Category: Anti-racism and white genocide
Just a quick note to offer my compliments to a Whittaker Task Force that went into action over the last three days at The Washington Post.
Jonathan Capeheart, a black journalist writing for the WP, said he “couldn’t resist clicking” on a link to the Whittaker group’s White House petition to “stop white genocide”. The petition - one of three on this subject, apparently - is posted at the We The People site.
The petition has twenty more days to achieve its supposed goal of 25,000 signatories. The present number of signatories is 630. So, plainly, this is a publicity effort, and Capeheart’s unwitting help is no doubt greatly appreciated. The interesting thing for me, though, is to see in an American setting the exact same moral and intellectual ownership of the discourse that one observes routinely at the DT. Since political correctness and anti-racism are so dominant in the Establishment, and have been so ruthlessly and effectively applied to bludgeon the white instinct for racial survival, one would expect a generality of the non-activist public to express shock and distaste at the sight of white people fighting back. But there is none of that on the WP thread. Two or three anti-racist activists made attempts to belittle the pro-white advocates, but the quality of their argument was quite wretched. One even complained of bullying, which is exactly what these creatures have done for the last two decades or more.
Good job, guys.
In the ongoing war of words on the website of the only national daily where some semblance of free speech exists, the poor, benighted anti-racist fraternity, that
Here’s a few, rather disembodied samples of the fine use to which they are threatening to put it, all from the same DT thread titled Hispanics: the rising power in the United States
The Act, by the way, sets a reasonably high bar to prosecution. The Crown must be able to demonstrate not only the presence of language that might be threatening, abusive or insulting, but that racial hatred has been stirred up by same. There has to be a linkage. Further, Section 18 states:
A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.
It is not easy to manufacture an intention to stir up racial hatred from an articulate presentation of the morality of survival.
Now Dan can come along and tell me that it is!
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.
Earlier today I came across this video at BDF posted by Chuffer, a good, reliable nationalist and ex-BNP member, and a regular participant in the BDF bear-pit. The theme of injustice and betrayal is not new to us, of course, though it is certainly a pleasure to see it so well structured. But the street interview section is important, and especially refreshing to see. There are the authentic voices of the English working-class who have been been subjected to eighteen years of relentless Lawrence propaganda. And they know it.
Still, one wonders why they exhibit such a resigned attitude, and not more fight. Then one remembers how deserted these people are. Not the politicians, not the press, not the Church, not the schools, not the law ... no part of civil society spares them a word of acknowledgement. It truly is the most complete betrayal imaginable. And yet, as this video shows, the Lawrence propaganda almost certainly now exercises more influence over the minds of the traitors than it does the betrayed.
A few weeks ago Luis Suarez, a Uruguayan footballer currently overpaid by Liverpool Football Club, thoughtfully provided anti-white activists everywhere with a golden opportunity to jump up and down about “racism”. He said the word “black” in his own language to Patrice Evra, an African footballer currently over-paid by Manchester United. Evra is known for playing the race card from time to time, and he duly obliged.
The result for Suarez, perhaps inevitable given the Football Association’s keen desire to demonstrate its anti-racist credentials to the world, was an 8-game suspension and £40,000 fine.
This was not expected for so slight an incursion of orthodox speech requirements. There is dissent, particularly from the direction of Liverpool.
The Telegraph has run a reader poll today. The current vote total stands at 13,278 of whom 48.72% declare the FA’s verdict “completely wrong” and a further 18.65% “too harsh”.
That’s a good enough sample size to suggest that such sentiment must extend well beyond the “right-wing” Telegraph readers.
Meanwhile, the paper’s editors were forced to close the Suarez-related comment threads as the anti-anti-racist commentary flowed. They completely disappeared the thread to one new article with just a dozen comments posted, suggesting a certain desperation. We are at a point where anti-racism holds sway as never before across the Establishment. But it is also now losing its intimidatory power over the white masses.
The dissonance ought to grow quite naturally. But, unfortunately, another footballer - the England captain, no less - has transgressed against orthodoxy much more spectacularly than Suarez. That will certainly set back the prospects for undermining anti-racism in England. It is difficult, though, to see how the English public - not a stranger to contempt for authority - can be held in check by anti-racism forever.
Anders Behring Breivik appeared before the Oslo City Court today. He was remanded by District Court Judge Thorkell Nesheim for a further twelve weeks, for the first four of which he will continue to be disallowed newspapers or television, and for eight weeks he will be prohibited visits.
The police had sought tougher conditions, including a twelve week ban on letters (of which he has been receiving many, including some which are threatening).
The Daily Telegraph reported:
It is still not established that Breivik can be held criminally responsible for the bombing in Oslo and the massacre at the Labour Youth League summer camp on Utøya. If a psychiatric examination confirms that, his trial should begin on April 16.
The police investigation, meanwhile is scheduled to conclude in February. No evidence of accomplices has been found. The principle line of investigation, however, is into the question of radicalisation. The police are interested in what happened in the period from 2002, when Breivik was “knighted”, to 2009, when he started planning the bombing.
Now, this assumption that the forms of dissent Breivik encountered are “radicalising” is very liberal-centric. Breivik made the point in court that he admits his actions but does not take responsibility for them, that responsibility belonging to the elites who have visited multiracialism and its attendant “hate ideology” on Norway and Norwegians. What, after all, could be more radical than the race-replacement of a European people with Africans and Asians - a process driven by a morally insular and socially insulated elite whose own familial future consists, apparently, in training their children to carry on their “work”?
Without this unparalleled extremism in Norwegian political life, Breivik would never have conceived the balancing idea that the elites were at war with Norway, that they saw the heirs to the cause in their own children, that the terrible costs they incurred on Norwegians were not paid by them, and bringing those costs home in the most brutal and absolute way was the logical response.
Obviously, the police are not going to stray from their liberal-centric mentality. So they will look determinedly at Breivik’s online life and at his travels aboad for the mysterious “radicalisation”, making him a victim of some evil “out there” rather than the self-actualised historical fulcrum which he imagines himself to be.
Meanwhile in London the latest twist in the story of Stephen Lawrence has finally come before Mr Justice Treacy at the Old Bailey. We now await details of the new forensic evidence which, it seems, places David Norris and Garry Dobson at the scene of the crime in 1993. ITV News mentioned that the defence rejects this evidence vigorously, which makes one wonder whether it is as robust as the race industry would like.
And that, really, is what this trial is about now: the blind, implacable will of the race industry to finally justify all the millions of words written and spoken in the anti-white war it has generated over this death. Norris and Dobson are doubtless not the most appealing white men one might meet, and the Metropolitan Police were a dubious bunch before the anti-racist disease ever caught hold. But on to these slender foundations the moral worth of the English people was somehow manoeuvred, along with the proposition that only a repentance from our “racism” and a committment to “diversity” would make us fit for the modern age.
Frankly, I hope the new evidence is very weak, cross-contamination all too likely, and the jury are unable to convict.
Exactly how did elements of the left - the white gentile left, that is - ever get themselves in the position where they cheer on our genetic destruction for the sake of “defeating racism”? I imagine that all politically free-thinking European men and women have pondered this mystery. I can only offer the most cursory explanation - basically, a three-word answer, the first and second words each being of three letters (the second being “and”) and the third “religion” ... what Tom Sunic identified in his Homo americus as the seemingly imperishable Puritan tendency in our racial psyche.
There are quite a few answers put forward in the thread to a piece in the Telegraph this morning written by Brendan O’Neill. His subject matter is the contempt exhibited by two white middle-class Unite Against Fascism members for a woman “guilty” of supporting the English Defence League, conveniently filmed by one of them and posted on YouTube. O’Neill ascribes this behaviour to class-hatred, but that ignores the single most apparent fact about anti-racism: it is a system of moral punishment.
A commenter on the thread named Manxman got the point:
Here is the offending video. See what you make of the psychology of these people.
White identity politics is a form of heresy, and heresy has grave consequences. Advocating White nationalism or merely defending White interests often results in a loss of social standing. Moral cowards, amoral sycophants, and racial traitors are rewarded while heroes and righteous guardians are demonized. Pretending that Whites are social constructs or have no legitimate interests to defend is accepted, even celebrated, in a society infested with anti-White multiculturalism. White racialists realize that the cornucopia of cultures is designed to exclude any White culture, and the future rainbow of races is actually a muddled mess of miscegenation. It is therefore a tremendous challenge to remain in steadfast support of the White extended genotype. The anti-White opposition is well-funded, well-organized, malicious, and persistent.
White advocacy is beset on all sides. Campaigning against White genocide attracts derision and scorn from anti-Whites. Lamenting the decline of the White population into minority status is attacked as intolerance. Merely calling attention to, let alone denouncing, the maliciously disproportionate amounts of violent interracial crime committed against White people is paradoxically described as hate. Protecting the continuity of family lineage by expecting exclusively White marriages and White procreation is seen as backwards, provincial, or outdated. Suggesting that many trends or ideas that harm White interests have been disproportionately created, organized, disseminated, or financed by Jewish interests can lead to accusations of insanity or mental instability.
This derision, scorn, and accusations of intolerance, hate, and insanity are reactions that require White nationalists to have a thick skin in order to maintain their viewpoints. It is hard to be a heretic. But the requisite resilience to carry forward is about more than insensitivity to insults or threats. It is inspired by the love of truth. White racialists know that race is real and that it has important consequences for civilization and ethnic genetic interests. White nationalists realize they are being systematically dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homelands. Defenders of White identity understand that there is nothing hateful or unhealthy about wanting to continue their heritage by having White babies in White societies.
The steely resolution that guides a White nationalist is a personality trait or perhaps a spiritual constitution that values eternal truth more than ephemeral social standing. A patriotic White man understands that truth can be directly opposed to popular opinion, and that such a situation is not without historical precedent. An exemplary White man is willing to act in accordance with that wisdom. A heroic White man can marshal these convictions into effective action and change the dynamics of society. The White race is in desperate need of more heroes.
White people are known to be more individualistic than other races. In a White-dominant society, free from ethnic or racial competition from non-White groups, this individualism helped propel White people beyond the established limits of science, technology, philosophy, and religion. The individualist refusal to conform to the “popular consensus”—which always opposes scientific breakthroughs or heretical ideas—is precisely why so many White historical figures persist within the collective memory as titans of Western civilization. Nobody remembers a conformist, but everybody remembers a successful catalyst of righteous revolution. The reward for success in such a struggle is immortal fame. How could it be any other way?
Der Struwwelpeter is one of the most famous German children’s books. Written in 1844 by Heinrich Hoffmann, it consists of 10 illustrated rhyming stories, most of which depict children being subjected to fantastic punishment for misbehaviour. One such story is “Die Geschichte von den schwarzen Buben” (The Story of the Black Boys). In it, 3 boys are punished by St. Nicholas for teasing a negro kid passing the city gates. What follows is my translation of the German. It might sound a bit awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original meaning as possible (the English translation changes the story somewhat).
Hat-tip to Simon Darby for this one. It’s a short review of Laura Fairrie’s The Battle for Barking by an Independent journalist named Rhiannon Harries who, I must say, I don’t know but Darby fingers as a “self-proclaimed anti-racist”.
The review itself is worthless, containing nothing more elevated than a few cheap, boorish jibes at the BNP. Until we get to this arresting thought in the closing paragraph:
Now, no doubt Miss Harries will claim that having “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage” simply means solving the problems of “unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing”. But that doesn’t quite follow. A professional journalist, which Miss Harries is, would just have written “we still have a long way to go before the economy lifts people out of unemployment and the local housebuilding programme provides them with decent homes, and in the process deprives the BNP of its most potent political arguments.” That isn’t at all difficult to come up with. Why, then, choose such an imprecise formula as “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation”? Well, it isn’t imprecise if Miss Harries is actually referring to the “situation” of a still obtaining English majority, going “beyond” which is its demographic replacement.
The BNP has claimed consistently that large numbers of Africans were moved into the constituency, added to the electoral register, and got out to vote on election day. In his blog Darby claims that “I have the electoral register to prove it.” It must be said, there is much dispute about this even among nationalists. But, plainly, a rapid process of demographic replacement in the borough is in train. Labour knows its electoral value, knows how important Barking was and is to the BNP, and would do literally anything to defeat them. Anti-racists are on record discussing white minoritisation in terms of the final defeat of “racism” and “fascism”. Miss Harries’s meaning seems clear to me. Even if she does not state that meaning publicly, she would appear to have got as close to it as she can, given that pushing us towards our grave is the hate that dare not speak its name. For now.
We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot, and so on. What do they mean by this? And what is their long-term goal?
So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called Race Traitor.
Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does. Anti-racists generally will not call themselves “race traitors” or “anti-white,” nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves “anti-racist” and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.
This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:
(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “white guilt”;
(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;
(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being “racist”;
(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a “racist”, or as a “white supremacist”, or as a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.
Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:
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