|
|
|
Anti-politics and entryism to UKIP Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh. Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc). It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular. The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics? Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people. Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:
So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t. The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement. Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements. Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters? Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism? If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP. The BNP did not stand. The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand. Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004. The Elvis candidate finished above them. It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly. We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power. Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003. Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty. To do that we have to work from within. We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party. I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:51 | # Wonderful! We’re back to practical matters that one can actually discuss without being overwhelmed with excessively technical, if not actually self-defined/neologistic, terminology. So, what does it mean that BNP members are pre-banned from joining UKIP? Is that literally true, as if the GOP refused to allow former Democrats from joining it? I’ve never heard of such a thing in a modern democracy. Are substantial numbers of Tories reregistering? And someone remind me why the Tories must be destroyed, as opposed to taken over from within? In the US, the sad truth is that the only option for serious nationalists is to try to influence the GOP. There are various hypotheses as to why third parties never amount to much in America (the last successful one was the GOP), but the bottom line is that a renegade rightist party would only siphon off votes from the GOP, and thus ensure more Democratic liberalism being imposed on us. Perhaps a very wealthy and/or famous man could engineer a significant third party force, but only if he also had a political sense aligned with a substantial minority, and would be willing to work for more than one election cycle to nurture and expand that force. Ross Perot comes to mind as the only significant person to attempt this in recent decades, but his problem was a complete lack of ideological coherence, leave nothing permanent to build upon (politics requires ideological formatting to be successful, which is why I find curious MR’s reluctance to try to develop a nationalist ideological program or charter). The fundamental problem is of course declining cultural cohesion (which is not only a function of multiculturalism, but also widespread literacy and cultural dissemination without corresponding improvements in National Intelligence, let alone National Wisdom), as well as grand belief systems (as Dr. Lister likes to remind us - as though this is a good thing). There are no more generally agreed upon boundaries to thought and belief (except the false prohibition on ‘racism’). Everyone has his little opinion, but none of them are strong enough to constitute new metanarratives. So all are left dissatisfied. The result of this is that we are moving towards White Zion. WZ is not only a specific method for achieving a White Republic (foreign colonization and electoral conquest). It is also a recognition that the defining sociological feature of the present age is the tendency to self-segregation, or at least general sorting. People want to be with their own kind (not to be understood only or even primarily in racial terms), and this preference will only intensify as it becomes ever more possible actually to achieve this desire (ie, instead of remaining stuck with those with whom you happen to share a traditional citizenship). This is why paleo-nationalism, as opposed to White Zionism, is a fool’s errand. The paleo-nationalist seeks to restore an authentic England, an England as it ought to be today had only the indigenous English been allowed any part in the shaping of their collective destiny. But in the future, ‘Englishness’ or ‘English patriotism’ will simply represent one identity and/or lifestyle option among many. Multiplicity of identitarian communities is the likelier future, and this even if multiracialism were not part of the equation. My point is that there might one day be many Englands, among which there will be a small body composed of those corresponding to today’s nationalists. The only real way to prevent a thoroughly (psychologically as well as racially) miscegenated “Planet Tiger Woods” is for racially self-conscious whites (ie, those for whom white racial preservation is an all-important good) to ingather and form their own teleological Racial State - a sovereign polity overtly dedicated to preserving itself by means of the continuing cultural transmission of WN values and imperatives - and then to seek to ‘breed up’ a new nation composed of those whose psyches predispose them to racial preservation. The plethora of postmodern lifestyle possibilities has pragmatically (if not - per Lister - scientifically) demonstrated that whites simply are not, by their own biological natures, very race conscious, and thus will, over time, go extinct, absent coercion forcing them to racially preserve themselves (say by banning miscegenation). WN will one day merely be another lifestyle choice for some subset of whites. Our task is to ensure that those whites who do wish to preserve their race have a place free from extra-racial oppression in which to do so. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:57 | # BTW, I examined all the html links, and came across this wonderful comment:
The decline of Britain is not only a function of race or Jews, but of all the ways in which a conservative understanding of man and society have been breached or ignored. Socialism and secularism have played their termitic roles as much as liberalism and multiculturalism. 4
Posted by Bill on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 10:20 | # Nigel Farage finds himself in a position that most politicians can only dream of. Has Farage got what it takes to kick the door in. A non-PC Farage could stop this monstrous machine in two seconds flat. (Well you know what I mean.) The people would go ballistic. It beggers belief that any elites witnessing the current political scene is surprised at the sudden turn of events in Britian and Europe. They never saw the crash coming, they never saw the riots coming and they won’t see the backlash coming. I have opined in the past that when the time comes, we could find ourselves pushing on an open door. It really is up to Farage. 5
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 10:36 | # More analogous to Maggie and the NF than Stevie Harper, no? http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103485 6
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:23 | # .. Wonderful! We’re back to practical matters that one can actually discuss without being overwhelmed with excessively technical, if not actually self-defined/neologistic, terminology. Is a hypothesis proposed for debate and discussion, self-defined? Is “incommensurability” self-defined? Or is it rather a “correct” exegesis of Christian texts that is more characteristically self-defined? Is a proposed re-defintion of self-actualization - in light of its anti-social consequences - hypothesized for critical debate to take its ends into socialization, optimal relation with organic being and ennobling satisfaction with ordinary, reconstructive routines, mere self-definition? For the UKIP or their like, to win, it will be necessary not only to represent the ontology of native British interests as a collective, it must establish subjective incentives for participation in the nativist agenda. It sounds as if the UKIP could fit the bill of a “paradigmatic conservative” perspective: not challenging petty liberalisms within, but looking toward the crucial matter of borders and demographic control. That would be the opposite, say, of what American’s Republican Party has been doing in recent decades: talking about relatively trivial conservative matters (gay marriage, the frequency of people sending season’s greetings as opposed to wishing Merry Christmas, whether someone is a Christian and not whether they are a native of the land, etc) while the party elite let the important issues of borders and forced demographic integration not only to run wild but to be enforced along with criminalization of any opposition. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:14 | # Why is anti-establishmentarianism seen to be so important? It could just as easily result in triumphs for the Marxist Left as the nationalist Right. Or it could just be ‘safety-valve’ protest against political corruption, as Grillo’s movement seems to be. Look, what we want for now is at least a moderate racial nationalism of the Right: anti-immigrationism above all else; illegal immigrant repatriation; securing of borders, preferably with national, or EU, militaries; elimination of any employment favoritism shown towards non-indigenous; elimination of multiculturalist indoctrination in educational systems, and replacement by national patriotic (traditionalist) curricula and texts; elimination of speech codes restricting nationalist expression; restoration of national sovereignty across all areas, from currency to legal establishments to national legislative supremacy; law and order policies to ensure public safety. This would be Phase 1. The eventual second phase would involve nonwhite (including Jewish and Romani) ex/repatriation (in the case of Europe), and perhaps further institutional changes along rightist lines: to restrict or eliminate trades (and especially government/public) unions; enshrine absolute rights of property ownership and use; rebuild European military power; reverse mass democratization (eg, elimination of voting privileges for criminals and public benefits/welfare recipients); increase European fertility; mandate eugenics (eventually I’d like to see church reestablishment, too - the great alliance of Throne/State and Altar - but that’ll have to wait awhile, I fully realize). Anti-establishment parties are only valuable to the extent they are consciously advancing the RACIAL nationalist agenda. I would happily make my stand with a corporatist party of the moderate “Right” (eg, Tories, GOP, CDP) if the populist alternative were on the socialist Left. 8
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 14:18 | # Anything else? Nothing like a pithy phrase or motto to win over the populist hearts. Nah, they need an exhaustive laundry list to get off the ground, including a phase of mandatory eugenics - that ought to be popular. ..of course, unions should be banished…wouldn’t want the oligarchs to be fair or something… and the free-market could never miss a turn in nativist interests… Margret Thatcher was a big advocate of Mises and Hayek, was she not? There is not such thing as society.. Was not her friend Ronald Reagan a kindred spirit? Did he not appoint Alan Greenspan, who viewed Ayn Rand as a guiding light? ..re-establish the Church ug, now that’s racial.. Is that so we all might remain yoked to absurdity? ug. If we are to expound beyond the matter of borders and demographic sovereignty for natives… I was looking at this old post of Jim’s, from May 30, 2010, 11:34 AM | some ideas worth consideration: James Bowery: * Treat pollution as a criminal assault on the nation. 9
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 14:20 | # Let them nationalize the banks and control the money issuance as well, while we are at it. 10
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 14:33 | # nationalize and localize the banks…
11
Posted by Insist on UKIP on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:12 | # I’ve got the distinct feeling that UKIP are here to stay. 12
Posted by Gogol on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:47 | # Off topic, but check out this short, moving BNP speech by Marlene Guest http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC7WwJ9_-2A 13
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:07 | # GW writes: “To do that we have to work from within. We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party. I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.” Then there is yet hope for Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments:
I should also add that a citizen’s dividend, as the vehicle for delivery of social goods, is anti-political because, not only does it disintermediate political affiliation with market affiliation, but by giving dispensation of social goods over to the individual citizen it wreaks havoc with the neo-traditional, and highly pathogenic, political categories!
*For instance thinking that free international trade might not always be in the best interest of the citizenry. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 23:47 | # Some ignoramuses call this “capitalism”? Learn something, people. What the West needs is an end to nonwhite immigration, and a return to free market capitalism rooted in ultra-strong private property rights (along with an ideologically reformed re-Christianization, of course). LH
In the wake of the crash, the Fed has continued to gin up the stock market. By September 2012 the S&P had increased by 115 percent over its lows during the bust. Of the 5.6 million breadwinner jobs lost during the correction, only 200,000 had been restored by then. And during the vaunted recovery, American households spent $30 billion less on food and groceries in the fall of 2012 than they did during the same period in 2007. The sudden emergence of enormous budget deficits in recent years, Stockman explains, simply made manifest what the bubble conditions of the Bush years had concealed. The phony wealth of the housing and consumption booms temporarily lowered the amount of money spent on safety-net programs, and temporarily increased the amount of tax revenue received by the government. With this false prosperity abating, the true deficit, which had simply been suppressed by these temporary factors, began to appear. All along, the Fed had assured us that the United States was experiencing genuine prosperity. “Flooding Wall Street with easy money,” Stockman writes, the Fed saw the stock averages soar and pronounced itself pleased with the resulting “wealth effects.” Turning the nation’s homes into debt-dispensing ATMs, it witnessed a household consumption spree and marveled that the “incoming” macroeconomic data was better than expected. That these deformations were mistaken for prosperity and sustainable economic growth gives witness to the everlasting folly of the monetary doctrines now in vogue in the Eccles Building. Stockman also discusses the fiscal condition of the U.S. government. Part of that history takes him through the Reagan military buildup. Stockman’s isn’t the story you heard at the Republican conventions of the 1980s. The real story is as you suspected: a feeding frenzy of arbitrary and irrelevant programs which, once begun, could be stopped only with great difficulty if at all, given the jobs that depended on them. But at least this buildup brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, right? Stockman doesn’t buy it. “The $3.5 trillion (2005$) spent on defense during the Gipper’s term did not cause the Kremlin to raise the white flag of surrender. Virtually none of it was spent on programs which threatened Soviet security or undermined its strategic nuclear deterrent.”
What would actually bring the Soviet Union down was its command economy itself – a point, Stockman notes, that libertarian economists had been making for some time. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, advanced ludicrous claims about Soviet capabilities and the Soviet economy at a time when its decrepitude should have been obvious to everyone. These inflated claims about the regime’s enemies continued to be standard practice for the neocons long after the Reagan years were over. To do it justice, The Great Deformation really requires two or three reviews. One could be devoted just to Stockman’s striking analysis of the New Deal. Stockman advances and then defends these and other arguments: the banking system had stabilized well before FDR’s ill-advised “bank holiday”; the economy had already turned the corner before FDR’s accession and worsened again as a result of FDR’s conduct during the interregnum; the New Deal was not a coherent program of Keynesian demand stimulus, so it makes no sense for Keynesians to draw lessons from it; the 1937 “depression within the Depression” was not caused by fiscal retrenchment; and FDR’s primary legacy is not the economic recovery, which would have occurred faster without him, but rather the impetus he gave to crony capitalism in one sector of the economy after another. You may have gathered that The Great Deformation must be a long book. It is. But its subject matter is so interesting, and its prose style so lively and engaging, that you will hardly notice the pages going by. The target of Stockman’s book is just about everyone in the political and media establishments. Left-liberal opinion molders – defenders of the common man, they would have us believe – supported the bailouts in overwhelming numbers. Herman Cain, meanwhile, lectured “free-market purists” for opposing TARP, and virtually the entire slate of GOP candidates in 2012 had supported it. Both sides, in tandem with the official media, repeated the regime’s scare stories without cavil. And both sides could think of nothing but good things to say about how the Fed had managed the economy for the past quarter century. The free market stands exonerated of the charges hurled by the state and its allies. Thanks to The Great Deformation, not a shred of the regime’s propaganda is left standing. This is truly the book we have been waiting for, and we owe David Stockman a great debt.</blockquote> 15
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:35 | # I did a browser search for the word “capitalism” and the only place I found it was in your comment, Leon. However, it is incredible that you quote Lew Rockwell who penned the obscene article titled “The Tragedy of Immigration Enforcement”. So, for no particular reason, you drag an “authority” in who sees no particular reason to delay opening borders until the libertarian utopia of ultimate privatization is realized—nor does he even recognize the right to contract!!! That’s right. Open border libertarians deny the right of individual sovereigns to contract with each other to form a mutual insurance corporation to defend their joint territory from trespass—and that is the only reasonably imputed de facto contract from which “government” can claim any legitimacy. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:16 | # Leon, Today, the Conservative Party is the Neoliberal Party ... the Business Party ... the Cheap Labour Party. It is not reformable. There is nothing to reform. It is not conservative. It has not had a political centre for 126 years. It is simply one of the vehicles by which the political class (as servant to a single Estabishment and, beyond that, to the Money Power) maintains the illusion of legitimacy. It has to be destroyed as the party by which the right stubbornly believes it affects government in its own vision. The right must be brought to an understanding that it owns no such vehicle ... that it will never again influence the course of life in Britain through it ... that the old dispensation is dead and gone. Only by this means can the right in the country re-form on the true principle of our people’s good, and take that principle to the country again - this time to destroy the Labour Party as the other vehicle of the political class. That is the form of an achievable political revolution against the political class and the powers it represents. Those powers live by and through free market capitalism, btw - the end product of which is plutocracy allied to the commodification of human life. It is, in reality, our common blood which conjoins us in political striving and which imbues that striving with our interests. Contracts accommodate units of production and consumption to one another, not brothers. I really think, by the way, you should drop this Zion word. I makes you sound like some religious fanatic who will never tumble to the fact that through his religion he is “reborn” not as a man but as a compliant gentile. 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 09:19 | # James Bowery@15 I’m taking the liberty of posting here [see below] the article from Rockwell you linked to (and which I do not recall having originally read). I do so because I don’t find the article nearly as egregious as you do. The one especially rancid paragraph I have underlined (I’ve bolded a couple of places I thought especially important). Otherwise, I agree with most of it. I am about as far from an “open borders libertarian” as one can get. I have been arguing with libertarians over this issue for at least a quarter century. I regard myself as a free market traditionalist conservative, in the mold of Pat Buchanan, whom people (not necessarily around here, but in the MSM) conveniently forget was economically far to the free market Right of most Republicans, certainly including any of his faux-capitalist opponents. Buchanan was closer to Murray Rothbard than any major Presidential candidate until Ron Paul, even if the crummy neocons pilloried him for his America First trade protectionism (of course, what they really hated was his America First foreign policy, esp wrt the Middle East and their favorite “brave little ‘democracy’”). My point here is that one can be both a militant opponent of nonwhite immigration (nb: I support greatly expanded white immigration, at least to the US; I understand, however, that many European ethnonationalists may not like any immigration, even including fellow Europeans), and a staunch proponent of the free market. Open borders libertarians are, indeed, not even real libertarians, but basically free market racial/cultural leftists. Combining loose immigration, let alone open borders as some fools advocate, with mass democracy and a gigantic welfare state is a recipe for total national breakdown. There is nothing mandatory, even from a libertarian standpoint, about this. Immigration, after all, involves the acquisition of citizenship in another state. What does this have to do with limited government, even in theory? In practice, mass nonwhite immigration has been the biggest driver of Big American Government in history, precisely because the artificial ‘diversification’ of the US through immigration that has been the electoral backbone (along with blacks and public unions) of the modern Democratic Party, which is the chief mechanism for expanding American socialism. A. Immigration = nonwhite importation B. Nonwhite voters overwhelmingly vote Democratic C. The Democratic Party is the major vehicle for the expansion of American socialism Therefore, D. Contemporary immigration increases American socialism (eg, who elected Obama?). So obviously, any libertarian who is not opposed to immigration, esp LEGAL immigration (as Rockwell notes), is either stupid or disingenuous in his alleged commitment to liberty and capitalism. But there is no reason we cannot have both a tremendously free internal market, and extensive controls on which foreigners, if any, shall be allowed to become US citizens. And wrt illegal immigration, I happen to agree with the libertarians. It is not the responsibility of business owners (or homeowners, like me) to act as surrogate immigration enforcement agents. That responsibility rests, properly as well as legislatively, with the government (though it should not only be a Federal prerogative, the hidden purpose of which is actually to facilitate non-enforcement, so as to further the elite’s goal of a nonwhite majoritarian America). We should militarize the border with Mexico, as well as “navalize” the coastlines, and have stricter security in airports. Beyond that, internal workplace raids are appropriate, but the costs and punishments should be borne by the illegals themselves, not by private employers. I agree with Rockwell: that aspect of the anti-immigration agenda actually plays into the hands of the socialists who want more control over private businesses. There should be less control. BTW, my point wrt “capitalism” is that many around here somehow hold to the fantasy that the US is a staunchly free enterprise nation. Reading Rockwell’s review of the new Stockman book (which should be dynamite when it’s released next month) should dispel such an unexamined assumption. The various “market” failures of late cannot be pinned on free enterprise, for they were all the result of legislated abrogations of a pure capitalist economy. People ‘fail’, markets per se do not. To suggest otherwise is to open oneself up to the central planning fallacy, whereby some individual or set of individuals is assumed to be superior in judgment to the myriad self-interested actors in a competitive market environment, which is ridiculous, even from a mere common sense perspective.
18
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 09:44 | # GW@16 Yes, but is it actually possible for a non-major party to do what you ask of it - connect with the true people of England and displace the Tories? And why would you suppose this to be easier than trying to get the True People empowered within the Tories so as to change its direction (as elsewhere you advocate wrt UKIP)? There are at least two objections. First, inertia. The Tories have been around for centuries. They are part of the landscape. As Burke understood, there is much to be said for inertia, but apart from its positive elements, it is a fact which must be considered. When people have a long-standing affiliation to something, it is possible to get them to change, but not easily. In basically stable societies, like the present USA and UK, ‘revolutions within the forms of continuity’ are actually easier to effect than wholesale revolutions, even of a merely electoral nature. Second, if the Tories are somehow destroyed, won’t that merely further empower Labour, at least for a generation? And won’t that in turn mean the admission of millions of new nonwhite colonizers? Soon it seems as though the UK will, like France, have passed a tipping point where the full scale multiculturalization of England will no longer be able to be repudiated through the ballot box, as the combination of congenital white race traitors and alien colonists will comprise an electoral majority. What then? It seems to me that the Tories are still the best play. If I were English, and in light of the failure of the BNP, I would provisionally support UKIP. But the goal of doing so is not to destroy the Tories, but to encourage their reform in a nationalist direction. Will UKIP on its own ever be able to end the immigration invasion, let alone repatriate the colonists? The time for England to save itself is short, unless civil war is contemplated - and I doubt very much that most of today’s petulant and weak Englishmen have the stomach for that. We’re a long time away from your finest hour. 19
Posted by Bill on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 10:20 | # The emergence of UKIP. Lately, I’ve often reflected in these comments of the paucity of quality comments in the Telegraph threads. This morning is no exception, having just spent a good two hours sifting through comment on Janet Dayley’s latest missive, I lament that it is the same old…nothing has changed story. The Queen of Sophists has penned another of her typical fare asking basically, why are they all the same? What voters really want is a proper choice Telegraph 3/3/2013. Once in a while, among the of hundreds of comments, both on Daley’s piece and elsewhere a single comment stands head and shoulder above the rest, here is such a post. It is by the handle of morgeth @ 05.07 PM 2/3/2013
Now posts of this level of understanding are far too rare among the earnest bog standard naivety, which begs the question does it make any difference? UKIP pulled it off at Eastleigh despite no such information as morgths comment was available to the voters. And even if it had been available, would it have made one jot of difference. This mass media elite psychological psyop operation is slowly failing, decades of lying and obfuscation against a simple people is grinding against reality, was this always inevitable as we used to say here? It looks as though it is. The herd is restless, sniffing the breeze, pawing the ground. Instinct is taking over. The herd is looking for a leader. PS. GW. Good one @ no 8
20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:14 | # Bill, Morgoth also gets the other half of the elite ideological equation, which is neoliberalism and its reductive model of as Homo economicus, an interchangeable unit of production and consumption. He has not grasped the meaning of liberalism in the full Listerian sense but neither has he been at it all that long. He also understands the JQ. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:40 | # Leon, The British Conservative Party is not remotely loyal to its own voters or even its local association memberships and party workers. It is loyal only to the source of its income, which is from the financial and corporate sectors. That is not going to change beyond some reactive window-dressing, as in Cameron’s promise of an EU referendum not now but sometime after the next election (which he will loose). That is the reason it cannot be reformed from within. Likewise the Labour Party, which is the neo-Marxist Party, the Immigrant Party, the party of progressive intellectuals, and which is also funded by banks and wealthy businessmen. Before the Blair era (ie, 1994) it was largely funded by the unions. Union memberships have been declining for a long while, not least because immigrant labour tends to be non-organised. Even so, the unions are so neo-Marxised today that they support the “rights” of non-white immigrants against “racist” and “xenophobic” white men who would protect their work and pay. There is no prospect of reforming the political mainstream. The revolution has to come from without. It has to be, therefore, a revolution of two halves, completed in 2020 to 2025. If it fails I have no doubt other men with different, non-political methods will take over the reins, and there will be open warfare within a decade. It does not have to start here. If the control system survives in the rest of Europe, it can start in France or Belgium or Holland, and will spread here. I am quite selective in the way I approach “inevitable consequences”. It is not inevitable that nationalist sentiment will be come to the fore of a UKIP revolution. But it is inevitable that it will come in some form at some time somewhere in Europe. And then all bets are off. 22
Posted by Cometh the Hour, Cometh the UKIP. on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:43 | # Leon, 23
Posted by Hoppe fan on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 20:51 | # James and Leon, What do you think of Hans-Hermann Hoppe? 24
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:41 | # GW and Cometh the Hour, So it’s UKIP, then? OK, what’s the thinking? That UKIP can actually displace the Tories and become the main opposition to treasonous Labour (as it was once hoped the Canadian Reform party would eliminate the awful Conservatives, “Progressive” or otherwise - and at one point they almost looked like they would do so, yet today Reform is gone, and the Canadian ‘Conservatives’ are healthier than they’ve been in a long time, and just as racial-nationally suicidalist)? Perhaps this is possible (as opposed to merely desirable). I don’t know enough about Parliamentary systems to form an opinion. I do know that in the US the only hope for managing a civilized national decline (the risibly gloating Graham Lister is correct that there is no hope any longer for the “re-Aryanization” of America, or even just permanent white political/cultural hegemony over a diverse country) is for serious conservatives to capture the GOP and bend it to our will. The GOP is similar to the Tories in its relations to the Money Power (which I understand to be support for globalization and cheap labor - outsourcing of jobs, insourcing of foreign workers - something neither of the Rockwell pieces I posted above mentions, to their discredit). Its officeholders routinely betray the rightist leanings of the grassroots, and on nearly every issue, from immigration and affirmative action, to ‘free’ trade, unnecessary foreign interventions (including aid programs), welfare abuse, lack of routine capital punishment, etc etc. But what’s the real alternative? The system is deliberately duopolistic, and is unlikely ever to be reformed or replaced, absent national civic collapse (which, as I’ve stressed many times, even most hardline rightists don’t actually want). We either take over the GOP, which remains barely possible, drivel about the Money Power notwithstanding (what matters ultimately is racial as well as cultural/ideological demographics, and these actually favor anti-immigration nationalism within the GOP, though not necessarily in the whole US), or we will continue to be sidelined. On a broader note, all this simply reinforces my point wrt White Zion (call it what you wish: the White Ingathering Nation). The fundamental racial problem lay with white apathy. Whites just nowhere care that much about their own racial dispossession. If there were million person marches throughout the English countryside demanding an end to immigration, would traitor Cameron continue to ignore the issue? Politicians are mostly venal, and will do what their constituents really want. The brute reality facing white patriots everywhere is that, as I’ve been saying here for several years, only minorities of our people actually care about racial and national preservation. Every white nation has its national patriots, but in no country are we a majority. And, aside from some of the post-communist states, all of the white countries are democracies. We are free to vote WN - we just don’t do it. Hence the only hope for our racial preservation is for WPs (that is, all those concerned with race, from moderate Christian paleoconservatives to neo-Nazis) to gather together in one sovereign polity; attempt to become the electoral majority there; and proceed to use that political power to create a teleological Racial State, that is, a state specifically dedicated to white purity and perpetuity (as Israel is officially dedicated to the preservation of the Jewish people). Outlandish as this may sound to the unimaginative, my proposal is in fact the most realistic on offer, however slim its actual chances. 25
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:55 | # On the disgusting Harper ‘Conservatives’ (and they are the best major party in Canada today, though I personally would support the Western Block party, if Canadian):
THIS FUCKING TRAITOR IS ACTUALLY BRAGGING ABOUT RACIALLY DESTROYING CANADA! And why are they worse? Because the typical white Canadian (American, Englishman, Frenchman, etc) is a douchebag, a congenital race liberal (that’s right, Lister! this is obviously a genetic condition we’re up against, otherwise how does one explain the total domination of race liberalism everywhere, even in countries with no indigenous nonwhites and no history of slavery or colonialism?) who just doesn’t care about preserving his race. When politics responds to underlying genetic traits, there is a limit to what can be done to change it. We cannot fight this, and so will continue to wail and lose everywhere. The only hope is to change the underlying “genetic demographics”, which, absent genetic engineering programs which do not, and may never, exist, means WP ingathering. Because there are a lot of us across the world in absolute numbers, but we are everywhere minoritized, boxed into polities in which we can never become majorities. White Zion is the last hope. 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:57 | # BTW, I’m a huge fan of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, even if he’s still, at bottom, a foolish libertarian. He’s the very best of the libertarians. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:30 | #
Framing discrimination (or the right to freely associate) as pathological. 28
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 02:54 | # Hoppe fan,
Truly disgusting. 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 03:16 | # GW, There are many reasons I use the term “White Zion”, but the most prominent is that “Zion” is understood as something along the lines, not of ‘paradise’ (though that is a current demotic understanding), but of a dwelling place for the holy, or, more broadly, as a place of refuge. WZ therefore becomes a place of refuge for the purest of whites, ‘purity’ understood in both biological and ideological senses. “White Zion” is also an artificial place, something which does not currently exist but which ought to exist, and which we must bring into existence. There are thus both utopian and (speaking loosely) millenarian/secular eschatological aspects to WZ. It is a cause, a spiritual project which ideally speaks to some of the deepest human longings, and thus, we hope, will motivate long term thinking and sacrificial action. “Zion” also has powerful resonance among certain types of Americans (and perhaps with some in other portions of the Anglosphere), both in its Biblical origins, and in the implicit approval it grants to the increasingly peripatetic nature of the modern American lifestyle. ‘Self-(re)creation’, along with ‘lighting out for the territory’, are very powerful themes in (white) American life, and have been for centuries. WZ is a continuation of this tradition. Finally, many white Americans are strong allies of Israel. I believe this is due to errant theologizing, but it is a fact nonetheless. While many potential white zionists are likely to be actively anti-semitic, I suspect that the actual community of WN anti-semites is simply too small and too extreme to constitute on its own a viable WZ. To really make WZ work, it has to appeal to non-hateful white conservatives, persons who are disproportionately Christian, either don’t hate Jews or actively support them, but who will have finally awakened to the reality that Obama’s America represents a tipping point (especially if this illegal immigrant mass-amnesty goes through, with huge Money Power backing, I acknowledge), and that they will never regain their beloved conservative nation. These are the vast numbers of people, like many of my white Orange County neighbors (a fair number of my actual neighbors back home have gradually become upper-income Orientals), who really are not racists, but who also don’t want to live under nonwhite electoral domination, especially if that entails ever-greater wealth transfers, as with Obama. If WZ in its early years can establish itself as white, well-ordered (low crime) and capitalist (and therefore prosperous), it can snowball. [note: WZ must gradually transform itself into a teleological Racial State; in the beginning the image it must present to the world is simply that of a refuge for Western persons wanting to live as conservatives; a place where New World conservatives are gathering as America (and Canada, Australia/NZ, South Africa) goes down] The other advantage “White Zion” offers is that it implicitly connects us to the ostensible moral underpinnings of the state of Israel: that we whites claim for ourselves the exact same rights as the Jews (or “First Nations” peoples on their reservations) - to live in our own land, one (eventually) explicitly dedicated to our survival as a distinct people. If Jews get their Zion, why can’t whites have ours (I understand that no one is going to give this to us, but the point is that we are seeking to coopt white sentiments of fairness and justice; it is whites to whom we must justify measures taken to secure our collective survival - which is a huge aspect of why that survival has been problematized in the first place)? I understand that such a project might have limited appeal to Europeans, those who live on the same lands as their ancient forebears. An Englishman or German patriot doesn’t need WZ; he just wants his bloody country returned to him, with the traitors hung, and the aliens sent home. Whether he will ever get his country back is an altogether different question (I am sceptical - see comments above). For whites outside Europe, our moral rights to racial cleansing are much weaker. We Americans were under no obligation to admit nonwhite immigrants post-1965, and we retain the moral right to deport criminal trespassers, however large their numbers. But even most white conservatives would disagree that someone who immigrated here legally, and has productively established himself, should be deported simply for reasons of racial incompatibility. We will never restore the 90% white America, “from sea to shining sea”, of my parents’ childhoods. Whites would never do that, even if we possessed the physical power (which is increasingly doubtful). [I doubt present-day Europeans would, either, though let us hope I am wrong.] Our only options are racial secession, or White Zionism. I support both courses of action, but happen to think, perhaps counterintuitively, that WZ is the likelier possibility of the two.
30
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:57 | # . Making Plans for Nigel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s29RKnB7l7o
We only want what’s best for him We’re only making plans for Nigel Nigel just needs that helping hand And if young Nigel says he’s happy He must be happy, he must be happy He must be happy in his work We’re only making plans for Nigel He has his future in a British steel We’re only making plans for Nigel Nigel’s whole future is as good as sealed Yeah and if young Nigel says he’s happy He must be happy, he must be happy He must be happy in his work Nigel is not outspoken He likes to speak And loves to be spoken to Nigel is happy in his work Nigel fells happy in his work We’re only making plans for Nigel We only want what’s best for him We’re only making plans for Nigel Nigel just needs this helping hand And if young Nigel says he’s happy He must be happy, he must be happy He must be happy in his work We’re only making plans for Nigel We only want what’s best for him We’re only making plans for Nigel Nigel just needs this helping hand We’re only making plans for Nigel He has his future in a British steel Steel Steel Steel We’re only making plans for Nigel Nigel Nigel Nigel ...
31
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:48 | # Are we fascists? Will we need to be, before the West is re-secured? This topic needs to be considered. Even if nationalists attain power somewhere, will they be able to do anything with it? 32
Posted by Dude on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:51 | # I see my first attempt did not post. Trying again. Interesting ideas. My perspective is as follows.
Yet, what would these steps be and what idiom would they be uttered in? As one template, the Dansk Folkeparti made the transition while retaining mainstream political position: Stop immigration > save Danish culture > No Danish culture without Danish people > No non-Western immigration. Though they do not support any form of repatriation. * Parallel with this would be the small minority of dedicated nationalists who were aware of the end game within a party which would be looking to extirpate any who showed themselves to be too radical right. One of these people would eventually need to challenge Farage to a leadership contest and so would require a stainless background separate to some of the more radical activist base. Considerations: UKIP is a media driven entity, they are making gains because the long suffering British public have been offered them as a safe, respectable alternative. The media is heating up a little on them now, but any remote blood and soil politics would incur a serious campaign against the party. This is a clear and present danger at the moment. When they have some solidified support and created their own political space then it will be less effective. For this to be successful, requires a dual cultural campaign on one side directed towards activists and on the other to the wider politically interested public who would disseminate it to others who are less political animals. Finally, I think there is a role for a serious nationalist party to UKIP’s right flank, a keeper of the conscience but also a threat to their membership and ready to reap rewards if the political culture shifts to the position where their concerns become more mainstream. Most pre-2013 nationalist parties and activists are representatives of a tired and failed politics, which means new blood. I would (perhaps outrageously) suggest this should aim for a more middle-class response, rather than the generally working class politics of despair that has gone before. * It is conceivable to consider the argument: 80% must be indigenous. Therefore if this position is accepted, the government can: Remove national threats (the coalition have withdrawn passports from 21 non-indigenous Muslims recently). 33
Posted by Dude on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:03 | # British neo-con magazine produces surprising condemnation of immigration levels. There’s an increasing amount of people in the anti-immigration area moving into the ‘defend Israel’ corner and attacking Muslims as Muslims. This is probably best categorised as an example of that. Still, times they are a changing for a junior rival to the Spectator to produce something like this. 34
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:02 | # Well, I’ll make one last attempt to get this conversation moving. I strongly suggest people, esp Americans, read the following: http://newleftreview.org/II/79/mike-davis-the-last-white-election The author is a white self-hating leftist. [Note to MR idiots: in the US, the correlation between support for Big Government welfare programs - what used to be known in healthier times as “socialism” - and the Diversity Agenda is almost a perfect 1. Almost all Big Government types are also diversitarians; almost all diversitarians are Big Government supporters. DEAL WITH IT, DOUCHEBAGS! If you are against the free market, you are for racial wealth transfers from whites to nonwhites.] Nevertheless, he does a good job gathering relevant electoral data, and he mostly draws the right conclusions. We are living through the “Californication” of American national politics. 35
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:03 | # LH, it would be most helpful to “get this conversation moving” if you would adorn your strong reactions with the words to which you are reacting. Attributed quotes would be the preferred form of such adornment. 36
Posted by Bill on Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:24 | # Mr Murdoch meets Mr Farage. Mr Farage I presume… Farage suggests Conservative pact at secret dinner with Murdoch Telegraph 8/3/2013 37
Posted by Dude - Glasgow Union Debate on Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:58 | # Read the comments from young British students and weep for our future. 38
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:04 | # So UKIP are the last hope of nationalists. The words ‘utter delusional tripe’ comes to mind. UKIP are Tories, Globalists, Civic Nationalists and as ‘anti-racist’ as the Far Left. Wake up . 39
Posted by Ethny on Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:37 | # “Posted by Lee John Barnes on March 08, 2013, 01:04 PM So UKIP are the last hope of nationalists. The words ‘utter delusional tripe’ comes to mind.” LJB, I see after an online absence of several months you’re back online telling everyone else what they should be doing. A few months ago you made various announcements that as everyone else was not listening to your ideas on building a multi-pronged cultural front, you were going to lead from the front. What has been achieved? Not too much that I am aware of. Now you’re back and instead of pushing the cultural angle are pushing a British ‘Social Nationalist’ Party, mimicking what works in a very different country (Greece). I asked the same on your blog. Result : comment not published.. http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/my-thoughts-on-british-democratic-party.html So we have had the pushing of the culturism of the BFP, the grass roots multi-pronged cultural war of the inbetween stages and now the working-class Fascism of the British Social Nationalist Party. Will you be taking on the role of Pontifex Maximus of this new organisation Lee, or is your role that of a Cicero on the sidelines? 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:05 | # Lee, As I see it, UKIP today is a work in progress, and one we can influence. There is no possibility of influencing The Griffin Party, and no possibility of a viable nationalist alternative while The Griffin Party acts the dog in the nationalist manger. It has to be the saloon-bar Tory, civicist UKIP. 41
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:05 | # Hi GW, The problem with entryism re UKIP is that it would require the majority of the party to be replaced by entryists. UKIP, as Farage proved with his cosy meal with Murdoch and his deal to merge the party with the Tories if Cameron resigned, is merely another system run party. UKIP dont want to change the system, they want to join and make a profit from it like all the other political puppets do. They are merely pigs awaiting their chance to join in the gorging from the parliamentary trough. I agree 100 % re the BNP or another political party. As I have stated many times, we dont need any more failed political parties. What we need is ; 1) a cultural movement like Casa Pound in Italy 2) a street protest group like the Immortals and other nationalist groups in Germany. 3) a social movement based on the outreach programmes of the Golden Dawn 4) a youth movement based on gigs, festivals, concerts etc to attract youngsters
The decades long political positioning of the Nationalist movement on the Reactionary Right of the political spectrum has been a perpetual failure. What we need is a Left Nationalist, or social nationalist as the Golden Dawn define themselves, that aligns the movement to the left, not the right, of the political spectrum. The attempt to win votes from the reactionary right of the political spectrum is pure idoicy. There are the NF, BNP, BFP, Britain First, UKIP, Tories etc etc all seeking to win the right wing vote. There is only one vacuum in British politics, and that is on the left - what we need is a left nationalist party to win back the angry, revolutionary and disenfranchised white working class - not more pointless pandering to the apathetic, smug, cowardly right wing middle class. Until the movement realises that the only nationalist revolution will come from the LEFT and never from the right, then it will continue to fail.
42
Posted by Dude on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:45 | # http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/1792-welcome-to-liberty-gb Weston’s new attempt 43
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:34 | # Will you be taking on the role of Pontifex Maximus of this new organisation Lee, or is your role that of a Cicero on the sidelines?
Put away the jackboots. You dont need to follow leaders - YOU NEED TO BECOME LEADERS. Re my blog - at the moment I cant be bothered to write on it much. When I can be bothered I will do so again. I havent checked the comments, sorry about that. I will have a look tomorrow and reply if there are any there. Re social nationalism. You will find that in every European country there are four things ; 1) white people 2) working class white people 3) disenfranchised economically, culturally and politically white working class people
Back then the left and right both won - communism and fascism. Parties that merge nationalism and socialism are the parties of the future European Nationalist Revolution, not the ones that seek to support right wing reactionary politics, Globalism and corporate capitalism. And I use the term Social Nationalism as in the Golden Dawn’s use of the term.
44
Posted by LeeJohn Barnes on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:37 | # Social Nationalism ; http://golden-dawn-international-newsroom.blogspot.gr/2012/10/our-real-socialism.html
45
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:42 | #
Is there any hard sociological data on what percentage of the (UK) white working class is racialist or ethnonationalist, as against race-liberal? After the Blair disaster, I have a hard time believing that any working class white nationalist could vote for Labour. Why wouldn’t working class nationalists vote BNP? Here in the USA, I have occasionally encountered men (aways and only men) who vote mostly rightist on democratic ballot issues (a big thing in California), such as local and state spending (mostly welfare or educational), as well as criminal and environmental matters, but who would turn around and vote Democratic for the big political offices. When I questioned this seeming contradiction, I was invariably told something along the lines that Democrats (or some particular one) are “good for the unions”. In the USA, pretty much the only whites of working class background who vote Democratic anymore are those who belong to unions, especially government ones. And their numbers really aren’t very substantial as a proportion of the overall population. I wonder how different Britain might be. I also doubt the typical Tory voter is some flaming neoliberal, either. 46
Posted by It's UKIP, my man. on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:58 | # A ‘left nationalist party’ (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one), will simply not work. 47
Posted by Dan, Dan, the UKIP man. on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:24 | # As someone once said, ‘politics is the art of the possible’, ie with have make the best out of the materials we have at hand. 48
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:01 | # Leon, says: “I have a hard time believing that any working class white nationalist could vote for Labour. Why wouldn’t working class nationalists vote BNP?” Leon, we are not thinking in anachronistic terms of Labour or the now moribund BNP. We are not even thinking in terms of the left as it has been defined by Jews, viz. imposed liberalism upon Whites and in this case, the native British. It is a union of Native British only. That is the Left that Lee John Barnes has in mind or should have in mind. It is not a union open to Marixst Jewish racial imposition as UKIP man suggests it must be, because it is by definition about native folks. Will the cost be that it will take a long time before it gains appreciable influence, yes probably. Inasmuch as the present day “workers” remain with the anti-racist tough-guy bit that is their loss. We are not trying to convert every idiot. But the benefit will be a real core, a solidly based group of nativists who define the Left for themselves apart from Marxist perversion: i.e. a White left would recognize and value private property and free enterprise; it would not try to eliminate wealth disparity while bringing them closer together, as Graham and Jim might suggest. While building this White Leftist cultural / political core, it may be expedient to get behind UKIP for a time in hopes that they can weaken EU links. Eventually, hopefully, a Weston type might be brought to set his argument in White Left terms and gain more power. I believe that because Whites are defining the left that we needn’t scare away monied interests, just the opposite. We are not talking about leveling wealth, just talking about saving our lives and our nations while making them more sane, liveable and beautiful. The concern is a more fair system and one that will protect the native British, not a mud revolution to overthrow White people. Just the opposite is the White Left, by definition.
49
Posted by Bill on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:20 | # As soon as I understood the meaning of what mass immigration was all about it hit me that I couldn’t get my head around the enormity of what was happening in the Western World. I looked for a precedent but not being of a well read type the only thing I could come up with was the Russian revolution. The thread running throughout this dastardly plot has many similarities to what happened in Russia in the early part of the last century and in fact continued until the end of the cold war (and beyond?), so much so in fact it could be said the Russian revolution and the USSR was a dry run for what we’re experiencing now. Modernity has facilitated the explosion of scientific advancement over this period and has certainly aided the architects in their cause. I’m thinking chiefly of the progress of television and communications by means of computer development. These people are opportunists, never let a good invention go to waste, the time it seems is ripe. A good conspiracist could make the case that these inventions (and many more) were tailor made for the job in hand. To most folk (98%) this plan has been implemented with great subterfuge and great skill at huge-huge expense, so subsequently the 98% have little clue as to what is in store fore them. True their lives and values have been turned upside down in the twinkling of an eye, but other than a feeling of disorientation and an instinctive sense of fear they are oblivious as to what the threat is about, all of which is a tremendous tribute to the guile of the perpetrators involved. A surge for UKIP has galvanised a large number of the 98%, and this is important because this large number is becoming more suspicious and fearful of the huge number of aliens entering their living space, this is an animal instinctive fear of the other and has reached such proportions the elite establishment is now beginning to take the plebs feelings as a serious bellwether. With the surge of UKIP Britain has entered the tipping point, the tipping point of inevitability. In essence, Britain has reached the point where for those who have studied these events in recent years knew for certain would arrive, and that moment was dubbed the moment of inevitability and indeed, it has arrived. I think we here in Britain are on the cusp, (or perhaps have been for some time) of being in a situation of permanent liberal chaos beyond control, where events have gained a momentum all of their own and the insane are running the asylum. I personally have been waiting for this moment, (yes I had my doubts,) but now feel we have entered that moment of inevitability, the moment where sophist spin, bread and circuses on their own just won’t cut it any more. Yes, the inevitable tipping point has arrived in Britain, it is here, you can feel it in the air, you can taste it in the water. It is palpable. And on the back of all of this we have the the phenomenon of UKIP, an obscure party of has-beens or never were, magicked into into a saviour roll through its leader Nigel Farage. It would be churlish of me not to recognise this sudden surge of anti establishment optimism with the sudden surge of UKIP but the reported meeting of Murdoch with Farage came as a dash of ice-cold water to temper this optimism. It doesn’t bode well. It is true that there is no viable coherent resistance to what is going on, the elites have every public outlet of dissent under their control, except that is for the elusive instinctive of fear that I now detect. (No mention of the Internet here which is a subject of its own) It is not my intention here to second guess what impact UKIP will have on this period of the scale falling, but to borrow a phrase from Tony Blair, the kaleidoscope has been shaken and the pieces are in flux. A huge stumbling block for resistance is the BBC (MSM,) so far they have parried away with consummate ease any signs of progress from the right, can they continue in this vein indefinitely or will they be sussed like the politicians? Suffice to to say, hang on to your seats, as GW says this all work in progress. We’re watching history unfold here. Time-scale? Too tough to call on that one. Sooner rather than later I should think? 50
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:26 | # There are three fundamental points of betrayal and irresponsibility to native British interests.
2. The native elite who are irresponsible and treacherous to native interests. 3. The natives of more ordinary means or less, who are irresponsible or treacherous to native interests.
We are talking about a leftism for natives only. We are not talking about taking away private property although naturally there would be commons as well. There are some excellent discussion going on about how to rework the economy. Among this discussion are ways of addressing concerns of both the elites and the poor. It would seem this would begin as a parallel “government” or cultural/political movement in exile. As a preliminary question for the elites, I would wonder, “how much money do you need? Do you fear that we wish to take away your money and property? And what are Britain and its native people worth to you?”
51
Posted by UKIP Max on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:43 | # IMHO, the best paralell with the UKIP phenomenom is the SNP in Scotland. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:07 | # Bill, The BBC and other Establishment media are less of a problem, to my mind, than the kind of life available to us in liberal modernity, ie, a life that is reduced existentially, self-alienated, anaesthetised. If we knew who we are, as prior generation knew, we would see clearly the lies and the character of those who are hostile to us. If we do not know ourselves, how can we know others. Of course, this sounds like something that is impossible to change. But I don’t believe that. Only a very small quantity of self-awareness is necessary to create a flame in the tinder-box of modern Britain. Our enemies know this very well, incidentally. They don’t think the kind of change I am talking about is impossible. They fear it. They fear nationalism, and they are right to do so. 53
Posted by Graham Lister on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:26 | # Of course the political spectrum is defined by liberalism and its ontological commitments. This is true of both right and left. That’s why I have a lot of time for communitarians as they attack liberalism in a pretty serious way. My own ideological formation is ontologically centrist (in the Aristotelian sense of the relationship between parts and whole within the polis) with a philosophical anthropology informed by Schmitt (among others). Again someone like Leon Haller ask why the British working classes don’t vote for the pig farmer and his goons? One, they lack all creditability as serious political actors. Two, they are rightfully thought to be untrustworthy both politically and morally, and they are very, very bad at politics. For example, if I recall correctly those lot had a policy of lowering income tax and putting it on VAT instead. Of course, that is objectively a regressive move within the tax system that disproportionally impacts those on the lowest income (as a greater proportion of their income is taxed). It’s not my view it’s simply maths. Now I don’t think the Great British Public are quite so daft to pro-actively vote for such a policy. Tax cuts for plutocrats is never going to win a mass audience, let alone make for a popular ‘revolution’ in politics. Now unless I’m very much mistaken plutocrats, and would be plutocrats, are a tiny minority while Mr & Mrs Economically Average and Mr & Mrs Economically Below Average make up the vast bulk of the population. Any politco worth the name knows that to be popular (and to win) one must construct a collation between the middle classes and the working classes. And to be a political outsider and win one must to some extent be a popularist and anti-establishment (in an politically intelligent way). Last time I checked the City are a core part of the British establishment. What is broadly ‘the shape’ of any sustainably successful nationalist politics - at least in Europe? America is a lost cause that I have wasted far too much time on - their ideas are to all extents and purposes utterly irrelevant. Well in Europe it’s something like a cross-class ‘catch-all’ party; and ethno-communitarian social democracy is probably the best bet. Why? The politics of solidarity has to go way beyond ‘let’s be white together but hold nothing else in common’ - it simply doesn’t have enough ideological saliency by itself outside of hard-core racists (the typical creature of the WN ghetto). So if we think of selling a product - in this case an ideological product - the traditional, massively unsuccesful, WN approach is hard-core vulgar racism (not very sophisticatedly disguised; thus in the territory of the moral turpitude - for many - of a radical narrative of superiority/inferiority) added to a general politics of inequality. Normally this is in the form of some cod-Nietzschean crap and/or the joys of competition and the unbounded free-market. What I have previously called a regime of market Hobbesianism. Now even if this was a correct view of the world (it isn’t) its very, very dumb ‘popularist’ politics. They are trying to sell a radioactively toxic idea wrapped up in another slightly less toxic one. A double selling of what is widely thought to be ideological crap. So instead of superiority versus inferiority embrace a more subtle, but much more, defensible position of differentiation. Recall my ‘little green-men from Mars’ argument? The qualities (good or bad) of those alien groups is utterly irrelevant to the damage done to the host society. What does matter is that the common good is undermined by having additional group-differentiation within the social-order and how this undermines trust and social-capital across society and within the majority community (even and especially in their interactions with each other - Englishmen trust other Englishmen less). It’s not really a ‘I hate darkies they all smell’ type argument. Secondly saying something like “the Danish people are no better, but no worse, than any other - but we are different from others and have the right to protect ourselves and preserve those differences” is rather, morally and politically, different from “I hate wogs”. Secondly with regards to the ‘scale of competition’ - it radically undermines the politics of solidarity if one speaks with an obviously forked tongue. “Yes I care about you all but only in so far as I hate those with a different ethnic background - other than that you can all go to hell.” If all the signals are “we maximally embrace intense intra-societal, intra-group competition” then that’s again a self-undermining message and not a terribly popular one either. Is it any wonder this form of politics is remarkably unpopular and marginal? The ideological ground of WN politics is inequality in all things. However, an ethno-communitarian social-democratic politics is grounded in the idea of Schmittian differentiation with regard to political power and the health of the commonweal, enveloped in the notions of in-group reciprocal loyalty, mutuality (that is forms of intra- and inter-generational moral-economy). And above all else genuine concern with the common good and the good of all of one’s own! As opposed to merely paper-thin rhetorical concern for one’s own. One is selling something most normal (average) European people could ideological buy into (a pre-PC form of social democratic politics) and within that one also secondarily sells the ethno-communitarianism. Look someone like Simon Critchley has suggested that in his view the ‘conservative’ social democracy emerging in Scandinavia is the most effective form of ‘racist’ politics in Europe. I have thought this for a long time and have some personal experience of one of those societies. Is it the finished article? No not at all. But a promising and interesting development - especially in Denmark - absolutely. People like LJB might think the clowns in Greece represent a model to follow. As if calling it ‘social nationalism’ rather than national socialism will fool anyone that they are not grubby neo-Nazis. The clowns in Greece even embrace the iconography of costume politics! As I attempted to explain such ideologies (fascism) are inherently unstable and only become plausible during extreme and (historically) short term ‘societal emergencies’. Then it takes the form of hyper-reactionary ‘defence’ or genuinely barmy ‘revolution’. The latter inevitably self-destructs in double-quick time; the former generally lasting for, at best, the life-span of the strong man. Often millions of dead Europeans, indeed dead countrymen are left in its wake; particularly the revolutionary formulation (some patriotism, yes?). Why is the shelf life of the ‘defensive’ type also so relatively short? Well obviously the population at large observes that the extreme ‘societal emergency’ is over at some point (life is back to something approaching normality) and understandably wants the people in costumes to piss-off in no uncertain terms. Fascism is a deeply unserious form of politics - it simply doesn’t have the staying power of even communism (itself a fairly disastrous and historically short-lived episode). Fascism is incredibly superficial in its implicit social ontology and its philosophical anthropology is laughably child-like. A big ‘strong man’ can solve ‘everything’ forever. Please that’s an infantile view of history, culture and society. Let alone the Führerprinzip structurally sets up the system for the most demented and psychotic ‘personalities’ to position themselves as leaders. The ‘left’ version is of course the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Those that think Stalinism was not a near certainty within such a system are delusional, equally those that think Nazism ‘could have worked’ with a different leader are equally delusional. Ruthless but ultra-narcissistic types will inevitably rise to the position of the ‘strong man’ and if millions are killed to satisfying their egos and malformed personalities then they think ‘so be it’. The cream comes to the top - sometimes - but then again shit floats. 54
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:30 | # Those alien groups is utterly irrelevant to the damage done to the host society. What does matter is that the common good is undermined by having additional group-differentiation within the social-order and how this undermines trust and social-capital across society and within the majority community (even and especially in their interactions with each other - Englishmen trust other Englishmen less). It’s not really a ‘I hate darkies they all smell’ type argument. Good one.
As I define White Leftism, it is about the classification of full social groups - e.g., The English; it is the opposite of individuals being unaccountable let alone one being supreme above all.
You are conflating the genus (White, i.e, European Nationalisms, those that would extend beyond Europe even (thus adopting the word White so as not to confuse), with the species of particular European Nationalisms. There is nothing wrong with either and they ought to work together. The Genus does not deny any of the particularities of the species: English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish cultures and peoples. With regard to vulgarity, there are times and places for it. To say it should never exist as a part of rhetorical repertoire, in the war of discourse, is mistaken ( it is to de-fang, to anesthetize, to bring us further into being merely verbal ditherers) as is using profanity and epithets in the wrong places. However, you know that I agree with the thrust of your argument in the main. Have argued similarly. It is silly to try to hope to achieve a broad base and stable support through exclusivist snob appeal to superiority and the ruthlessness of inequality. That is only going to rightfully scare people off and breed untoward competition. It should be obvious. Inclusive participation that shows appreciation for people, for their help, incentive for them differentiated on a lateral perspective, that is the way that will get people to participate. I also like the way you underscore its long term basis. 55
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:26 | #
Whom does this refer to - Griffin/BNP? I’m no expert in UK politics, but I have thought the BNP was relatively moderate - certainly more so than GW himself. Where in the BNP’s formal agenda does it call for the repatriation of lawfully resident “British” nonwhites? Moreover, isn’t the BNP rather more social democratic than ‘right-liberal’? I’m confused. 56
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:27 | # I want to add another clarification to what I mean by White leftism: White Leftism as I mean it, is not the abolishing of private ownership, nor the complete sharing and equalizing of resources, nor is it rule by the workers. It does entail bringing these differences to within reason and balance (for reasons Graham notes); allowing for whatever exchange and fluidity in roles and their esteem as may be natural of healthy processes; hence, non-lineal, reconstructive process as optimally functioning through the trust that valuing the classification as a whole group, a whole people affords: circumscribing systemic accountability thereof - accountability for the systemic reconstruction of the kind of people, their fostering and advance. Classification also circumscribes incentives to participate, to achieve on its behalf and accountability for non-betrayal.
57
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:11 | # Sweden had an excellent “leftist” model until the traitorious/insane elites imposed multiculturalism on their own people thus the system is in the process of ruination. I guess the Swedish elites didn’t want to be called Nazis by the Jews so they chose the path of national suicide in order to placate them. Insanity indeed. From what I see so far, I do find Socialist Nationalism of the Golden Dawn appealing. H/T to LJB for the link. http://golden-dawn-international-newsroom.blogspot.gr/2012/10/our-real-socialism.html 58
Posted by Bill on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:10 | # Sorry for the diversion here, just move on if this is of no interest to you. Inspector Gadget has up and gone! Cleared his website. Over the years, it has been my want to bring to the attention of this happy breed here the thoughts and scribblings of one Inspector Gadget. (IG) IG has been nestling in my Bookmarked favourites for several years now, 2006 seems to be the years IG first commenced blogging but I haven’t been following him that long, it is more like 4 or 5 years. Stats quoted somewhere say he garnered 13 million visitors or some-such during his reign. Occasionally I would throw something this way which I thought would be of interest but IG’s utterances never caught on. When I first chanced upon IG’s blog I was immediately drawn to it, and thought what a perfect sounding board to gauge the mood of the nation, who better than the boys in blue who risked all, surely they could give me a clue as to what they thought of what has become known as race replacement. After all, they were at the sharp end of diversity, what did they think of it all, along with the flood of government bureaucracy, red tape and political correctness? And so my interest in IG’s musings began. I rapidly became disappointed, for no such feedback was revealed by Gadget’s boys. This blog was nothing but a Mail online rant against the consequences of liberalism that the Mail’s Richard Littlejohn would have been proud of. Even so, overtime I stuck with it hoping something more concrete would emerge, IOW’s what did the police really think of their not so happy lot. alas the format never varied, other than to become more anti government berating the Tories for about everything they stood for. My visits were never more than sporadic and comments even less so, the thing is I got to the point where I was suspicious of Inspector Gadget, something in my gut told me he wasn’t what he was supposed to be, whatever that was? Imagine my surprise when I clicked on to his website tonight and found him gorn, desk cleared the bloomin’ lot. and here is why apparently, with lots of comment from the faithful. http://mondaybooks.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/gadget-latest-nothing-to-see-here-folks/ 59
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 04:48 | # Bill - I used to read the Copper’s Blog by ‘David Copperfield’. That wasnt too bad at facing reality but when he outed himself (and moved to Canada) some other police guys took over and it turned into a farce, painfully PC, not wanting to publish racial crime stats for example. I even got a lecture about there being “good and bad in every race, its just criminals we are after”. Worthless PC crap.The whole blog become a waste of time after that and I suppose most interested parties gave up reading it and it folded. 60
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:04 | # People like LJB might think the clowns in Greece represent a model to follow. As if calling it ‘social nationalism’ rather than national socialism will fool anyone that they are not grubby neo-Nazis.
How much support do you have youpompus,pseudo-intellectual smug twat = none. The Golden Dawn had over 50,000 supporters marching in the streets in their latest demo ; link here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqyso83kMX8
How much longer do we have to tolerate the pseudo-intellectuals and their asinine club like mentality. Out in the streets our people are waiting for a Left Nationalist party to organise and lead them. Here are some links on what Left Nationalism derives its ideas from such as Otto Strasser ; Otto Strasser ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. . . ON EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY . . . ON EDUCATION . . . “The child will be growing up into the German cultural world, without having his mind unduly diverted towards alien cultures during the receptive years of childhood.” ON THE LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLE . . . ON HATE . . . ON THE NATIONAL REVOLUTION . . . ON CULTURE . . . ON MARXISM . . . “Thanks to Marx, Engels, Kautsky etc., all typical liberals both by origin and by nature, socialism took the liberal path towards alienism, as was plainly shown by its relation to the International, its class-war tactics, and its materialist philosophy.” ON MACHINERY . . . ON URBAN LIFE . . . “Owing to the rapid growth of towns, of enormous towns, tentacular towns, people have been uprooted from the countryside and ‘intellectualised’ in a way that has weakened their healthy instincts; this has been accompanied by a growing inclination to overrate both machinery and sport, these in their turn tending to hasten the general despiritualisation of life.” ON LIBERAL DEMOCRACY . . . “From their very nature political parties have a vital interest in sundering the people into factions.” ON THE GUILD SYSTEM . . . ON MATERIALISM . . . “To the liberal capitalist and liberal Marxian ideal of modern mammoth factories producing vast quantities of goods, we should contrapose the . . . ideal of a full and free life, so that it will be the task of a responsible government to create the economic and social conditions essential to the realisation of such an ideal.” Gregor Strasser ON SOCIALISM . . . “From the Right we shall take Nationalism which has so disastrously allied itself with capitalism, and from the Left we shall take Socialism, which has made such an unhappy union with internationalism. Thus we shall form the National Socialism which will be the motive force of a new Germany and new Europe.” “We are ‘socialists’ and not mere ‘social reformers’ and we do not hesitate to say it although the Marxians have so painful distorted the meaning of the former term.” ON CAPITALISM . . . ON MATERIALISM . . . ON TAKING POWER . . .
http://www.douglasreed.co.uk/nemesis.pdf
Those who seek to conflate National Socialism with Hitlerism know nothing of either. 61
Posted by Joe on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:06 | # Alot of military pressure and force was brought to bear in Nazi Germany to make Catholics fall in line with the Nazi Party. Many Catholics caved in. The Catholics who didn’t cave in, however, were thrown into the IG Farben work camps, and others were brutally murdered outright. Many Catholics, not just a few here and there. Plus, the Catholics in Poland were killed down in droves. Hitler hated Catholics with a passion. Catholicism was NOT the driving force of the Third Reich. Much military pressure , threats, and force was brought to bear on Catholics. In the meantime, in Rome, the Vatican was under military siege by the facsists. Mussolini & the top fascists was a satanists, as was Hitler and the gang who surrounded Hitler. Mussolini and the Fascist Party promised the Italians to protect Italy from Communism. The first thing Mussolini did, however, was to invade Africa [ then Greece ]. He ordered the military out of Italy making Italy very vulnerable. Many Italians clearly saw they were lied to - a Civil War broke out in Italy as the war raged in Europe, and as the Americans and the Germans battled it out on the Italian peninsula. The Vatican was opposed to nazism/fascism. Much military force was brought to bear on Catholics in Europe. Again, Nazism and Facism both were/are Jewish devices. Both the Jewish narrative and the WN narrative were conjured up in the very same snake pits of satanic Freemasonry in 19th century Germany. The 2 narratives can’t stand on their own respective merit. The Jewish/zionist narrative of history, and the WN Aryan narrative of history,support and buttress one another. Without the other, both narratives collapse, as both narratives are based on falsities and lies. ” Nazis + Persecution of Catholics” A story completely abridged from the Jewish/zionist narrative, and the WN Aryan narrative. It was Catholics in Europe, more than any other group, who risked their lives to help and assist those who asked—without asking about blood-heritage or religion. Catholics were even brutally murdered for helping Jews in need of assistance and succor. Many of the Nazis who brutally murdered Catholics who tried to help the low level Jews in great pain and in great torment, were the Jews in Hitler’s so-called “Aryan” party/military [ redundancy]. The whole story of Nazi Germany is disgusting to-the-core, whatever one’s background. 62
Posted by Joe on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:44 | # Search term : ” Catholic Dresden Fire-Bombed” Dresden’s Catholics used whatever little influence they had—in the face of of immense military threat and force—to have Dresden designated as a city of war refugees. Dresden was called a “city of hospitals” because of the city’s Catholic population. It was the Catholics of Dresden who cared for all wounded—of all backgrounds. It was the Catholics in Germany who made Dresden a city of refugees. Catholic Dreden was the most civilized city in the middle of a giant raging, monstrous war. There was no war industry in Dresden. Dresden was a city of artisans and artists and small mom-and-pop stores. There was no war industry in Dresden because the Catholics in Dresden used whatever influence they did have to keep war industry out of Dresden. It was the hardest hit city in Germany, and that’s saying alot because all of Germany’s cities were left in ruins towards the end of the war. A war, by the way, the Allies could have ended in 6 months by concentrated-bombing raids on IG Farben facilities. IGF being the very foundation of nazi military/economic/political power. Yet, the Allied Air Forces gave IG Farben a free pass for the overwhelmingly large part. IG Farben being Jewish owned, and in addition, also Jewish financed by Wall St and the City of London. The British and Americans breaking their word as to not bomb Dresden, and leave Dresden out of the war. Savitri Devi, and her ilk—the ones who worshipped the Hindu god Kali [ goddess of mass human blood sacrifice ]—were not the least bit upset Catholic Dresden was fire - bombed ; They were actually happy about it : Devi and her ilk were also estactic about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 2 other predominately Catholic cities. Yes, they’re Japanese Catholics. Many of them died horrifically in the nuclear horror unleashed over Japan.
63
Posted by Dude on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:42 | # On the subject of communitarianism: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/othmar-spann-a-catholic-radical-traditionalist/ 64
Posted by wibbly on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:21 | # Bill
Most of mediteranean-mideast history is a precedent: slavery. Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Rome etc, importing slaves to destroy the ethnic cohesion of the host. Where they were shut out of the mercantile niche e.g. Visigothic Spain or Byzantium then they engineered invasions from Moors and Turks to displace the existing ruling class with a more congenial one followed by settling back into their niche and slave importing again. The slave-importing method was blocked in most of Europe (but not in the New World where it was used to destroy ethnic cohesion from the start). With the abolition of slavery they needed a new method to do what they had done so many times before: move wherever the tallest poppy was at the time and destroy them at a biological level by breeding them with stupider people. Then again perhaps it’s even more biological than that. Perhaps the’re the unwitting victims of a west african virus trying to spread itself. But anyway - regardless of the reasons or how much is conscious and how much accidental the precedents are literally everywhere in mediteranean-mideast history. 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:40 | # Those are very interesting quotes, Lee. I can agree with almost all of them. But there remains in them elements - the commentary about spiritualising German society, the divine Idea, and so forth - that, as Graham says, are fatally unstable. This point cannot be over-emphasised. As soon as one imposes non-truths upon the living body of the people a tension is created which will, in time, shake the politics to pieces. You are impatient with the intellectual search, but it exists precisely to make the political way forward stable and productive. The search will certainly take time, but there is no necessity for it to be completed prior to the commencement of work among our people. As I see it, the situation is more flexible than that. Politics must always be open to ideas. 66
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:43 | # Good little discussion of the evil EU, highly recommended: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/03/19/the-sick-man-on-the-senne/ 67
Posted by Joe on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:28 | # A very informative and compelling article about Jewish influence in England and France : The info about how the Jews came to control England is especially interesting as it reveals how the Jews view race, and reveals how the Jews are engaging in a race war against the White Race, albeit in a covert manner, typical of jew strategy. “Let All The Poisons That Lurk In The Mud Hatch Out” :
The four comments that follow the article are interesting, especially the First Comment by “Hymie in Afula “. Hymie in Afula, Israel—for all of his many deep and profound faults—at least is honest about his hymie supremacism and the truth about his fellow jews around the world. That’s why it’s important to put alot of pressure on our fellow whites to STOP supporting zionism : Like the zionist “Christians” - both catholic and protestant ; Like the Mormons, the mormons support zionism to the hilt ; Like the whites in Freemasonry ; Freemasonry owned by banking jewry : Freemasonry being satanic in the higher degrees . Even the white Freemasons in the very low degrees of Freemasonry buttress jew power and control, they give credence, force & power to the jew agenda, whether they realize it or not. Time to make them Realize It. I would be totally anti-semitic/anti-jewish/anti-hymie, except for the fact there are so many non-Jew whites who support the jew/hymie agenda. Such non-jew/non-hymie whites desperately need to be shown the error of their ways. 68
Posted by Joe on Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:50 | # Where’s Charlemagne When We Need Him? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/wheres-charlemagne-when-we-need-him.html?_r=0 Seems to me the European Union is Christendom without Christ. The European Union is the Jewish/protestant/pantheistic vision for Europe and for Western Civilization. We had our “White Zion” once when Europe was United under The Banner of the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation wreaked havoc upon the White Race. There has been nothing but ever increasing divisions, and ever increasing fragmention amongst whites ever since. We’re all autonomous individuals doing “our own thing” now, with no Unifying Institution to protect our collective interests. But we—as a Race—had a Unifying Institution once in the Catholic Church. White Europe rejected their own Unifying Institution that kept Islam at bay, and kept talmudic Jewry at bay - at least to a large degree—a much larger degree than any Protestant church ever did. Protestantism leads to outright Pantheism, which leads to fragmention and dis-unity, and break-down. The White Race needs one God—one Church. We had that in Catholic Europe. We had, too, One Language that United the Race : Latin. Now, even the “novus ordo” catholics reject the Latin language, as they reject any kind of authority, discipline, and any kind of true leadership. They’re too pre-occupied doing their “own thing” ; Just like Protestants, just like the “back-to-nature” pantheistic Hindu type whites, just like Savitri Devi type WN’ers. There was Never any das Gebolte Norden Landen—there were only forever warring white tribes in Europe worshipping various gods, all the gods of the various tribes constantly contentious and conflicting ; The Vikings and the Teutons being venal, mercenary warriors who would fight for whatever side paid them the most, no questions asked. “Aryanism, “Nordicism”, “Teutonicism” : All the ” White Race religions” so many WN’ers love so much were conjured up in the Freemasonry Halls of 19th century Germany. While there’s some truth to the “religions’, they are in the final analysis, contrived and full of mendacity and un-truths. The “Aryan” type religions were conjured up by the very same group of satanists that gave the Jews their “Zionist religion”. Both the “Jew’s Zionist religion” and the “White Aryan religions” need each other’s religion, or “narrative” , to stand : Neither one can stand on it’s own merits. They buttress one another. The Catholic Church - for all her faults—Unified the White Race and gave us Western Civilization to a very large degree. She also safe-guarded and passed-down the heritage of our Race we inherit from ancient Greece, and yes, the pagans - much of pagan culture worthwhile and noteworthy. The pagan influences in the Catholic Church are Not insidious or detrimental. The same people who love paganism are the very same ones who complain the Catholic Church has pagan influences. The Church took what’s best from paganism, incorporated the best from paganism, and discarded the rest—the rest being pantheism, which only leads to fragmentation, division, and break-down. What we see today. In the meantime, many WN’ers are worshipping “Aryanism” [ which is pantheistic “nature-worship” and ultimately leads to disunity and break-down ] ; Yet, “Aryanism” itself emanates from Jewish/satanic/Freemasonry. Yet, the WN’ers think they’re somehow “defying” the Jews. What a joke. Nazism/Fascism are Jewish devices to achieve Jewish goals. Again, read and learn about the Immense role of Jews in creating and building Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the very first place. It was the Catholic Church who stood opposed to Nazism/Fascism - It was the sincere and devout Catholics in the Church, including the Pope at the time—Pius XII—, who saw clearly what Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were truly all about—Jewish devices to achieve Jewish goals—not any other group of Whites in Europe. Much of non-Jewish whites in Europe mesmerized by the contrived and conjured- up “Aryan” religion(s). If the Catholic Church had prevailed, the White Race would Not have lost tens of millions of our fellow Whites—and the White Race would Not have lost—For All Eternity—the White Children who will Never be born into the world because of WW2. Europe, the US, and the West as a whole, would Not be over-run by the third world—our racial enemies—as it is now. There are many Whites who are happy about—and they gloat about —the destruction of the Catholic Church. Such whites gloat at the destruction of Very One Institution that was looking out for the “genetic-interests/genetic-morality” of the White Race, as they worship their “Aryanism religion(s)” handed to them by Jews/satanists/Freemasons. Search term : ” Latin language + Western Civilization” If link doesn’t work : ” NY Times + Where’s Charlemagne When We Need Him” will access article. 69
Posted by Bill on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:38 | # I know this is pretty standard stuff I write here, but there are very few who comment on these threads regarding the bread and butter political landscape of our time. For example, the present auction by the mainstream parties has already begun, the noise that is UKIP is stirring the lib/lab/con trick hornet’s nest into making wild promises to garner the anti EU immigrant vote. The anti EU immigrant rhetoric is spreading like a pandemic, even the BBC is weighing in. Interesting that, as I don’t think the BBC has decided on a strategy on how to deal with UKIP yet. They, (BBC) cannot exactly treat Nigel Farage in the same vein as Nick Griffin, they cannot talk of UKIP in the same terms as they talked about the BNP. The BBC are still in full possession of the political discourse, they continue to to keep the voter’s focus on the EU migrant whilst all the time ignoring third world immigration that is slipping through Heathrow on a daily basis. Will Nigel Farage correct this glaring imbalance? It will be interesting to see. Third world immigration continues to be strictly off limits, anyone dwelling on this aspect of immigration will be severely dealt with by the BBC. Has Nigel got what it takes in this regard? I say the lib/lab/con trick auction has begun, because there are two more years to the next election, God knows what wild promises they will be making by then. Will Jo public swallow these promises? Yes I think he will, by the time the media has pulled out all the stops, they, (media) will have them, (voters) eating out of their hands. Just look at what the BBC did with the Olympic games, they got hold of an indifferent public and held them in rapture by the end of the games. This was a masterful display by the BBC, one might say their crowning glory, other than their ongoing omnipresent race replacement engineering. Can they top that at the next election and steer the election result they require? As I said, I think they can. Despite UKIP’s surge they are keeping a modest profile media-wise, I think most of the angst is reserved for the minority online blogs which receive massive response. Nigel Farage has hardly established a presence in the media, there is very little evidence of him in the mainstream News bulletins. I suspect a major BBC strategy in dealing with Nigel Farage and UKIP will be to ‘Ron Paul’ him, IOW’s ignore him! Zero tolerance to the right! There has got to come a time in Britain for a full blown political crisis, the time scale is difficult to call, it could be anytime soon or decades even. The moment of inevitability is expanding daily, the routine lying by politicians is risible, the wild promises being routinely reneged on treated with contempt, the absurd everything’s normal by the MSM. The whole business is becoming more explosive by the day. Something’s gotta give! One real possibility is a media engineered hung parliament and an all inclusive government, sort of like what we have now but involving all the major political parties. Welcome to the New World Order via the EU. 70
Posted by Bill on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:12 | # It is exactly a month since my last comment here on this thread, and if anything Farage and UKIP are doing quite nicely thank you. With local elections nationwide looming next month, I think the media are slowly waking to the fact that UKIP are more than a mere distraction. From what I’ve seen so far, the media is giving Farage an easy time, I find it fascinating to see how the media is approaching the handling of the phenomena which is UKIP. I’ve just finished reading an interview of Farage with the Sun newspaper, I’d love to know what Murdoch and Farage talked about, as the Sun was most hospitable. Here’s the man himself on the stump in Lancashire, the first real glimpse I’ve had of him. Verdict. The jury is still out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyAcRT2Q_e8&NR=1&feature=endscreen Duration 1:35 Farage takes centre stage @ 28 mins. 71
Posted by Bill on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:50 | # UKIP’S May Offensive, the phoney war. Back in March, Farage gave a speech to the UKIP faithful in the west country cathedral city of Exeter. http://ukip.org/content/latest-news/2990-nigel-farage-at-exeter-spring-conference In my head I keep coming back to the question as to why has Nigel Farage’s UKIP broken through that mystical barrier that is a surge in public awareness? How extensive is this explosive awareness and why is it there is an expectant buzz when UKIP is mentioned? For myself, Farage came zooming into view on seeing his antics on Youtube, lambasting the wooden politburo head honchos in the EU parliament. In the following clip, Farage turns his verbal howitzer on the hapless president, shape shifter Van Rompuy. http://ukip.org/content/latest-news/2990-nigel-farage-at-exeter-spring-conference Farage’s YouTube escapades in Brussels went viral as they say and must have contributed much to his meteoric rise, nevertheless, political discussion is a minority ‘bubble’ conversation on the fringe of the Internet and cannot, IMO, account for all of Farages success. Either way, the voters of Eastleigh caught the prevailing UKIP wind and shocked the political establishment. There is an uneasy lull as Britain gravitates towards the next election cycle in May. Farage’s Spring speech. (See above.) Saying Farage was preaching to the faithful I thought it was a low key affair, and if this is the way he’s going to play it I sense it will be a hard slog to turn this tanker that is immigration around. His obvious opening offensive is to blitz the EU which makes sense if he is to blame all of Britain’s woes on the EU. I note he says UKIP is not afraid of political correctness, but in the next breath blames EU immigration for Britain’s plight. Needless to say, PC or not PC he could not bring himself to allude even to none EU immigration. I suppose, or I hope, that will come later. Question. Are British voters overly interested in the EU? Are they up to speed as to how deep the EU is responsible for Britain’s plight? I’m not so sure. I know Farage knows the full Monty global picture, but there was little evidence in his speech, nary a peep in fact. Jeez! He’s got a mountain to climb. Verdict. Too early to call. 72
Posted by Bill on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:01 | # @ 71 Sorry! Second link should be .... (Most will have already seen it.) 73
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:10 | # Thanks for updating us, Bill. In your opinion, what’s the bottom line re Farage and immigration? Patriot or coward? 74
Posted by Bill on Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:11 | # UKIP and all that, could this be the reality? In recent years when attempting to see a future vision of Britain (of which time has now arrived,) I oft used words and terms such as Western civilisation has run out of ideas and hit the buffers, we’ve tried it all before, there’s nothing new to try. At the opening of the 21st century who can dispute western civilisation has indeed run out of ideas. The movers and shakers of this world are desperately casting around for new ideas which will accommodate man’s living arrangements for the immediate future, some even say there is a conspiracy already in train to hi-jack the world for their own nefarious purposes - perish the thought. So in the midst of all this maelstrom it seems small beer to talk in party political terms of lib/lab/con and the fortunes of Nigel Farage’s UKIP. I have already predicted in these threads that here in Britain, the conditions are now upon us where the political elite’s ability to govern our everyday lives in any meaningful way is diminishing by the day. In fact, the people have long since ceased to have any confidence in those governing, let alone have faith in the system of democracy itself. The nation under Cameron is in disarray, can Britain continue in this vein? Can the discredited political elite keep the plates spinning? With local elections imminent a dirty tricks campaign from the Tories (egged on by a full on press) is in full spate down and dirty. Both sides are coming out swinging with claim and counter claim. Cognitive dissonance is at pandemic level in Britain. It is my guess Britain is not far from complete political breakdown, surely the British people must increasingly recognise what a complete sham it all is and demand change. Years before these elections I opined (in the Telegraph threads actually) by this stage of Cameron’s helmsmanship Britain would be floundering in uncharted waters and thereafter all bets would be off. Farage, Cameron, UKIP, the situation has gone way past all that. All of which rings a bell. Problem - reaction - solution. 75
Posted by Bill on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 10:06 | # Britain’s latest. Update. I note the last time I commented on this thread similar was three months or more ago. The political scene in Britain is still rumbling, heading for crisis. Although it is now traditionally that time of the year when politics is brushed aside for more frivolous concerns, the political machine is remorselessly grinding to its inevitable nemesis. It is two years before the next general election is due in 2015 but already the signs of crisis are already appearing. Despite the heroic efforts of the BBC to portray to its viewers a semblance of normality exists, for how much longer can it continue is anybody’s guess. I must confess here I’ve been saying this for several years now and still the BBC is the master of the universe. But my head tells me it must cave at some point. For some time now I’ve opined (privately) that the issue of immigration will prove to transcend all things political, and so it is proving to be. (not entirely rocket science is it?) Not only is immigration proving to transcend party politics but it is also transcending culture and becoming racial. This is happening in real time and now. The final realisation the ordinary Brit is consertive on things racial cannot not be masked for much longer, people are throwing off the yoke of political correctness’s hysterical screams of racism in increasing numbers, admittedly it is only a trickle at the moment but it is growing. The next election as I say is already pointing the way it’s going to be, it’s going to be about race al-be-it masked as jobs, culture, economics, social strain etc. etc. All to no avail for race will dominate. Immigration and race is already dominating the discourse channeled through the EU media filter of course. (Giving third world newcomers a free pass and is a very successful ploy - up till now) Immigration is already omnipresent in Britain’s political discourse and will continue up to (and of course beyond) until the 2015 election, the stage is irreversibly set. I feel sure it (election)will not reveal itself as a damp squib like the Romney - Obama fiasco across the pond. As I predicted, Nigel Farage and UKIP have been given the Ron Paul treatment since UKIP’s earlier successes, even when mentioned, the media are universal in their condemning treatment of rubbishing them both. Can Nigel Farage and UKIP force their way through this blatant bias by the ‘system’? Only time will tell. Post a comment:
Next entry: Waiting for Godot’s Son Or Someone Like Him
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by It's Got to be UKIP! on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:30 | #
UKIP are merely the backlash from a huge, not so deeply buried mass of discontent emanating from the white, working class English.
Basically, it’s the delayed reaction to the worst excesses of Blairite bullshit of 10 years ago (remember Andrew Neather, Jonathan Portes?), in which, in the name of ideology an ‘open borders’ immigration policy was foisted on Britain by stealth and deceit. They have sown the wind, UKIP are the whirlwind.
I know it’s a grave mistake to over-estimate the intelligence of the British eectorate, but in the light of the 2011 census returns, waht other feeling can be engendered than the feeling that England is in last chance saloon, and now it’s now or never for a sane immigration policy?
We can only hope that UKIP are a real national mass movement that resonates with the public mind.
In passing, it is woth noting that the represent economic catastrophe was, in fact, a silver lining for nationalism. Imagine, if you will, that there was no meltdown in 2008, and New Labor continued on its merry little way, with a broadly contented population and growing population. Would the angry baclash had happened in that context?