Category: Immigration and Politics
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 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.
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
Texas Arcane: Kwanstainia, UKandia, Kanookistan, and the OZealands
By Robert Reis
I was led to Texas Arcane by a link at http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/ .
What follows are excerpts from Texas Arcane’s ruminations at his http://vault-co.blogspot.com/ since 2007.
He has enlightened me and caused me to think about the world in new ways.
Extensive quotations are place between parallel lines, e.g. ===.
Posted by Robert Reis on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 01:50 AM in Australian Politics, Awakenings, British Politics, European culture, History, Immigration and Politics, New Zealand Politics, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: America
Nick Griffin addresses EU Parliament, calling to account criminals behind EU immigration policy and their deceptive terms:
Posted by DanielS on Friday, March 14, 2014 at 11:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Law
Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.
This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.
This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:
“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility”
Thus, in background to this essay:
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Race realism, Social Sciences, The American right, The Proposition Nation
True Belarusian nationalism and its history have been opaque to westerners. The process of its true nationalism becoming opaque along with its struggle for revival may be instructive - and particularly if successful, useful for purposes of WN cooperation.
Still, “Western values” may creep-in through lack of bounds South and East as well..
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 08:07 AM in European Nationalism, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, White Nationalism
That an entire chapter is being devoted to a single Act of Parliament - the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 (CIA62) - should not be cause for alarm. Although between fifteen and twenty more immigration-related Acts were given effect between 1963 and the present (depending upon how one defines such Acts), only the CIA62 is being singled out for this special treatment. It merits particularly close inspection on at least three separate grounds. First, it was the first legislation to interfere with the long-held tradition that subjects of the Crown (since 1948: British subjects) enjoyed free entry to and right of abode in Britain. Second, the CIA62 created the template and framework for all subsequent legislation of its type, and third, as an instrument of control the Act is fatally flawed. Most of the subsequent failure of successive Governments to get to grips with the immigration problem since that time can be attributed to the legacy bequeathed by the lawmakers who gave us CIA62.
The 1950s and early 1960s together form perhaps the single most important period to consider when contemplating post-war immigration politics, and its corollary, the emergence of multiracial Britain. During this period many of the tropes that would later come to define (and confine) political and public debate first came to the fore. It was also the high tide of ‘post-colonial’ migration, in which liberal democracies would be inundated by coloured citizens of their former empires, an inundation that was largely unwanted and unplanned. The underlying question is: why did it happen, and why was it allowed to continue unabated for so long?
In Britain a Conservative government was in again place by October 1951, a development which should have given cause for optimism to those for whom preservation of a racially-homogenous population was a priority. The prior period under Labour, from 1945 to 1951, had been characterised politically by official unease in the background and dismissive optimism in public. Now that Churchill was back in charge things would be different, there’d be an end to Labour-style wishy-washiness and the Government would finally get to grips with the problem before it became too late. Right?
But it didn’t turn out that way, and Andrew Roberts poses the necessary question in these terms:
The record shows that Churchill, for a variety of reasons, took no effective action to staunch the flow, nor did his successor Eden and neither did his successor, Macmillan, at least until very late in the day. Part 2 of this series attempts to answer Roberts’ question and, in the process, determine who else, besides the Conservative prime minsters of the day, is to be held responsible for the unfolding disaster.
Preamble and Introduction
Intended as a companion piece to the series on the introduction and pervasive influence of anti-discrimination and ‘equalities’ legislation in the UK The Crusade Against Discrimination this present offering will attempt to set out, in accessible and non-academic form, the political aspects of the post-war immigration into Britain. Accordingly little if any mention will be made of the immigration experience of the white settler countries, including the USA, nor that of continental Europe, although there is a great lacuna in terms of accessible, comprehensive and non-partisan literature regarding the latter. Perhaps a future project beckons. This one will focus entirely on Britain, and in particular its politics of immigration. Social, cultural and economic consequences are, for the most part, passed over except where, as in the case of the Notting Hill race riots, they can be shown to have directly influenced policy making.
The focus here is on the political actors, who did what, when and why; why particular decisions were reached, and why they were not. Debate has raged here, as well as on other nationalist-oriented discussion forums, about the extent to which the demographic transformation that is now underway, and specifically the immigration disaster that is at the root of it, has been the consequence of external agency or whether it has been mostly or entirely self-inflicted. I hope that some light will be shed on that question and that myth can be more readily separated from reality.
The piece will comprise several parts, each quite long and likely to appear at erratic and irregular intervals. My goal is to complete the effort by early summer when I will be taking on a major new project which will necessarily have to take precedence over my jottings here. But, we’ll see.
Part 1: Labour, Nationality and Windrush
Part 2: The Tory Indian Summer
Part 3: The Shape of Things to Come
As mentioned above, this is not intended for an academic audience, so I will be dispensing with the use of footnotes and in-line references will be sparse. In addition to the works listed in the bibliography below I have tried, wherever possible, to consult primary sources such as Cabinet minutes and memoranda, Hansard and other official documents which are available for public access in the National Archives (formerly Public Records Office, PRO). As a general point, if anyone wishes to verify the source for any particular statement or citation in the article I will be happy to provide it.
Alderman, G., Modern British Jewry, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)
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