Category: Crusade against Discrimination in Britain

Definitions

In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions

I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.

However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.

Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.

The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.

Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.

We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.

It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.

I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.

These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.

We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).

The White Left as:

A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.

It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).

It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)

It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.

As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.

Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”

Liberalism:

Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.

Racism:

Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.

Anti-Racism:

The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.

Modernity/Post Modernity:

As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//standing_corrected_on_the_its_more_than_that_to_liberalisms_definition#c144061

This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.

In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”


In connection with that, both Migchels and Bowery seem to have a concern to maintain individual integrity as an authentic and distinguishing characteristic among Europeans. GW’s close readings have some similarity there as well.

In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.


It is important to note that this hermeneutic view not only permits of individuality, integrity of self, I would argue that hermeneutics is absolutely necessary for it - a coherent, agentive and warranted self. What it does deny is that there is no social relatedness and indebtedness to its make-up, its construction and its constitution; or that one has no accountability for its direction other than “the countenance of Jesus” or some other unverifiable source.

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsChristianityConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainEuropean NationalismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityHistoryImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsLiberalism & the LeftLinguisticsWhite Nationalism
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Paul Weston arrested for reciting Churchill speech about Muslims

westonarrest


Posted by Morgoth on April 27, 2014, 06:58 AM | #

Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6389-winchester-churchill-quotation-gets-liberty-gb-leader-paul-weston-arrested

Weston on preventing White genocide and implications of Muslim population explosion in Britain and other European nations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 07:39 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsBritish PoliticsCrusade against Discrimination in BritainFree SpeechImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsIslam & IslamificationLawWhite Genocide: Europe
Comments (65) | Tell-a-Friend

The Crusade against Discrimination in Britain Part 6

There wasn’t meant to be a part 6 but the editorial gremlins have been at it again…


Continued from Part 5:

 

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 01:58 AM in Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Comments (13) | Tell-a-Friend

The Crusade against Discrimination in Britain Part 5

Continued from Part 4

Well here we are then, finally arrived at the last hurrah. We’ll progress through the remaining achievements of NuLabor in the domain of race relations, concluding the discussion with an overview of the sine qua non of the genre, the forthcoming Equality Act of 2010. A fitting capstone to thirteen years of Labour misrule.

New Labour – 2000 to the present



Once again the 2001 election was distinguished by an almost total absence of any discussion on race and immigration. The Tories under William Hague’s leadership did make a very tentative effort to introduce the topic during the run-up to the election campaign but the accusations of racism and xenophobia following Hague’s “Foreign land” speech at the Party Conference in March 2001 ensured that the taboo would remain in place. It was this episode that earned the Conservatives the media tag of ‘The Nasty Party’, a stigma that the modernisers under David Cameron have been assiduously trying to erase with the ongoing rebranding of the Conservatives as ‘BluLabor’.

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 01:02 AM in Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

The Crusade against Discrimination in Britain Part 4

Continued from Part 3

I had hoped that the NuLabor period could be covered in a single episode, but that that hasn’t turned out to be possible. So here then is Part 4, Part 5 the conclusion will follow shortly.

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 03:53 PM in Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend

The Crusade against Discrimination in Britain Part 3

Continued from Part 2

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Friday, November 6, 2009 at 07:15 PM in Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Comments (19) | Tell-a-Friend

The Crusade against Discrimination in Britain Part 2

It seems that in attempting to add this section on the RRA76 I am transgressing some unwritten rule on article length, and therefore need to start a new thread, which is this Part 2.

If you have just come across this discussion, the story so far can be found here

 

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 04:53 PM in Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend

The Crusade against Discrimination in Britain Part 1

This article is the first of a two-part series dealing with race and immigration in the UK in the post-war period. This first part focuses on the genesis and development of the crusade to criminalise free speech and freedom of association in Britain in the name of what is euphemistically termed race relations. A second part will follow, focusing on the history of non-white immigration since 1945.

The BNP is on record as promising to repeal the race relations legislation (see 2005 general election manifesto), so it might be useful to explore just what that might entail. However, it’s important to recognise that, rather than having just a single piece of legislation to deal with there is in reality a labyrinthine thicket of primary and secondary legislation in which the concept of racial discrimination as a criminal activity is embedded and which will need to be undone. It’s a complex area, perhaps intended to be that way, but I hope this piece will provide an accessible and non-academic survey of the subject.

The subject of race relations legislation has returned to topicality and seen a spike in public interest as a result of the recent and ongoing litigation involving the BNP and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). This concerns the BNP constitution and, in particular, the criteria for membership. The legal arguments pertaining to this case are somewhat arcane, and the EHRC’s motives for bringing it this particular time have been subject to debate and criticism. Both have been well-aired here and elsewhere, so I’ll defer further commentary until we get to discussion of the particular legislation under which the action was brought; that is, the Race Relations Act of 1976.

The 2009 Equalities Bill

Sometime during early 2010, if not later this year, the Single Equalities Bill that was foretold in Labour’s election manifesto of 2005 will eventually come to pass as the Equality Act of 2010 (EA10). The EA10 will form the capstone on forty-five years of progressively more intrusive and draconian legislation enacted to deal with equality, diversity and discrimination. A great majority of this legislation has been sponsored and enacted by successive Labour governments although, as will be shown, that could not have been achieved without the acquiescence and tacit approval, at least, of the Conservatives whilst in opposition. Indeed, certain key aspects of the overall legislation were even introduced by and enacted under various Conservative administrations. 

We will return to discussion of the Equality Bill in greater detail later. But in order to view it in its proper perspective, as a part of continuum of activist-driven social engineering unprecedented in British history, it is necessary the trace its origins back to the beginning. To assist in this, we will need to review each major element in the raft of race-related legislation that has been enacted since the mid-1960s, back to the Race Relations Act of 1965 and even earlier. In the course of this exercise we need to consider three crucial questions at each stage in the process:

1. What were the factors that led to race becoming a matter for Parliamentary debate and legislative action?

2. Who were the sponsors of the legislation, and how did they succeed in getting it enacted?

3. What determined the actual structure and scope of the legislation as actually enacted, and how has it affected public life and private discourse?

I don’t expect that this project will stir any significant debate, since it is historical rather polemical in tone. It does however highlight the guilty parties and their role in what has unfolded over time as well as tip the hat to the (depressingly) small number of those amongst the political class who valiantly tried to stem the madness. And it truly is a madness; that a sovereign people should voluntarily impose upon itself the constraints on personal freedoms that the panoply of repressive legislation represents is, to quote a great Englishman, a prophet without honour in his own land, “ to watch a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

In order to understand what is needed to slay it, it is necessary to know the nature of the beast, hence this slight offering. I hope it is both interesting and informative.

A note on sources

I will provide a full list of all the major sources that I consulted at the end of the article but, in the interests of clarity and readability will not be including in-line footnotes and references, except in cases where extensive verbatim citations are used. If anyone requires detail on the source for any particular statement or assertion please feel free to ask.

So let’s get going, and where better to start than at the beginning, with the …

 

Continued...

Posted by Dan Dare on Monday, October 26, 2009 at 09:45 PM in Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Comments (25) | Tell-a-Friend

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

cygnet commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/27/14, 08:44 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 3' on 07/27/14, 03:45 AM. (go) (view)

John commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/26/14, 08:16 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 06:50 PM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 06:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 05:16 PM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 04:20 PM. (go) (view)

Maria commented in entry 'Utopian idealists against the nation and the people' on 07/26/14, 05:03 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 04:19 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 04:07 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:11 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:05 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:03 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 03:21 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 06:14 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:44 AM. (go) (view)

Leon commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:15 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:43 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 11:58 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 09:11 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 05:13 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Definitions' on 07/24/14, 02:15 AM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 07:17 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 04:00 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 11:22 PM. (go) (view)

Mr Nill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 09:34 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 02:36 PM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 12:54 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 10:29 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 07:05 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 05:44 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa