Category: Crusade against Discrimination in Britain
Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, British Politics, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Linguistics, Myth and modernity, Psychology
“It is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness’ and he added:
Sir Gerald Howarth said that he stood by the letter and said his views had been reinforced by the child sex abuse scandal in Rotherham, where gangs of Asian men groomed and abused children.
‘For 40 years we have been subjected to a left wing political correctness which has stopped the British people from expressing perfectly legitimate and reasonable views. More than 1,400 children in Rochdale have paid the price for decades of political correctness, now people are speaking up.’
He said that it is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness, adding:
Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, August 30, 2014 at 11:51 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, European Nationalism, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Marxism & Culture War, Popular Culture, Social Conservatism, White Nationalism
- By Bill Giles
I think there is every indication that Britain has reached its Camp of the Saints moment, where millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe are now making their presence felt in so many negative ways, housing, jobs, overburdened institutions, social cohesion, lost of identity, crime, and not least, a national void and sense of foreboding.
Our elites are showing no sign of let up, the rip tide of humanity landing on our shores (and through our airports) is applauded by the liberal establishment, and yet still the majority of natives cannot understand the logic of it all. The tipping point looms nearer by each single day.
In Raspail’s story the liberal elites cave at every turn, until only Switzerland remains as an armed nation of resistance, only for them to crumble in the final hour in the full glare of liberal guilt, France is lost, western civilisation is lost.
There is no indication in Raspail’s thinking that the white race is under threat of existence from a deliberate attack by unknown dark forces or who would undertake such a dastardly plan.
Raspail’s tale tells us western civilisation had lost confidence in itself and in some way had no right to determine its tribe’s own future, like rabbits in the headlamp’s glare, whites are paralysed to act in their own defence.
Perhaps Britain is at this stage in the cycle of mass immigration, for there is no real sign of resistance from the mass of the people, still less as to what will galvanise them into any future kind of action.
Further, Raspail’s unfolding imagination does not extend to a narrative where Britain and America are engaged in fermenting a World war in which to bring about their New World Order, all of which throws Rumsfeld unknown-unknowns into immigration chaos.
As I have commented before, it seems when the elites have accomplished their goal, there is no plan B as to what will replace it.
How and when will we know when all is won or lost?
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, August 28, 2014 at 11:16 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go
Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.
Perhaps because I was never immersed in Marxist/Leftist literature, but rather was repulsed by radicals, their advocacy of non-Whites in particular, repulsed enough to be averse to embracing even their better critiques, I never saw “equality” as an issue one way or another.
But even though it may have had something to do with not circulating among Marxists or immersing in their literature, I never really heard many “leftists” or anybody, for that matter, talking about wanting “equality.”
It has been rightists who have been overusing opposition of this term, adopting this paradigm and its blueprint for disaster - setting matters into false comparison and necessary conflict/dominance-subordination, whereas our concern for separatism is to be negotiated* in qualitative terms of differences that make a difference (qualitative non-sameness, paradigmatic incommensurability as opposed to inequality).
*“Negotiation” more in the sense of ‘negotiating an obstacle’ than in trying to reason with people, though we will do that too where our interests are yet to be violated.
Coming back to “the point of the day”, objectivism and its most pointed corollary of turning issues into quantitative comparisons - equality/inequality - is what our football coaches were going by - not cultural Marxism - when they considered it unthinkable that blacks should be kept off the football team and eventually, that the cheerleaders should not cheer them on…and couple with them:
Interracial marriage proposal flaunted at 2012 Super Bowl half-time
Runaway objectivism, its “rational” blindness flouting “equality,” is a load of race mixing poison that our right wing brings to the equation. This part of the blame derives of our ranks, not from Jews.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 at 11:54 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Far Right, Race realism, Sport, White Nationalism
MR taking it to the threads, stepping-it-up and further cultivating strategies, noting successes, charting obstructions to bringing nativist nationalism to public acceptance.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, Free Speech, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Thread Wars
While we are (in 299 words) addressing David Duke and his single greatest cause issue - Jewish power and influence - with his admonition against their strategy of divide-and-conquer, we should ask..
Is it not possible that our traitorous White plutocrats would be happy to have us fight a war against that which is also their greatest enemy - Jewish power and biocultural patterns - and use us as cannon fodder?
What, after all, have they done for us?
What have they done to merit our loyalty?
What have they done to fight Jewish power and influence? mass non-White immigration into European peoples’ habitats? the destruction of European cultures and people?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 15, 2014 at 06:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, New Right, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, The American right, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Am I really seeing this?
Before proceeding to disconcerting examples of media abuse and manipulation against us, let’s look at some background that Bill provided, of an England as it used to be:
“Yes. I’ve shown this before. Pity the music is not English but I still love it. Today its the BBC* (modernity) that gives us our culture so is it surprising we are what we are?” - Bill
There are other obvious examples from that time, notably -
And in the late 80’s, the dam bursting with
..which, btw, was shown continuously in Eastern Europe prior to the fall of communism.
However, there are examples of liberal envelope-pushing that are promoted not so much to cross the line (though they do) but to put it across as Taken For Granted.
Where these tactics are effective indeed, Whites can feel all the more alienated and foreign in their sense of righteous indignation, as no shared social, let alone institutionalized, response is forthcoming.
This is perhaps more of a pre-Internet phenomenon, when non-interaction with media provided little recourse to discuss the shock of this kind of assault on White interests.
Yet, as we have had these experiences, of seeing galling transgressions of White interests in media or in day-to-day interaction, it may help to know that you are not crazy: yes, you saw this and it is outrageous to an extreme. With that, these experiences acknowledged, it may be possible to redress not only these episodic instantiations, not only patterns, but lynchpins behind their occurrence.
Contributing to the feeling of “did I really see that?” is having these shocking experiences shrugged-off by others (Whites), either simultaneous to the occurrence or in the attempted report of it as an outrage.
I would encourage commentors to list a few of these experiences of “did I really see that? Could this be true?” (typically treated by others as if nothing, the fault is in you).
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 1, 2014 at 03:29 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Popular Culture, Psychology
Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).
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.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
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.
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.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
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.
Adding a definition of Peace
I will probably turn this into a post later, but I will propose this definition/ working hypothesis of “peace” in comment here.
Later, I will invite others to contribute to a working hypothesis of peace and correlate it to prior definitions proposed.
Peoples as they correspond with nations, states, regions, localities, mutually respecting and recognizing sovereignty of genetic accountability, prerogative to discriminate and prohibit association accordingly; while those who wish to leave may go to a consenting receiving nation, their return to the people they departed from may be prohibited; their offspring, if any, may be prohibited as well.
Negotiative, persuasive, non-lethal tests are sought as the normal recourse in conflict resolution (lest there be any misunderstanding, miscegenation is not a normal problem requiring negotiation - that is prohibited; expulsion being a softer variant in resolving the problem).
This would include the capacity for a people to maintain its genetic kind and the reasonable capacity for individuals to find an appropriate mate; with that, to have the means to provide for a family that does not require a detrimental number of hours away from family and leisure, is grounds of peace.
Those who overpopulate, burden the world’s ecosystem and create spill over effect - let alone deliberate exploitation or usurpation of other nations’ land - are seen as in violation of the peace.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.
Weston on preventing White genocide and implications of Muslim population explosion in Britain and other European nations:
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 07:39 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Law, White Genocide: Europe
There wasn’t meant to be a part 6 but the editorial gremlins have been at it again…
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
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 from 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
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 …
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