Category: Political analysis
Given the ‘ecological turn’ recently in this corner of cyberspace I recalled a thought that I had some time ago on using ecological concepts heuristically in connection to political analysis.
How could a nationalist government, operating more or less within the moral standards of Western democracies, persuade the millions of the immigrant populations to return to their own lands? Here are a few possible policy initiatives, in the UK context.
1. Leave EU, ending right of abode of EU citizens.
2. End immigration completely.
3. Enforce existing law on illegal immigrants.
4. Repeal all race legislation. Restore full freedom of speech and association.
5. Give work permits to some immigrants in reserved occupations.
6. ID register all ethnic minority respondees to the 2011 Census. Those found to be non-respondees to the Census to be declared illegal.
7. Favour indigenous applicants in all public sector employment and in university selection.
1. Ban polygymy.
2. Ban animal slaughter without stunning.
3. Ban genital mutilation.
4. Ban mosque development.
5. End public funding and charitable status of all non-Christian faith schools and minority groups.
6. Retrospectively declare all post-war asylum cases illegitimate.
7. End welfare payments to UK accounts of minority claimants.
1. Offer re-settlement grants scaled according to length of time in the UK, with a validity of three years but with the sum declining by one third each year.
2. Offer short-term welfare paid in the country of destination.
3. Offer training and business development grants, again paid in the country of destination.
4. Tie overseas aid wholly to acceptance of returnees by the destination countries, where required.
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Another atrocity that didn’t take place in Syria, but in Burma, being passed off as the work of the Assad regime. The page, featured at an Egyptian website, had a million likes. You know who’s behind this.
Much more on the warmongers and their lies:
ZionCrimeFactory, one of the people behind the prothink network I recently promoted, has taken issue with the claim that international bankers funded Hitler and the NSDAP into power. He said:
Let’s look at the matter.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM in Economics & Finance, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political analysis, Revisionism, That Question Again, World Affairs
Muad’Dib has released an updated version of his movie 7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT, to commemorate the 7th anniversary of the July 7, 2005, London bus and tube bombings. The first version of 7/7 Ripple Effect made a clear case for people with inside access perpetrating 7/7, not Muslims. Muad’Dib sent copies of this video to the courthouse trying to prosecute innocent Muslims over the 7/7 bombings. The police arrested him for “perverting the course of justice.” Muad’Dib sought refuge in Ireland and spent over a year and a half fighting extradition to England.
Some of this ended up in the news. They exposed his identity as John Hill, and tried to trash him because of his unusual religious beliefs, never addressing any of the arguments in his video.
Muad’Dib lost his legal battles in Ireland and was taken to England, in shackles, by anti-terrorist police. No record was made that he was imprisoned, and only clamor by his supporters got him registered as an inmate, but only briefly, and he was granted bail after 4 months in jail, after the prison service kept making “mistakes” or “forgetting” to bring Muad’Dib to his own court hearings. Muad’Dib learned that many people had mailed his video to the courthouse, to prevent innocent Muslims from being scapegoated, but none of these were arrested because they were just mailers; Muad’Dib was the one who produced the video.
Muad’Dib attempted to challenge the court’s/British legal system’s lack of jurisdiction, but this was brushed aside. Muad’Dib’s trial has to be one of the most absurd instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Even the Judge summarized the case against Muad’Dib with gross distortions, redefining words, disallowing evidence by the defense and assigning statements to Muad’Dib that he never made. But the case was such a farce that the jury returned a not guilty verdict. See summary of Muad’Dib’s ordeal.
Muad’Dib was using the domain jforjustice.co.uk, but this domain is apparently in the process of being seized.
Now who were these people with inside access to perpetrate the 7/7 bombings? 7/7 wasn’t masterminded by those racially English. People don’t do something like 7/7 to their own, and England had nothing to gain from 7/7, only things to lose: deaths, injuries, fear, hatred, emotional trauma, legislation to further undermine civil liberties, deeper involvement in foreign wars, debt. The only people who stood to gain from it were the ones who benefited from having English soldiers go around the world fighting and killing Muslims. Only one racial group had the means, the motivation, the solid credentials to pull off false flag operations, and the need for 7/7.
To download the DVD of the movie (follow the first link above to watch online):
Posted by R-news on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 12:32 AM in Awakenings, Islam & Islamification, Jewish Diaspora, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
Much has been written on the deterioration of public school education and television programming over the last few decades. These amount to an attempt to dumb down the population.
The MSM would have the public believe that a Head of State was using an ordinary email service provider, based in the U.S. [New York], to discuss personal matters and matters associated with the State. The MSM would also have the public believe that this Head of State used this email service even though he knew that the U.S. administration is hostile to Syria and there’s a nuclear-armed hostile neighbor, Israel, that would love to get its hands on the President’s emails, which the Mossad surprisingly didn’t hack much earlier. The MSM would also like the public to believe that this Head of State, fluent in three languages, highly educated and a promoter of internet services in Syria, did all this in spite of having “a degree of awareness of web security”:
Deleting emails as soon as they arrive shows a degree of awareness of web security. So too did the fact that Assad never attached his name or initials to any of the emails he sent. However, many of the emails that arrived in his inbox are addressed to him as president and contain intimate details of events and discussions that were not known outside of the inner sanctum and would have been very difficult to manipulate. (source)
Only a dumbed-down people could be sold such a tale. The contents of the emails unsurprisingly make the case Israel wants to make.
The President’s wife apparently spent tens of thousands on chandeliers and candlesticks. Now where have we heard this before? Marie Antoinette was accused of “indulgence” when Moses Mendelssohn, Jew, commissioned a London jeweler to create a 250,000-livres diamond necklace, which was delivered to her. This was quickly followed by accusations of adultery. One thing led to another, the masses started disliking the royalty, and the French revolution was on. When France burned, Marie Antoinette was said to have stated that if the people don’t have bread to eat, let them eat cake. Jewish liars are doing the same thing today that they did during 1788-1799 in France: Asma al-Assad is living a high life, oblivious to her country burning around her!
In the leaked emails, Assad is said to have received advice from Hezbollah and the Iranian government, a nexus that Israel has been making the case for. Assad even describes his promised reforms as “rubbish laws of parties, elections, media....”!
One of the emails shows President Assad corresponding with Luna Al-Chebel, a Syrian anchor who resigned from Al-Jazeera, a TV network operating under the auspices of Jews, having had her fill of their lies and not wanting to be a participant in promoting these lies, which she later talked about in public. Luna Al-Chebel used her hotmail account, and President Assad had no issues sending correspondence to a hotmail account! Native Arabic speakers quickly determined that the people who fabricated this correspondence aren’t native Arabic speakers.
And how did the leaks come to light? The Guardian tell us that initially the Syrian opposition had gotten hold of the emails and were monitoring them, but the hacker group Anonymous hacked into the Syrian ministry of public affairs’ website and trawled through more than 80 email addresses stored on the ministry’s server, and “Somehow, someone searching through the ministry’s emails was able to establish that the Sam email belonged to the president.”
The affair is a kosher fabrication, and Anonymous, being the Jewish-funded entity it is, won’t renounce the “credit” where credit isn’t due.
Posted by R-news on Monday, July 2, 2012 at 08:49 PM in Islam & Islamification, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
On the right is a Syrian “protester” carrying a poster of a dead child, captioned “Bashar Al-Assad’s Reforms.” At left is the source of the picture, a Yemeni news report on Muhammad Abdullah Yousuf Al-Saedi, a child from Yemen murdered in Yemen.
The warmongers must surely wish that they’d achieved regime change in Syria before the internet revolution.
Posted by R-news on Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 06:06 PM in Islam & Islamification, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
The usual suspects have been itching to attack Syria and replace the Assad regime with one compliant with their goals. Why is this our problem? Because they’ll use our military apparatus and our people to do the dirty job, for which they’ll make us borrow money to pay for the military equipment and armed forces, and they’ll create this money out of thin air and demand we pay it back with interest, and after war there will be a refugee problem for us, and we’ll be left with fewer allies against these scum who create havoc in our nations and the rest of the globe... it goes on and on.
Because of the seriousness of the matter, it’s high time MR had a series on the phony “evidence” these Godforsaken creatures have been inundating us with to build the case for attacking Syria. Here’s something for starters.
The dailymail.co.uk had this feature on “Syria’s steroid-mad ‘Ghost’ killers who keep Assad in power by slaughtering women and children,” as in the 108 people they allegedly massacred in Houla.
The evidence offered comprises of piss-poor, pathetic, worse-than-amateur attempts at digitally edited/photoshopped images that wouldn’t pass cursory examination by anyone having superficial familiarity with image editing and human anatomy: notice the blurring where the editing has taken place; remarkable development of the biceps brachii without corresponding development of its synergist, the brachialis, and at stark odds with the relatively poor development of the deltoids; the curious instance of steroids bulking the triceps brachii such that professional male bodybuilders are put to shame but having a weak effect on the torso; etc. Unsurprisingly, dailymail.co.uk isn’t accepting comments on the article.
The creature shown is conveniently named Areen Al Assad. These evil liars need to be exposed and driven out of our nations.
Posted by R-news on Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 10:47 PM in Islam & Islamification, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, War on Terror, World Affairs
Harold Armstead Covington (born September 14, 1953 in Burlington, North Carolina) is an American white supremacist, political activist, and novelist. He advocates the creation of an “Aryan homeland” in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.
In 1974, he worked for a construction company in Johannesburg, South Africa for about six months, and then went to Rhodesia and joined the Rhodesian Army. In 1976 he was deported from Rhodesia for his activities with the proto-NS Rhodesia White People’s Party, along with two of his fellow Americans, Eric Thomson and Jeffrey Spencer. He was deported on the personal orders of Ian Smith.
In 2000, Covington came out openly for territorial White separatism in the form of the Northwest Imperative.
The Northwest Imperative is based on the conviction, that the United States of America in its present form is doomed, and that it is necessary to the physical survival of the White race that a Homeland be established.
[submission by Genotype]
Murray’s thesis is higher cognitive abilities lead to greater economic productivity and thus higher salaries. This is merely an update to Ayn Rand‘s update to Horatio Alger’s “rags to riches” legends.
Murray and his jewish employers at AEI have two transparent goals:
1.Describe what anyone with an IQ > 90 can see has happened and continues to happen economically.
2.Gain control of the discourse by eliminating all references to “The Other” from the universe of permitted explanations for #1.
The undergrad degree data don’t support Murray’s proposed explanation for the Great Divide. Undergrad science and engineering majors that might lead to advanced science degrees are grossly underrepresented in the 1% group. They are so underrepresented that this data alone falsifies Murray’s primary explanation.
“Biology” obviously serves as a proxy for “pre-med.” Humanities majors of the kind that comprise “pre-law” curriculums are heavily over-represented. History, “economics,” and political science are obvious pre-law programs. What to make of zoology and physiology, except failure to make the cut for “pre-med”? Note that mathematics and physics are on the bottom. Computer science and mechanical/electrical/civil engineering didn’t make the list.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 06:59 PM in Blogs & Blogging, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, Political analysis, Social Sciences, That Question Again
I’ve taken flak for describing Ron Paul as controlled opposition. Here I’ll discuss his stance on money. I was pointed to the following overview of Ron Paul on the money issue to correct my alleged misrepresentation of his stances.
Ron Paul argues against more regulation [on the part of the government] and pitches for a free market economy by saying that the Fed should not be given more power, whereas giving the Fed more power means less regulation by the government as the Federal Reserve banks are fully private; the more power the Fed has, the greater the influence of the “free market.”
Ron Paul addresses the housing bubble by saying that Congress and the Fed encouraged the housing industry... finally the bubble burst and “we” [government] try to [pursue stupid policies] such as stimulating the housing market, cash for clunkers.... as a result “we” have no confidence in the market economy.
Reality check: the housing bubble and its busting was caused by the bankers a.k.a. the “free market”:
Boom: generously give out loans, which are funded out of nothing, to earn interest off of nothing...
Laughing all the way to the bank: make money by selling debt that can’t be paid off to investors, make money by selling insurance against the probability of defaults, make money by gambling on the probability of defaults...
Bust: loan less and cause a recession; acquire houses for pennies on the dollar.
Another reality check: The only money created by the government comprises of coins. Stimulating the housing market and cash for clunkers is just the bankers getting the government and hence the people more under debt.
Teasers aside, here’s my review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, and more. I’m not posting it below because I intend to revise it.
NO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS, please, and stick to the facts and fact-based inference.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, September 5, 2011 at 08:18 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Islam & Islamification, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Graham Lister sent me a link today to a YouTube page full of videos of Chris Hedges, the journalist, author and jeremiah of American liberalism, democracy, education ... you name it. Everything but white America - he is definitely not racially conscious. His comprehension of nationalism appears to rest on his understanding, inevitably, of National Socialism and of his personal experiences as a journalist amid the sorrows of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Nonetheless, Hedges is an interesting case ... a liberal, even a leftist, an AGW supporter, fundamentally a Christian moralist, but a man with an analysis that, once, would have been a hot ticket among the educated young. In the 1960s such anti-Establishmentarianism was in high demand. Now, according to Hedges, elite universities in America are corrupted by corporation money, and exist not only to churn out narrow, unquestioning future managerialists and plutocrats. All across the rest of the system, he says, the humanities are under pressure. Creative thought will not be required in post-industrial, post-white America.
He offers no reprieve. He says the banking and corporate interests have won their war against us. He fears that, from the social chaos and impoverishment which is taking hold only bad will come.
This video is of a lecture he gave to publicise his book, Death of the Liberal Class. At 55mins it’s long, but there is interest throughout.
by Graham Lister
Firstly sorry once again I seem to have been somewhat ranting impolitely in the comments section. And I don’t mean to be snotty to other commentators but sometimes I’m typing before thinking ‘how might this come across’. However, I thought it might be interesting to give a brief outline of the genesis of my views on some pressing issues.
I definitely think that both ontological and normative issues are very important. Any ethical framework that results in voluntary self-destruction cannot be right. My own baseline view is this – I don’t want to live in a society in which my ethnic group is in a minority or anything approaching that status. Even if those replacing my group were ‘better’ I would not care. At the most basic functional level of analysis the worry is that a formally dominate group will be at a permanent structural disadvantage with regard to political power in shaping their ‘former’ society, which would have new and very deep sources of sociological cleavages/conflict/resentment (and a likely undermining in any notions of the common-good). It could be little green men from Mars, the issue is being systematically disadvantaged by another group which is likely to display intra-group loyalty and inter-group rivalry/animosity. Of course it seems a reasonably good working hypothesis, in my view, that generally the more ethnically distal and undeniably ‘different’ competing groups are, then more intense the cleavages are and the worst any inter-group rivalry would be.
I’d call my baseline position something like ‘ethnocentric communitarianism’.
Why that? Well in ethnically homogenous societies one major source of potentially destructive and very negative socio-political cleavage is removed. There is only an ‘in-group’ viz ethnicity as a major axis of socio-political variation/friction doesn’t arise. If high levels of linguistic, religious, cultural homogeneity also exist as well then the likely outcome is a more coherent, communitarian society with high social-capital such as Norway. However, the flip side is that if ‘diversity’ is pushed too far along ethnic lines – especially involving groups that are obviously perceived as different from each other and have little cultural/historical commonality - then a major socio-poltical cleavage is opened up with all the negative consequences in terms of intra-group loyalty versus inter-group rivalry.
See, for example, South Africa and its societal trajectory now that different groups have functionally inverted much of the the previous power arrangements and are proactively engaged in battles over economic resources/politics and so on. The result is a dramatic decline of social-capital with the release of those pent-up inter-group antagonisms (crime off the scale – with a particular quasi-systematic and extraordinarily viscous aggression directed towards Boer farmers) and even declining white solidarity (private security etc., for the with enough money but with increasing number of white have-nots thrown to the wolves) also to be matched by a steady ratcheting up of intra-black tribal antagonisms. And that does not even factor in the open question as to Black competency in managing a modern successful society.
by Last Celt
Multiculturalism is pronounced dead! However, notice the call for integration; it’s too early to celebrate.
Similarly, last Saturday the British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the multicult a failure. But look at this comment of Cameron’s:
by Christian Miller
The American political arena and mainstream media is rigged against White American solidarity. Almost every single race or ethnicity has a political organization to serve its specific racial or ethnic interests. The glaring exception is a mainstream-credited or nationally-recognized political group dedicated to White American interests. There are groups dedicated to White advocacy, but they are invariably plagued by accusations of “extremism” or “hate” or “bigotry.”
The Preamble to the United States Constitution lists one of its purposes as to “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Perhaps this explicit dedication to the interests of the White founding stock means that no White advocacy groups are needed. Maybe the explicit mandate of the Constitution demands the protection of liberty for the posterity of the White race, so White advocacy groups are superfluous. Until the middle of the twentieth century, this view might hold water. In light of the onslaught of anti-White propaganda, legislation, indoctrination, and social policy that has since followed, this explanation is a recipe for White political suicide.
Under oppressive legislation, a hostile media, and an anti-White educational system, the interests of White people have been subverted in favor of a cacophony of minority voices, all of which are alien to the original aims of the Founding Fathers. White Americans can no longer rest assured that the Constitution means what it says, or that the United States exists to preserve the interests of its White founding stock and their progeny. Instead, White Americans must organize specifically and purposefully on racial grounds, realizing that all other groups are slowly destroying each liberty and privilege that White Americans used to take for granted.
What we REQUIRE is a sea change in leadership – from a self-serving “universalist” kleptocracy to an altruistic and philosophically-rooted particularist aristocracy; an aristocracy that will place the interests of the nation before the personal interests of the individuals who are a part it. Apropos we must address two related questions: how do we bring about such a change within the extant political framework, and what will prevent an ultra-nationalist European aristocracy from sliding inexorably back into the oblivion of plutocracy?
We will “fix” the plutocratic system by instituting policies that invert the relationship between political and economic power. For a man to attain political power he will be forced to make economic sacrifices commensurate with the rank to which he aspires. Similarly, the rich man will lose political rights based on the degree to which he has amassed personal wealth. Such an inverted relationship between economic and political power lends itself naturally to James Bowery’s idea of the net asset tax, but in this instance, the tax incurs political as well as economic costs.
Intellectuals, who rarely amass great fortunes, would then emerge as one of the most promising pools of political potential. Contrariwise, individuals from the moneyed class would be eligible for office if, and only if, they relinquish their personal fortunes; by doing so, the rich man demonstrates his altruism in a tangible manner and shows the public to whom his political beneficence will be directed (does the rich man donate his money to a Guatemalan orphanage, to his sons, or to the local school system?). Notice that this encourages philanthropy, the disentangling of national and business interests, and the socialization of wealth, but also results in a certain degree transparency.
We would be wise to heed Blake’s familiar and pessimistic warning, “The iron hand crush’d the tyrant’s head, And became a tyrant in his stead,” by taking note of the forces that a tyrant do make. The rich have proven themselves time and again wholly unfit to rule. The Marxist critique of the bourgeois class is (in part) valid; however Marxists are too dishonest to accurately assess the stupidity of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in any of its theoretical permutations). Perhaps it is time to adopt the Marxist critique, but add to it an aristocratic response. Perhaps ... this is how we will prevent the Enemy from taking advantage of his next golden opportunity.
Europe’s Future Challenges
by Kai Murros
The Primary Problem our planet is facing today is the diffusion of the effects of the western scientific-industrial revolution to non-European societies. The world is out of balance as practically all human societies on the planet are being ravaged by the violent changes of modernization. The scientific-industrial revolution, which originated in Europe and catapulted our civilization to its zenith, has found its way to every corner of the world so that there is no traditional culture left untouched by its side effects.
The present population explosion has long historical roots - going back at least to the 18th century in Europe.
That’s the question posed to readers of that tribune of the libertines, Samizdata.net. It’s a good question, but not a perfect one. It could, I think, be improved by the addition of the following:-
That allows us to talk about the democratic process, its subversion by special interests and it hollowness in electoral terms.
Now, there is a certain congruency between Samizdata and MR readers. Both are individualistic - the Samizdatista archly so, the MRer inadvertently. Both, of course, disdain the political class as a body of men and women rigidly antipathetic to their respective primary interest. The liberty junkies, therefore, wail as the creeping sands of the state envelop the liberties they cherish. We, being human, spit on the soil and look to the horizon, thinking about our children and our land.
You can see what kind of fist the Samizdatistas made of answering their question here. “Education” is a favourite resort. Of course, none of the answers make any sense from the standpoint of a European people losing their land and their life in a politically ordered and defended genocide. The Samizdatistas are historical dilletantes and mewling liberals who have conniptions at the slightest whisper of the word “race”, and a full-blown seizure at “Jew”.
Still, let’s see what we can put together by way of an answer to that question: how did our political class come to this estate, and what keeps them like it?
Thomas W. Chittum is an author, military analyst and former mercenary from New Jersey.He served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He fought in the Rhodesian War and the Croatian War of Independence. Chittum predicts that the United States will soon face Balkanization and a second Civil War based on racial conflicts. He also says that he plans to move to upstate New York because it will be the last Caucasian-controlled area after the American Southwest effectively becomes part of Mexico due to immigration by 2020.
Chittum observes that nobody wrote a book warning Americans about the bloodbath that the first civil war was about to unleash. That war ground the entire southern half of America into a smoking wasteland and killed or crippled almost an entire generation of American men.
On Wednesday night the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze devoted 45 minutes to consideration of whether BNP members should be employed in public services. 7 minutes 40 seconds was given over to the (decidedly) cross-examination of Mr Lee John Barnes, who these days goes under the title of National Coordinator of the British National Party legal department.
His performance was nothing if not combative, and earned him and the party some level-headed and fair praise from one panel-member, Michael Portillo. For breaking the BNP taboo, he will no doubt receive the due amount of contumely and criticism from former friends and colleagues.
The programme can be heard for the next few days here, with Barnes’ contribution starting at 11 min 56 sec.
Barnes answered (rebuffed, really) the less than neutral questions of panel members Melanie Phillips and Clifford Longley. The first question, though, came from the programme’s presenter Michael Buerk:-
Spacist not racist! Does anybody really believe that? Probably not. But, obviously, the party has not been able to defend itself against the charge of racism. I’m not constrained by the minefields of the political world. I’m interested in developing an argument that thoroughly nukes the “r” issue.
Towards the end of last week I spent three or four days picking up not one, not two but three Guardian bans while defending the BNP membership against the deracinated hanging judges of the Comment Is Free website. That takes my CiF bans to sixteen, assuming I haven’t forgotten any of my earlier dramatis personnea. Does it get me in the Guinness Book of Records? Probably. Shouldn’t I be ashamed of this obsessive desire to force innocent liberal backs to the wall? Er ... erm ... aaah ... nope. I’m just shameless like that.
Besides, this really only mildly obsessional effort is devoted to a perfectly noble cause: to test the intellectual quality and rhetorical strength of my current ideas against the best, generally, that the other side has to offer, and to refine them further in the light of that experience. This, in other words, is a work in progress.
I’m shooting the wind a bit here on the subject of financial muscle and political influence, so let me know if any of my assumptions are obviously wrong.
Here we go ...
One lesson that comes through loud and clear from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign is that small-scale individual funding can compete in the political market. In excess of ninety-nine per cent of Paul’s funds has come from individuals. Forty-seven per cent has been raised from contributions of $200 or less.
Now, as these things go, the appeal of a Presidential Campaign is high-voltage, short-term, eyes-on-the-prize stuff. “The Ron Paul Revolution” has to motivate donors only as long as it motivates enough voters to keep Paul in the game. However, while the race for the Republican Nomination obtains, both supporter categories have an inbuilt - though quite generous - limit in terms of numbers. They are drawn from that fraction of the American voting public that can identify institutional politics, and deduce that it serves not them but the institutional interests who fund it. That’s the nature of the Revolution.
My guess is that the IQ gateway for that deductive capacity lies somewhere between 105 and 110. Given that voting is itself an IQ filter, maybe two-thirds of the white voting public could, theoretically, be expected to know why they supported Paul in the booth - should they do so. (This is not to say that the votes of others who simply “like Ron Paul” or “agree with him on the war” aren’t just as welcome, but a Revolution has to be a bit more revolutionary than that.)
Paul may or may not travel far down the presidential road in 2008. But in shining a light for his brand of strict Constitutionalism he has shone a light for anti-institutionalism. And that, clearly, has some carry-over into the much weightier and vexing question of the future of white America.
Now let’s look at the scale of the challenge confronting race-conscious white intellectuals as they contemplate Ron Paul’s already surprising achievement.
I see you are seriously worried now about losing the Scottish Parliamentary Election on 3rd May. Very percipient. Even if Scottish Labour is still the largest Party you will certainly lose your majority at Holyrood. That will leave you depending on the LibDem’s electoral performance. The SNP, of course, will make whoopey with the Conservatives.
Who, then, will have the numbers?
Well, happily your party is in decline - and it’s an historical decline, rooted in the poorly performing Scottish economy and a leader at Holyrood who is thoroughly despised. The SNP is already neck-and-neck with you in the polls, and Alex Salmond is more popular than ever. Your one ace might have been the 2004 boundary changes that saw you, Gordon, switch constituencies from the now defunct Dunfermline East. And it’s true, they could hit the Tories very hard. But, amazingly, the same projection reveals a potential cost to Scottish Labour of 10 seats.
All-in-all, it’s just too tight to call. But let’s not let that stop us.
They’ve got to be kidding. Is it just me? Or, is it obvious that Obama as VP would guarantee a Republican victory?
Couple of thoughts:
1) as a Stormfronter pointed out, Obama may be getting all the hype precisely because he’ll make an excellent punching bag for Hillary down the road.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa