European-Americans and pro-white Jews which removes the structural problems and hostilities between them. When you offer it to Jews, don’t mention MacDonald. After several years of friendly relations you can mention it and say: “Would you have believed a few years ago that MacDonald could produce something that is so good.”

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:06 | #

Thank you Captainchaos for reminding us of the contribution of one of racialism’s heroes, my fellow Scot, Arthur Keith.
In a sensible Scotland we would teach Keith’s discoveries but, alas, our children must study the Anne Frank Diary (absenting,of course, any Frankfurt-style deconstructionism) and the financially centred myth about the magical Jewish post war immigrants to the US being simultaneously liquidated and expatriated.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:08 | #

I remind that politics is just one part of influencing the matters outside.

When has a political party, that serves the self-interest of its leaders, ever radicalized a nation? Bolshevism was won in the street. NS was won in the street. Immigration restriction (KKK) was won in the street.

Health care reform gets a million white Americans in the street. Why?

Posted by a Kraut on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:14 | #

and build a system between pro-European-Americans and pro-white Jews which removes the structural problems and hostilities between them

While we’re at it, we’ll go ahead and colonize the moon, cure cancer, travel through time, build a space-bridge and do back-flips.

How do you expect politically to achieve anything, let alone “all”, if you are permanently ensconced into your bunker, brooding thoughts of disadvantages, waiting and refusing to come out until “all” have been achieved.

You fall back on an objection to pessimism, then, and rather a strawman in CC’s case. Is that all you really have? has all that Foucault softened your brain, you eminently readable egghead?

——

We are less ethnocentric than Jews, we are more indoctrinable than Jews, Jews hold positions that shape the opinions and evoke the desires of our people; it will not work.”

Very well-summarized, Captain. All this arguing for the inclusion of Jews is absurd. Now we have to “build a system” for them too? Our people built a system: they wormed in and unbuilt it. That is what they do; it is what they will always do.

Posted by a Kraut on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:22 | #

When you offer it to Jews, don’t mention MacDonald. After several years of friendly relations you can mention it and say: “Would you have believed a few years ago that MacDonald could produce something that is so good.”

Bwahahaha. A “few years of friendly relations” will be sufficient to break down thousands of years of the Jews’ racial megalomania. Saaaay, that Kevin MacDonald—he was a real card. You should read him sometime, Hymen. Sure, I can see that.

Floating along in fantasyland ...... where a “few years of friendly relations” are suddenly possible between us and them, by accommodating them, as usual.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:55 | #

Posted by a Finn on September 13, 2009, 08:02 AM:

Brenda Walker, Lawrence Auster, Kvetcher, Michael Levin, Michael Bernstein, Nicholas Stix, Paul Gottfried, Ed Rubinstein etc. are some of the visible results of this change. They are immigration restrictionists and/or pro-whites. They are all pro-Jewish, and this makes them more trustworthy (All cards on the table; transparency, compare this e.g. to the false identity Jewish leftist radicals). Pro-white Jew, who shows no Jewish interests might invite suspicions of fraud. It is easier to negotiate and cooperate in some form, if wanted, with people whose interests are honestly visible.

Posted by a Finn on September 13, 2009, 08:23 AM

The ideology of this site is suspended in the air, it is an abstraction, thus it is precarious and it is scary. If a Jew is given even an alphabets worth of credit or if he touches our imaginary organization with his little finger (gently) the whole structure comes crashing down.

Posted by a Finn on September 13, 2009, 02:05 PM:

We define our communities, endogamy and ingroup practices. They are ingroup matters. We don’t consult the Jews in this topic. Why even bring their opinions to this discussion like they would be part of our decision making? Do you think that endogamous orthodox Jews read about white liberals’ universal exogamy opinions like they would be some kind of guidance, wringing their hands helplessly when it is the exact opposite of their practice

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 13, 2009, 11:06 PM:

Everyone knows the expression “racial or ethnic or religious prejudice”?  The thing Jews are constantly preaching against more than anyone in the known universe?  Well, they harbor the most intense ethnoracial prejudice against Eurochristians and it’s not due to some supposed “anti-Semitism” on Eurochristians’ part.  They just don’t like you, don’t wish you well, and are not above trying to harm you, gratis.

The Jews always come up when these topics of our group-survival do because they are involved in our decision-making, having insinuated themselves in it.  They oppose our group-survival and have been very active in molding the legal situation here, along with the mass-media propaganda situation, accordingly.  To get out of the hole we’re in means confronting the Jews whether directly or indirectly.

Fred is quite right. Finn projects his own abstractions whose structure cannot withstand the gentlest touch.

I won’t speak to the rest, but Auster and Gottfried, besides insinuating themselves into our ingroup, and positioning themselves as authorities and adjudicators in debates of the very definition of ourselves and our interests, devote tremendous energy toward identifying and directing their followers to hate and shun anyone who dares distinguish White from jew. They themselves distinguish jew from White, placing jews upon a morally and ethically superior pedastal from which it is right and proper to lecture the rest of us. Rejection of their dictates is, to them, a sure sign of insane jew-hatred. This is precisely the same mechanism used by “the false identity Jewish leftist radicals” to force genocidal immigration and racial integration on those of us who Finn imagines are free to “define our communities, endogamy and ingroup practices”. He ignores the reality that Whites who do so, even those simply trying to defend what they already have, are legally and physically assaulted by the ACLU or SPLC and genocide-bombs euphemistically called refugee resettlement.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 13, 2009, 11:06 PM:

Incidentally, since you bring them up, I don’t see Ultra-Orthodox Jews as a problem.  The problem of “Jewish liberalism,” as the “politically conservative Jews” such as Michael Medved and others are always telling us in other contexts, stems from the secular Jews mainly, and the less religious Jews in general.  That certainly seems correct and should be obvious to everyone.  Our side should have no quarrel whatsoever with the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, none.  Those aren’t the ones perpetually getting involved in fanatically pushing every manner of degenerate politics and societal derangements onto us.

I agree with much of what you write Fred. On this point however I disagree. You understand so much of jewish psychology so well and yet yourself share the blindspot, the sympathy, and the apologetics of the semi-assimilated for their purer brethren.

Auster, for example, excludes jews from his First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society by sleight of mouth, asserting that “the jews” are assimilated and cause no harm. Setting aside the glaring examples where either half of this assertion is false, it’s just as unjustified to assert, as you do, that we “should have no quarrel whatsoever with the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, none”.

Apologies for the self-referential links, but if you’re wondering why I say this then see the sources I cite in posts on Postville, Not Yoshor and Overcoming Our Blooming Idiocy, and in posts on the recent exposure of rabbi criminality, Jewish Supremacists Bribing Politicians and Laundering Proceeds of Criminal Activity and More Fraud Hiding Behind Religion and Philanthropy.

In these cases it is difficult but not impossible to piece together the sordid facts from whitewashed news accounts with the back-channel purely jewish kvetching and occasionally frank ingroup discussion. What’s clear is that the anti-White animus we see openly expressed by both “the false identity Jewish leftist radicals” and excused by our insidious faux-White faux-friends is but a reflection of a more deep and pure and ancient well of resentment that springs from within the ultra-orthodox community you inexplicably imagine is blameless.

Posted by To:FredScrooby on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:00 | #

Hey Fred, I found a highly stereotypical morally ‘righteous’ negro lovin’ Civil Rights Jew for ya to tear in to; they make it so easy to call them out that’s it’s almost laughable:

I was reared in a Yiddish-speaking, secular Jewish home ... In summer 1965, interrupting my research, my wife and I went to Mississippi to do civil-rights work. We lived with a farmer couple in rural ­Holmes County, in a house with no telephone, hot water, or indoor ­toilet. We visited many families in the community, participated in their activities, and helped with voter registration and other efforts to encourage the people to organize themselves in defense of their rights. This deeply moving experience changed my life, but not in any way I would have expected. - http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/looking-for-an-honest-man

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:36 | #

The problem with Jews isn’t much to do with genetics. Part of the problem is their traditional occupations and minority status and present level of power.

But the root problem is the Talmud that tells them they’re “Chosen” and specially permitted to dual morality. Interesting how we’ve all heard of “white supremacists” who view “muds” as subhuman or who are guided by their “will” to seek what’s best for their “master race” without regard for those outside.

And yet, such “white supremacists” hardly even exist. Jews however are very often guilty of dual morality.

-

That doesn’t change the nature of the problem since such ancestral views are passed down almost as easily as genetics: Portugal’s secret Jews come out of hiding.

-

One positive about dual morality is it only works when others don’t know it’s being used. Within game theory, those who are fair fare better than those who are unfair when all can see who’s fair and who isn’t.

Jewish dual morality is inferior to Christian justice (and perhaps some Euro pagans had the same sense of justice) when everyone knows what’s being done. I’m not arguing for not putting one’s own first, but there are moral limits to that. Survival necessitates dual moral actions, but otherwise dual morality is shunned. Similarly, fox-like trickery is viewed as immoral and thus punished when found out.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:48 | #

Clarification: one may still put one’s own first within an agree upon system of morality without falling into dual morality.

Truly a better term than “dual morality” might exist since an agreed upon system of morality might be too low for one’s own people. And so a separate morality might exist within which is different from without.

Treating others to a lower morality than what is demanded from them would be what I mean by “dual morality” - ah the Golden Rule.

-

“Dual morality” doesn’t show up in the online dictionary, so I’m helpless for a concrete definition.

Posted by fellist on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:18 | #

But the root problem is the Talmud that tells them they’re “Chosen” and specially permitted to dual morality.

This is also to say: the root problem is that they are Jews.

I can’t understand why you would try to accomodate the ‘good Jews’ when they come bringing gifts like that.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:30 | #

And I still think MR should link to Fellists blog.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:42 | #

I can’t understand why you would try to accomodate the ‘good Jews’ when they come bringing gifts like that.

Accommodate them? I want the same thing CC does: Jews out. I said I want to work with them where common interest lies.

Ultimately it’s far too difficult as CC said to structure a society for Jews to guard against their doing it harm. They’re far too dangerous.

I got into a big debate with CC over at the other site in the past until I realised he was right… I changed my position since the last time you and I debated on Jews.

-

Reg. the Talmud, yes their being Jews is the problem. CC had mentioned genetics.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:01 | #

fellist,

CC and I do disagree on the boundaries of our living space. I’ve accepted that much of the US territory might be lost - secession is fine with me. CC’s more attached to the present-day boundaries.

I kinda suspect we have the same economic ideas even though he calls his “NS” and I call mine “distributism”... So far as I understand him, I think he’d fall near your economic thinking too.

And yea your blog has become weekly reading for me.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:13 | #

That’s relevant because I’d be more open to the possibility that, say, NY or Florida would be made into a Jewish state. Ah, they’d have to make it themselves - awakened whites aren’t in power in America. If America Balkanises, every ethnic group will be seeking to stake its own boundaries. Jews shouldn’t be allowed to overrun native American settlements because they’re simply too dangerous. Jews should have enough ability to handle their own affairs just as everyone else does. They shouldn’t be given special status - that’s all so far as I’m concerned.

Jews also have a Jewish state in Russia, courtesy of Stalin. There’s 13,899.7 sq mi of space there with only 190,915 inhabitants. Israel by comparison is only 8,522 sq mi with 7,411,000 inhabitants.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:31 | #

Jewish dual morality is inferior to Christian justice

All decent men must concede our people have the right to exist and to the necessary conditions sustain ensure said.  And if they do not, then they are indecent, and we need not heed them.

Clarification: one may still put one’s own first within an agree upon system of morality without falling into dual morality.

 

Keep in mind Frank, there is nothing moral that can come of the less capable, and the less moral, ruling.  Our people, particularly Nordic people, have shown they the most moral, and the most capable, therefore we should rule; or at least enjoy stewardship of this earth.  One may bulk at first hearing that, yet it is true, yet it must be.

their being Jews is the problem.

One can think of the depredations of the Jews in two ways: as a phenomenon of nature, as a “bacillus” as Hitler conceived of them, or as inherently morally wicked.  I’m not sure which interpretation lends itself the greater towards forbearance.

I’ve accepted that much of the US territory might be lost

National Socialists are like Christians in a way, Final Victory or martyrdom.  The Fuhrer could face death with the solace of his undying conviction that all the sacrifices he demanded of his people - of course asking no more of the best of them than he had given himself - would one day win deliverance.

This from Hitler’s Final Political Testament:

I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred against those finally responsible whom we have to thank for everything, international Jewry and its helpers, will grow.

. . .

I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility.

. . .

I die with a happy heart, aware of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, our women at home, the achievements of our farmers and workers and the work, unique in history, of our youth who bear my name.

That from the bottom of my heart I express my thanks to you all, is just as self-evident as my wish that you should, because of that, on no account give up the struggle but rather continue it against the enemies of the Fatherland, no matter where, true to the creed of a great Clausewitz. From the sacrifice of our soldiers and from my own unity with them unto death, will in any case spring up in the history of Germany, the seed of a radiant renaissance of the National-Socialist movement and thus of the realization of a true community of nations.

Many of the most courageous men and women have decided to unite their lives with mine until the very last I have begged and finally ordered them not to do this, but to take part in the further battle of the Nation.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:29 | #

Multi-polar international order is possible too.

Maybe it’s the stereotypical foreign-romanticising Aryan in me, but S. Korea and Japan appear civilised to me. Some stable order might be possible by cobbling together the civilised races if Anglos and Germans and other Nordics and other Europeans aren’t enough.

When it comes to the international stage, I’m perhaps naively open to East Asia, though China looks like a budding evil empire.

Jews more or less terrify me. They’ve enough to deal with running the Palestinian death camps and shouldn’t meddle in world affairs. They say they only want a home to survive in, but they really want to meddle - and we’ve seen how subjects fair under Jewish masters…

Posted by Frank on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:36 | #

Fair—> fare…

Perhaps now you’ll talk the respectability out of my East Asian openness too, lol. CC’s long march through the respectable Anglos.

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:30 | #

a Kraut, I estimate that Foucault accounts for about half of the softening of my brains.

“Now we have to “build a system” for them too?”

- No, the system is primarily for your protection; system, where your group is separate from the Jews, where the Jewish inclinations and European propensities are taken into consideration. As a side effect, when the development of problems are reduced or prevented, this protects the pro-white Jews too.

Deterioration of relations can’t be totally ruled out, but the probability is significantly reduced. If, at the same time you make yourself as independent as possible from outsiders/ outgroups, possible worsening of relations have minimal negative effects on you. Everything in this system should be done reciprocally, no one sided accommodation.

Tanstaafl: “... Auster and Gottfried, besides insinuating themselves into our ingroup, ...”

- I talked about this. When there is nothing real, no communities, it is enough that e.g. Auster says he is white and it means that he has insinuated himself to your ingroup.

“... and positioning themselves as authorities and adjudicators in debates of the very definition of ourselves and our interests, ...”

- That depends on you, not Auster. Auster can’t adjudicate in your matters, if you don’t let him, if you practice selective communication with well known ingroup members.

“They themselves distinguish jew from White, placing jews upon a morally and ethically superior pedastal from which it is right and proper to lecture the rest of us.”

- Reciprocally this is the proper starting point for you also. Every group is welded together partly with it’s strong points, it’s superiorities and excellencies (This is the reason why liberals disparage Europeans around the world, to atomize them). By default, ingroups are generally more or less amoral towards outgroups, if there are no reasons for moral behavior (David Sloan Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral). This can be regarded as natural starting point, not a deterrence. Study Jewish patterns of behavior and the tendencies which divert from it, so you are always prepared and can arrange relations accordingly.

“Finn imagines are free to “define our communities, endogamy and ingroup practices”. He ignores the reality that Whites who do so, even those simply trying to defend what they already have, are legally and physically assaulted by the ACLU or SPLC and genocide-bombs euphemistically called refugee resettlement.”

First the less important, but not unimportant; residence; it is preferable to live in the same place, but not necessary. Live as near to each other as possible:

“flippityflopitty said…
DJ - I am by no means an expert on law (let alone Canadian law). But the few “summaries” Ive read indicate there are additional precedents ( ‘40s & ‘50s) by which the court (specifically the Mackay court) considered the restriction on the basis of race (objectionable or otherwise) to violate agreements (international - which I dont believe carries much weight) and Canadian law - Racial Discrimination Act & Insurance Act of 1944 (Which regardless of the looseness of the legislation carries weight).

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q5telT6zFRUC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=beach+pines+canada+case&source=web&ots=a4AzuHn0Dj&sig=j70KK0RgoXARxrE_AE0P0RyipZg#PPA303,M1

This is just another example of how white nationalists missed the memo on the PC-based racist tactics. You dont put in writing “No j-Jews, niggers or guidos ...” - you form collective real estate associations that require the transfer of any association property back to the association and the association then sells the property. This is done everywhere people want to restrict the buyers - for example, in sections of NYC, there are j-Jewish properties that are sold back to the community or their “representative” and the cost to buy it is so out of whack with real estate values the only one who can afford it are those who can get “financing” from the another community member. Basically, they use monopoly money to “put the fix in” and keep the community in the hands of their own. I found out from co-workers who refused to buy into the program.

“Is anyone stopping you from sitting in your home refusing to associate with society? ” & “But you are not going to rid the ...”

That is the point - it’s not 1949, the demographics have changed significantly and the laws or interpretations have changed to reflect no discrimination. Having a j-Jew inherit or freely purchase a property is a far cry from forced integration (ie, City of Yonkers v. United States). In which case a judge mandated the City of Yonkers “sprinkle” minority housing units throughout the city to ensure even distribution throughout the school district.

If you dont like your neighbors (today) - move. ...”

More important; ingroup endogamy, cooperation and networks. When properly designed, the U.S. state can’t prevent or influence these. Usa is a soft holiday resort to it’s citizens compared to the hell on earth to the enemies of Stalinist Soviet state in it’s concentration camps. Yet the Jews who got into them managed to uphold their ingroup communication, cooperation, support and influence networks. Learn about their community and copy. You will need it. (Unto Parvilahti, Gardens of Beriya; name translated from Finnish)

*****************

By the way, this explains much of Jewish behavior. Consequently, influencing on it is influencing on the Jews:

“In “Jews and American Politics” by Stephen D. Isaacs (Doubleday 1974), the author reports the findings of a survey
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for Dr. Melvin Kohn of the National Institute of Mental Health. The survey attempted to assess various American ethnic groups’ comparable levels of distrust. The scale went from Plus 4 — most trusting — to Minus 4 — least trusting:

GROUP ORDER AND SCORE

+2.506 Irish Catholic
+1.583 Scandinavian Protestant
+1.481 Slavic Catholic
+0.767 German Protestant
+0.757 German Catholic
+0.502 Italian Catholic
+0.242 White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant
-3.106 Jewish”

Fred, thanks for linking.

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:43 | #

Linking this article is not advocacy for it’s views, but it gets some principles right. The most important is the building of political coalitions. Learn the method which radical left used efficiently against Europeans around the world. This is what real world politics looks like in multiethnic Western countries. Apply to our situation in some form:

http://bayareanationalanarchists.com/blog/2008/04/liberty-and-populism-building.html

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:54 | #

Perhaps now you’ll talk the respectability out of my East Asian openness too, lol.

East Asians, at their best, are civilized and gentle people, but they are essentially feminine.  They do not possess the masterful manliness of the spirit to do what need be done to secure the existence of a life worth living on this good earth.

CC’s long march through the respectable Anglos.

That’s right Frank, “respectable” conservatives, such as Dan Dare, and all the many others I’m sure you are very familiar with in the faileocon scene, are psychological effeminates unfit for leadership.  If all that matters to them is the received “principles” that bolster their status in the mind of the mentally castrated twit sitting next to them, then obviously, they must be pushed to the side.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:43 | #

Finn,

Distrust of outgroups is the concomitant of trust of in-group.  It is not a trigger reaction to the outgroup, not something cultural.  Jewish babies have been shown to evince greater stranger anxiety than European babies.  It is part, but only part, of the Jewish package.

You might adjust your thinking accordingly.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:31 | #

Finn apparently sincerely believes that some true reciprocity can be cultivated between Whites and Jews.  Tender minded yes, but more consistent than those that exhort the principle of reciprocity as the basis for interactions between Jew and goy-cattle whilst realizing that it can never be.  Whites pressuring Jews to mind their p’s and q’s is not reciprocity, it is coercion.  Of course a feigned attempt at the reciprocity principle by Whites with regard to Jews as a pretext to give the appearance of “fairness” to the Jews’ expulsion subsequent to their failure to live up to said - which those proposing the reciprocity principle knew the Jews were incapable of abiding by at the outset - would be consistent.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:44 | #

Personally, CC, I am fully in favour of coercive reciprocity.  I think Europeans need to feel that terms for co-existence have been laid out before failure is pronounced, and the conversation moves on to the practicalities of a solution.

By the way, you do realise that there are differences between conservatism on the old continent and the varieties which appear in America?  It’s something we used to debate now and then, and it’s to do with the organic development of European societies.

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:17 | #

“It is not a trigger reaction to the outgroup, not something cultural.”

- It is either trigger reaction to something (mostly trivial, sometimes real) or spontaneous. The reaction is considerably stronger than in Europeans.

“Jewish babies have been shown to evince greater stranger anxiety than European babies.”

- I know. I had that study somewhere, but apparently lost it.

“You might adjust your thinking accordingly.”

- Don’t have to, CC.

Balance between Europeans and Jews can be maintained, but Europeans must create permanently ethnocentric communities (more important) and society should be decentralized and to some extent balkanized (less important, but important still) for this to happen. The latter serves also as a prevention against all encompassing dictatorial central government. Communist dictatorships and present soft totalitarian societies has thought us to not to want them.

Posted by fellist on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:18 | #

I changed my position since the last time you and I debated on Jews.

Great! Didn’t know that.

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:23 | #

Correction: ... have taught ....

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:25 | #

Correction 2: Don’t have to, Guessedworker.

Hurry does that. Have to go.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:07 | #

Silver says nearly universal Jewish support for forced race-replacement of Eurochristians should be viewed not as malicious but as uncaring:

”Jewish influence is very simple to understand.  Jews can either be anti-white or neutral; they find it all but impossible to be pro-white.  Neutrality, however, results in dispossession as effectively as enmity so when people like this hold down important positions in society of course you’re going to see an anti-white (‘anti-racist’) drift over time.  Hardcore anti-semites tend to have their facts right but they err in imputing hostile motives to Jewish neutrals […].”

[ http://accidentaldissent.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/mlk-award/#comment-643 ]

Silver is wrong because actively “uncaring” (rather than purely passively uncaring) is malicious by definition, and Jews are very active particpants.

By the way, here’s an interesting Yuri Slezkine interview about Jews, mainly those in Russia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_nhahTUFWo .

Professor Slezkine’s mother was Jewish.

(Hat tip goes to Prozium, who had this Slezkine interview briefly posted the other day as a log entry before taking it down without explanation.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:09 | #

(Professor Kreisler who interviews Prof. Slezkine in the video is, of course, clearly Jewish.)

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:53 | #

Guessedworker inquired of the Cap’n:

… By the way, you do realise that there are differences between conservatism on the old continent and the varieties which appear in America?  It’s something we used to debate now and then, and it’s to do with the organic development of European societies.

The Cap’n also appears to be rather baffled by, and angry about, the public attitude of many European ethno-nationalists to the JQ, which is one of studied indifference.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:26 | #

By the way, speaking of interviews, here’s one with Jussi Halla-aho (conducted in Finnish with subtitles) whose recent trial was characterized by A Finn as a show trial, on grounds the prosecution deliberately disregarded the context of Mr. Halla-aho’s “incriminating statement,” context which would have exculpated him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV7W7GEa1kE .

Posted by WP on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:55 | #

Since y’all are speaking of the Ashkenazim and East Asians here, how about this possible scenario…

Has anyone else noticed the semi-large number of mostly male ethnic Jews and/or partial ethnic Jews in the USA and other White nations who seem to be recently dating/intermarrying with East Asian women in rather extensive numbers?  Both of those groups tend to be mostly urban, highly secular, university educated, mercantile-oriented, and so on—thus they have often been crossing each others paths for at least 2-3 decades now in the USA and Canada, especially in places like the Ivy League, the Pacific Northwest states of the USA, the British Columbia province of Canada, etc.

This is a phenomenon I’ve been noticing for a while.  A pro-White evolutionary tribalist who takes a skeptical stance toward organized Jewry might view this as a kind-of preparatory (conscious or unconscious?) evolutionary strategy by an increasingly virulent Jewry for the upcoming “horizontal transmission” of many Ashkenazi Jews in to certain East Asian nations in an effort to partially escape the anti-Jewish persecution of them that are bound to pop up here in White North America in due time just as it always has in every single White nations throughout history.

Is China, South Korea, Japan, and so forth willing and able to receive an influx of the partially Asian offspring of matings between the Ashkenazim and East Asians who currently reside in White nations?  Makes me wonder…maybe Japan will even have to dust off the “Fugu Plan” someday?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:45 | #

WP,

Or it may have something to do with testosterone receptors, penis size and the way East Asian women tend to come over all available, all of which might easily flatter yer average paranoid New Yorker.  Think Soon-Yi Previn.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:51 | #

the public attitude of many European ethno-nationalists to the JQ, which is one of studied indifference.

And privately one of scared shitless quivering.  I see no real qualitative difference between conservatives on either side of the Atlantic.  Both incrementally sold out their race because rocking the boat means less money coming into their pockets , and is obviously less “respectable”.  Let’s face Danny, being the lapdog of the Jew is good for business.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:20 | #

CC,

Conservatism is part of the living history and social development of the old world.  It is not simply political conservatism ... the usual party nonsense that bores everybody to tears.  It is the natural estate of all mature polities, and can be seen as the re-emergence of human nature into the political life of the people.  Hence, if it is true, its always turning towards the stabilisation of power and its endorsement of tradition.

If we succeed one day in putting away the liberal order whatever we create will eventually be imbued with the conservative qualities.  That’s inevitable.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:57 | #

Do you feel that the prospects for a breakthrough in nationalist politics would be enhanced, Cap’n, by publically ‘Naming the Jew’ and promising that, come the Day of the Rope, the transports will once again start rolling off to East?

Would you recommend that the BNP adopted such a posture as part of its political platform for next year’s general election?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:13 | #

Conservatism is a “license to pursue any legal self-interest at large and at will ....”

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:35 | #

Do you feel that the prospects for a breakthrough in nationalist politics would be enhanced, Cap’n, by publically ‘Naming the Jew’

Not at this time, but eventually it must be done.  No?  We already know what a mediocre and compromise prone mind Barnes has.  What good is being sneaky if you sell out in the end?

and promising that, come the Day of the Rope, the transports will once again start rolling off to East?

Only a race traitor, ultimately, puts concern for the Other above his own blood.  If you can grant your assent to the exterminationist ferocity which the Allies fell upon the prostrate Germany with, and yet object to righteous vengeance being served to the enemies who wish to exterminate us, then I say you are a race traitor.  Only none of that will be necessary, for if we have sufficient power to secure the existence of our people, we will certainly have sufficient power to remove our enemies from our midst sans revenge.  That is my preference.

Would you recommend that the BNP adopted such a posture as part of its political platform for next year’s general election?

The BNP has two roles to fulfill: 1) To gain what political power they can; 2) Be a force for the radicalization of the British people towards ethnic and racial consciousness.

As you saw, Barnes is next to useless is effecting the latter.  And as you said, it will most likely be decades before the BNP would be in a position to form a government, if at all.  Realistically, this ain’t going to come down on our side without physically fighting for it.  Most probably, those man enough to fight and die for their race won’t give two figs about conservatism.  How close to the bone, and near to the heart, the sacrifices of martyrs come may well decide how forbearing they will be in victory.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:26 | #

East Asians, at their best, are civilized and gentle people, but they are essentially feminine.  They do not possess the masterful manliness of the spirit to do what need be done to secure the existence of a life worth living on this good earth.

So long as they stick with their traditions, they’re pretty manly and capable of putting their head in the heart. They’re not oversexed like the lower races or otherwise as prone to giving into temptation, which is an important strength.

Western China might have some non-Chinese good stock too, and perhaps China will break down into a nation-state and resist becoming a suicidal empire.

Whatever the case, power has a way of balancing whether it’s wanted or not. There’s

Just think, somewhere buried in Asia are more ancient Aryan and kin cities and towns to discover and learn about - that haven’t yet been destroyed by insane Jews and Muslims. If the neocons could be stopped, perhaps we could learn something about the ancients - about our origins.

Genetically I might be mostly British, but culturally it seems I owe a lot to the Celts. All of Europe should want to learn about those people. I suspect we’ll discover Europe was part of their territory or at least was closely related and a common trade partner.

Even if we discover Europe’s been stable for 10000 years or so, where did they come from before it warmed up? Who were the Harrapans?

Asia holds a lot of mystery, and I hate to think of a Jewish archaeology-priest getting there first and writing “Schlomo was here 15000 BC” and thus claiming it for the Jews…

I’m wary that other races have little regard for truth. Perhaps Europeans are so truly religious in that we wish to preserve truth - the others are perhaps more cynical and believing there’s nothing else here but temporary pleasures…

Posted by Frank on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:35 | #

Really, I don’t much trust modern Europeans either. Only a well bred and well raised man is trustworthy. Both the genetic and the cultural must be sound, and it’s not enough to think correctly because habit and an irrational sense of what’s right and wrong are powerful controls on us. Even the strongest man is not fully rational.

I’m doubtful it’s exclusively Christian to view man as depraved either, because at least the Odinists viewed chaos as slowly triumphing in this world. And the Greeks and Romans understood well the importance of a proper rearing.

We have remnant hero stories, but I’m doubtful many of our people worshiped at the Cult of Reason before the French Revolution. We slowly gain more technology over time, but we’re increasingly less worthy of wielding such power. Chaos, Ragnarok… it’s inevitable the way we’re headed. Maybe we are merely evolved monkeys… Look at what upright monkeys did to this lake:

The fish came from Lake Diefenbaker, where trout genetically engineered to grow extra-big escaped from a fish farm nine years ago.

So now the fish there are no longer as designed by the creator - that connection is lost and that foundation is lost.

Traditionalists are depressing people. There’s no way I could ever be a good populist, lol. My great hope is to prevent suicide - not very inspiring.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:48 | #

Do you feel that the prospects for a breakthrough in nationalist politics would be enhanced, Cap’n, by publically ‘Naming the Jew’ and promising that, come the Day of the Rope, the transports will once again start rolling off to East?

Posted by Dan Dare on September 16, 2009, 11:57 PM |

Actually, it probably would do more to serve the ends than what is presently taking place. Nationalists (or racialist) politics will continue to go nowhere so long as Whites (or specific ethnic groups within) have no clear delineating mark upon which to proximate their specific identity. Muslims, jews, blacks, hispanics, asians and the rest have strong and clear identities BECAUSE of the indelicate way in which they advocate on behalf of their own against others.

And there is a historical precedence to that reality. When leaders wish to motivate their peoples into extreme acts of sacrifice or action, they do so with crude and blunt appeals to ‘Us vs. Them’ type tactics. It not only worked for Hitler in the 1930’s it is working today. Whether it is the war on terror, which pits “fee world democracy” against “Extremist theocracies” or the “tolerance and diversity” crowd against “bigotry” and “prejudice”.
In both cases a blunt, crude and extreme form of Us. vs. Them is employed and in both cases it works so well that fathers and mothers are willing to sacrifice their own children on behalf of the assigned Us.

While we’re attempting to be delicate, clever and subtle in an attempt to appear respectable and rational, our adversaries are wining battle after battle on a quick march to victory by doing the complete opposite.

Think of it this way, when a White kid in Birmingham gets the shit kicked out him by a gang of muslims, where does he go for solidarity of his kind?  When he knows that down the street and around the corner are awaiting various ethnic groups waiting to attack him because he not one of them, where does he turn to find his own and support and defense among them?
Or the housewife, or the businessman or the construction worker etc….where do they turn?
They live in a world of abrasive and in-your-face jewish groups, black groups, asian groups, muslim groups, hispanic groups and a “shhhh! Careful! We’re with you, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, just don’t talk too loud or someone might hear!” group.
Which is to say, they are alone. And knowing that their own people lack the backbone to stand up and shout in blunt and vulgar terms that they will defend their own with unwavering prejudice , these Whites actually become antagonist towards other Whites.
.
.
.
The wink and a nod mentality only leads to political irrelevance and hypocrisy, which will, in turn, encourage apathy among our own.

No, we don’t need to go out and make threats. But we need leaders with fortitude to unabashedly speak in Us. vs. Them terms. Because if we play by the rules our adversaries wrote for us, we’re doomed.

There is an old saying that, generally, goes, If you choose Dance with the Devil, know that the Devil always leads.

And to drive that point home, consider the irony in that British National Party recently won seats in the European Parliament.

The BNP is actually participating in a political structure designed to relegate nationalism and nationalist parties to the dustbin of history.

Which kinda makes Mr. Barnes initial point, pointless.
.
.
.
.
And Frank, the east-Asians only appear to be civilized because they were de-fanged after WWII and have had a Western foot exerting a lot of weight on their throat for a while.

They are nothing like us.

...

Posted by Bill on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:31 | #

Dare on September 16, 2009, 11:57 PM | #

Do you feel that the prospects for a breakthrough in nationalist politics would be enhanced, Cap’n, by publically ‘Naming the Jew’ and promising that, come the Day of the Rope, the transports will once again start rolling off to East?

Would you recommend that the BNP adopted such a posture as part of its political platform for next year’s general election?

The political agenda for the coming British general election has already been set.  As always it is the media (BBC) who set the terms of reference in any political debate, and as always the debate will be centred on the economic gymnastics of the Red team/ Blue team.  This time round the question is, to borrow or not to borrow - to cut or not to cut?  Immigration will censored out - forget it.

Up until recently I had been holding out the hope that some light might emerge from the BNP, but that ain’t gonna happen.  Strange thing is, it looks as though the old saying ‘As one door closes another door opens.’

In a nano-second, that baton it would seem has been passed to the United States, for in recent weeks the American white is beginning to smell the coffee - hot and strong.

The Obama administration has gotten well into its stride and whitey don’t like the smell one bit, from what I detect from my distant perch and limited knowledge, the scale is falling from whitey’s eye.

I think ‘telling it as it is’ has landed in the lap of the rightful owner - the United States of America.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:20 | #

The Obama administration has gotten well into its stride and whitey don’t like the smell one bit, from what I detect from my distant perch and limited knowledge, the scale is falling from whitey’s eye.

I think ‘telling it as it is’ has landed in the lap of the rightful owner - the United States of America.

I’d hoped he’d win for just that reason, but y’know we were fairly awake in the 90s - then Dubya was elected and 9/11 hit. History could repeat…

———-

Just for the record: Reg. when CC helped convince me Jews would be too much trouble to build a system of protections around, that was when I was still thinking of Francis’s Eurocentrism - we listed all the jobs Jews wouldn’t be allowed to hold and noted how presently they ran these areas and how they’d be furious and hate us eternally if we tried to construct such a system. It’s better to just send them away - they’re too dangerous and prone to hatred. They’re not appreciative guests - they need a land of their own like everyone else, but they need to acquire that land on their own… just like everyone else. They are not “Chosen” but are mere humans just like everyone else and do not deserve whites serving (and even worshiping…) them as American whites currently do.

Eurocentrism was supposed to be a step towards an ethnic state and not an end in itself. So, I’ve never been one who prefers order over race.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:56 | #

the Narrator,

East Asians would be better allies than, say, mixed race Brazilians and Indians and Mid Easterners.

They’re pure, traditional, and capable of discipline. I’m not naive enough to think we’re identical (wary about morals), but they might prove potent and much needed allies in the future. If China does morph into an empire and seeks to expand into Russia and other countries, its neighbors will want to contain it.

And I like having a second civilised race for us to compare ourselves with and identify against somewhat. Right now while we’re highly corrupt, they’re more traditional and rooted. We can look to them and learn some of what we’ve lost. At a later time, perhaps we could serve a similar role for them.

I was sad to see Bhutan give in on its war against Murdoch’s corrupting television. Another Jew it seems has successfully ethnically cleansed a people. We’re fighting the same battles of survival - against the same enemies (not all Jews…)

Ultimately perhaps we’ll regain our position of superior technology and military power enabling us to trade for their resources as they please in exchange for our goods. If we do acquire such power again, hopefully we’ll respect their sovereignty unlike in the past - though I’m sure they’d have been just as bad in a similar position since power corrupts.

-

Anyway, the matter comes down to CC wants to preserve America’s borders because he believes its power will be needed. We could always buy the land back from them (in pieces) in exchange for aid, food, and transit to some other third world area further south. We know how they run their own societies, and this would give us a national goal to pursue. Secession can be like a pruning before the winter.

Posted by fellist on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:13 | #

o/t: Thanks to Lurker and Frank for the support, and to GW for the link.

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:56 | #

Dan Dare: “Do you feel that the prospects for a breakthrough in nationalist politics would be enhanced, Cap’n, by publically ‘Naming the Jew’ and promising that, come the Day of the Rope, the transports will once again start rolling off to East?

Would you recommend that the BNP adopted such a posture as part of its political platform for next year’s general election?”

- Good questions. To connect more fully with reality, it would be favorable to work up your messages to matter of fact forms and try to sell them to different people; politicians, ordinary citizens, influential people, etc. Internet discussion in a closed group has a tendency to create non-functional thoughts.

“... the public attitude of many European ethno-nationalists to the JQ, which is one of studied indifference.”

- For my part, I don’t accept the indifference claim. I have mapped the reality and produced a route forward suggestion. A mainstream conservative, let alone liberal, would not have helped you in this way, i.e. cared about you. Generally, European ethnonationalists don’t know much about the Jews (large majority) or don’t want to gather additional obstacles on their way, adding to an already large collection, especially when the Jews have considerably less direct negative impact in Europe. Survival of Europe is at stake, and pro-Europeans have to reduce politics to essentials.

I would like to know what is considered to be caring about European-Americans? Can a person care about them only if he repeats without any input what he happens to see among certain pro- European-Americans? Could it be that a pro- European contributes to the US JQ discussion with new viewpoints? Also, pro-Europeans have contributed more to the JQ debate in Usa than pro- European-Americans to the Muslim debate in Europe. Is this a sign of indifference or should it be interpreted to be something similar to the pro- European position on the Jews?

*****************

More from the VFTR. It is possible that if a non-Jewish pro- European would have said the same thing, Auster would have become scared and the word “anti-Semite” would have slipped out. But good contribution still:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014273.html

*****************

Ps. Addition to John Hostetler’s Hutterite Society. Hutterites, and their endogamy and ethnocentrism are very important to us, because they are central Europeans. More than three hundred years of group evolution has made them more ethnocentric than we, but their starting point was essentially the same than ours now. Because of their European psychology and culture, we can learn in many respects more from them and their ethnocentric successes than from the Jews.

Posted by BGD on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:40 | #

If LJB is a bellweather or at least a form of weathervane to some of the internal thinking within the BNP then his latest blog post might give pause for thought for those who believe that the BNP’s recent media friendly face is just good politics.

If this piece is to be believed it seems they might mean it.

First there was salt in the soup, then an unwillingness to fight to retain their ethnic membership, then arguments for assimilation over colonialists and now that argument is being bedded down with this piece on good Muslims and bad Muslims.

Apparently it doesn’t matter if the good and bad Muslims combined will in our lifetimes outnumber us in our homeland it just matters that those that are here adhere to some form of ‘Britishness’ whatever that now really means..And if they go to market with those principles (be interesting to see if this is Griffin’s line on QT) will mean that suddenly not just the ‘indigenous’ but soon too the good ethnics will be out on the streets campaigning for them..

LJB: No liberals = no Islamists….. As soon as someone mentions the word ‘racism’ or ‘Islamaphobia’ then the masses scuttle away and hide, and this conditioning has been undertaken by the corporate media in order to ensure the masses do not vote for nationalist parties who they do not have in their pockets.

Therefore we must be cleverer than the media.

Instead of mentioning Islam, we talk about why it is liberals and leftists are surrendering our rights and freedoms to the Islamists…...We must stop talking about Islam being the problem, and start talking about Islamists, liberalism and political correctness as being the problem. If we did this then the public would be 100 % in support

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:09 | #

A nationalist party should maintain the same philosophy while using whatever tactics work.

LJB seems to want to shift the philosophy to accomodate the tactics that have been forced on the BNP by the enemy. I think it’s an understandable reaction to the pressure but personally i think he should sit back and focus on one thought - if the enemy wants it then they think it is bad for us. If the financial consequences of fighting the law is too high then that’s that but don’t try and rationalize it into a good thing.

The critical point is that the enemy wants to destroy us. The native populations of the west don’t want to be destroyed. Therefore the enemy has to use stealth. That stealth creates a grey zone between what the native population thinks is fair and reasonable and what the enemy will accept in a nativist political movement. The nationalist party has to exist in that grey area - it always has to be hated by the enemy. It may need to tack to the wind but never to the point where it is acceptable to the enemy. And where it is forced to tack by the enemy - don’t rationalize it into a good thing, just accept that one has to make tactical withdrawals now and then.