Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 20 April 2014 00:31.

Today, we learnt exactly what it can mean for non-Moslem pupils when schools in England are dominated by Moslems.  In a word, Islamicisation:

Schools in Birmingham are illegally segregating pupils, discriminating against non-Muslim students and restricting the GCSE syllabus to “comply with conservative Islamic teaching”, an official report leaked to The Telegraph discloses.

Department for Education inspectors said that girls in a school at the centre of the so-called “Trojan Horse” plot were forced to sit at the back of the class, some Christian pupils were left to “teach themselves” and an extremist preacher was invited to speak to children.

The report, into three schools in the city, follows weeks of controversy over the alleged plot to “Islamise” secular schools in Birmingham and will lead to calls for intervention. The report focuses on Park View School and its sister schools, Golden Hillock and Nansen, the only primary of the three. Inspectors found that Park View practised forced and discriminatory sex segregation and has “restricted” GCSE subjects “to comply with conservative Islamic teaching”.

Core elements of the GCSE syllabus were missed out as “un-Islamic” and an extremist preacher with known al-Qaeda sympathies and anti-Semitic views was invited to speak with children. At Golden Hillock, there was discrimination against non-Muslims, the report found. Its handful of Christian students “have to teach themselves” in one GCSE subject after the teacher “concentrated on the students who were doing the Islamic course”.

At Nansen, Year 6 children, aged 10 and 11, received no teaching at all in the arts, humanities or music.

It’s all rather reminiscent of those far-off days when a constituent of Enoch Powell was talking about the black man having the whip hand over the white man.  Indeed, on the second of those two Telegraph pieces (both with comments open, which was odd) somebody helpfully posted the video of David Frost’s hour-long interview - cross-examination, really - of the great man in which that very matter is explored.  Frost considered it risible that Powell could consider such an event remotely possible.  Now we know better.  But in 1969 the liberal classes were only just learning how to impose their value system on the rest of us:

Their great fear was that speaking too truly and, certainly, too plainly might “stir up racial hatred” among the English.  The African and Asian colonisations must not be thought about too much because “hate” would be worse by orders of magnitude than anything else that could possibly happen.

Things haven’t changed much.  The same shallow attitudes prevail.  The liberal-left still thinks that “immigration” takes place in a consequential vacuum while dissent among the natives indicates the presence of “hate” - obviously, an irredeemably shocking and just not liberal state of affairs.  This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view.  It is emotionally rooted.  It is faux-moralistic.  It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument.  I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation.  Nothing seems to touch it.  What, then, will?  What, if anything, are we missing?



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 03:53 | #

GW, is next Friday or Saturday at 3 PM ok for you regarding TM?


2

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:14 | #

The liberal-left still thinks that “immigration” takes place in a consequential vacuum while dissent among the natives indicates the presence of “hate” - obviously, an irredeemably shocking and just not liberal state of affairs.  This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view.  It is emotionally rooted.  It is faux-moralistic.  It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument.  I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation.  Nothing seems to touch it.  What, then, will?  What, if anything, are we missing? (GW)

Haven’t I been saying this for a long time now here at MR? Yes, we can all agree that liberalism (which is not remotely coincident with such admirable Western inventions as the rule of law, limited government, free markets, private property, judicial neutrality etc) is a type of mental disorder. I used to think its essence was a refusal to acknowledge any deterministic elements in human affairs (growing out of belief in the old Marxist idiocy that “man is the maker of his own history” - another version of the (properly) much-abused Lockean ‘blank slate’), such as would be naturally suggested by observing the regularity of patterns of behavior among large groups of identifiably distinct humans (eg, blacks [really, nonwhites in general] and criminality). I now think that liberalism - a near-exclusively white racial phenomenon - is a species of masochism, of a strange and totally intellectually and morally unwarranted self-hatred. Masochists, of course, are mentally disordered.

NOTHING can ever affect this deeply rooted and unique white psychological reality. As I keep shouting into a vacuum, the ONLY solutions are either revolutionary violence to destroy the liberal regime (and I do literally mean destroy: the liberal genome is an existential threat to Western survival, and must be eliminated at the genetic level, or the problem will recur in the future), or else massive separation of the racially healthy from the racially unfit. If we the healthy cannot be separated from the unfit, such as to be able to govern our own lives as we wish, then our whole race will simply go extinct. On this most sacred of Christian days, I swear to God that I have been preaching these insights since the mid-80s. I have seen nothing over the past quarter-plus century which has disabused me of this grim conclusion; indeed, I’m more certain than ever that these are our sole options.


3

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:16 | #

On another note:

Hallelujah!

Rejoice, for He is risen!

Happy Easter (even to the foolosophers, heathens, and pagans of MR)!


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 08:26 | #

Fine, Daniel.  I will mail you.


5

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:30 | #

Possibly emotionally based memes are strongly held and more easily transmitted because they provide greater pleasure. The drowning Africans saved by British tourists off the coast of Spain was an irrational act and yet an emotionally based sympathy was so powerful as to inform unconscious thought and subsequent action. The subsequent approbation from their fellow man would undoubtedly be very pleasurable.


6

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 10:19 | #

Yes, Desmond.  Very good observation.  It seems to me that there are two parts to this liberal problem: one a possibly genetically-coded satisfaction at the largesse of out-group altruism, producing that aura of smug liberal sanctimony we all know so well, and the other a peculiar openness to (Jewish authored) ideological cues.

The largesse thing has the consequence of non-consideration of effects on the in-group.  They are simply not on the horizon.

The two parts are doubtless linked in some way.  Not seeing costs to the in-group re-appears as not seeing ethnic or other motives in the received cues.


7

Posted by Bill on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:43 | #

Early this morning I was about to give a full blown comment as I felt in the mood, however fate soon intervened and the moment had gone.

Here I am hours later and the adrenalin dissipated, so this shorthand version will have to suffice.

The 50’ gave way to the 60’s, I was on the cusp of life proper.

I’d got a good job, found a mate, we saved and bought a new house, got married, the Full Monty (the lot- everything) all in the twinkling of an eye at the beginning of the 1960’s.

Yes there was definitely something in the air and I was about to give my version of those times.  But here, let the BBC tell it, they do a much better job than I.  This is where the BBC kicked off its charm offensive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/twtwtw/

With hindsight, this was the pivitol moment when the BBC launched its real raison d’etre, oh how I laughed sat on my new sofa watching TW3 on my new Television set.  I found it hilarious.

The anchorman of the series David Frost, went on to become a grandee of the establishment he so despised, he even got to interview Richard Nixon over the Watergate affair.

He in turn became Sir David Frost and no doubt a millionaire.

Frost is no more.

The BBC steamrollers on.

What do I think of it all 50 years later?  I dunno, I still think I’ll wake up thinking it was all a dream.

 


8

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:47 | #

...
I can see what you mean about “This Was The Week That Was” Bill… I can easily picture its representing a cultural turning point..

...seems to have been a clever show…

and enormously disingenuous:

Prejudice against blacks is presented as risible, simply unthinkable for an intelligent person.

A Jewish lawyer, Mr. Levin, is shown presenting the most fair and level headed disposition regarding legal defense…

It’s all TFG, taken for granted - Bill is right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INxp98-2i6A

I watched some clips, incl. Roger Moore’s first appearance as “James Bond” with Millicent Martin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYkTwXAyOBU

Perhaps if we could do some shows like that with our politics behind it we’d have something..


9

Posted by Bill on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:08 | #

Has any evidence surfaced over the years that Enoch Powell was not telling the full story?  The question must be asked did he know what mass immigration was all about and to what purpose?

His forecasting of future outcomes has become part of our history, but I cannot recall any hidden agenda being suggested.

I think a man of his intellect and the water he swam in he could have easily been in the ‘know.’

Another case of not telling like it is?


10

Posted by Bill on Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:20 | #

Daniel @ 8

What a difference hindsight makes.

The newly introduced BBC programme of 1962 ‘That Was The Week That Was’ (TW3) appeared on our television screens like a bolt out of the blue, to day it would be called euphemistically ‘alternative’ or more recently ‘edgy’, but at that time such a programme was truly revolutionary.

The BBC and press in general dubbed the elites of the day as the Grouse Moor mentality, (Conservatism) which was akin to the accusation of racism of today.  The MSM went after the Grouse Moor establishment just as the do nationalists today.  This strategy of demonisation is a well used tactic, why change a winning formula.  Also like today, the traditional ruling so called Conservatives could not counter such charges, like rabbits in the headlights they were destroyed. 

In the blink of an eye Britain had dropped the conservatism of the 1950’s, it happened so quickly that by the end of the 60’s the Left had swept the board, yet (here in Britain) the culture war had barely begun.  It was at this point the BBC came into its own, and TW3 was a sign of things to come.  Looking back, it is incredible how the new mass media destroyed all things conservative with such consummate ease, it really was a ‘no contest’.

Whereas in past times the embarrassing doings of government and celebrities (and yes the Royal Family) could be easily covered up by the printed press, there was an impenetrable space between public and private which the press could control, but with coming of Television this space ceased to exist.  Today’s Internet has obliterated this space.

Television was at the cross roads during the 50’s and 60’s, hindsight suggests an invisible hand behind the scenes decision had been made, the forces of evil had triumphed.  Television was to be the weapon of Britain’s mass cultural destruction.

Enoch Powell was yesterdays Nick Griffin.  Nothing much changes.


11

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:56 | #

Not to disrespect the courageous Griffin, but Enoch Powell was a great deal more than that. He was the last great English political figure, and possibly the greatest Englishman of the second half of the 20th century.


12

Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:24 | #

The EDL have managed to track down and ‘‘expose’’ many of the Anti Racists that have been hounding them for years, they have a few blogs with all the private details and photos of these people. I won’t link them because it’s starting to look like the whole situation is getting out of control. The Anti Whites really do live up to the stereotype that our side have of them, they are all middle class, they have all been through ‘‘higher education’’ though not to create stuff or learn any kind of trade. Many of them have weird dyed haircuts and face piercings and they don’t live in ‘‘diverse’’ areas. Indeed, one woman who has spent years hounding members of the BNP and EDL is shown shooting Grouse in Scotland ! a far cry from the Yorkshire council estates that spawned the sex trade of white girls at the hands of Pakis. Confronted with the truth about the ‘‘grooming’’ this woman quipped ‘’ Oh come on, they wouldn’t be the first girls to fall for vodka and cock’‘.

To me they seem mentally immature, they seem to take for granted that Whites and the civilization they have created can withstand anything and that non Whites will always be the victim because of this. They are like small children forever rebelling against their parents while not being able to comprehend life without them. Our group has been dominant for a long time the more infantile among us probably can’t imagine life where we on the back foot, throw in a decade of Cultural Marxist indoctrination and what you get is an Anti White.

I’m still not totally sold on the ‘‘Whites are defective’’ idea, the Anti Whites are still racially aware enough to move their kids out of non White areas for example.


13

Posted by Trainspotter on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:01 | #

GW: “Nothing seems to touch it.” 

Indeed.  Aggressive liberalism appears to be, in the vast majority of cases, incurable. It does not respond to reason or evidence.  The anti-white liberal will look you right in the eye and insist that 2+2=5.  Then it equals 3, and then 7.  If it suits his purposes, it might even equal 4.  And then a few minutes later it doesn’t. 

Its adherents operate as if they are members of a cult.  I seem to remember a part of Raspail’s Camp of the Saints where he is describing the white lunatics that assisted the non-white armada in its voyage.  He says something to the effect that while none of them knew one another, they understood each other perfectly.  Raspail really hit upon something there, and while I’ve always remembered it, it’s only been in recent years that I’ve truly grasped it.  They get it instinctively: it’s about destroying the white world.  Whatever their differences, they are all pulling in the same direction.   

Our mistake has been to view them as our fellow citizens, as part of our people.  We have tried to convince them, to reason with them, to view them as rational creatures.  This is what “conservatives” have been doing for generations now, and it never works.  The anti-white marches forward, undeterred.  As long as we exist at all, his work is not done. 

As one example among many: In the United States, untold thousands of once good schools have been submerged under the tidal wave of racial integration.  As the blacks and browns take over, test scores collapse, crime increases, social trust evaporates.  Wonderful places decompose into the depressing, ugly and stupid.  This happens again and again and again. 

Does the anti-white liberal respond to this reality and question his values?  Not at all.  Instead, he looks you straight in the eye, and says that “Diversity is great for our schools.  Your school needs more diversity.”  He will consider you crazy and hateful if you disagree. 

I should note that I here refer to the genuine white liberal, not Jews.  For Jews, destroying white schools is not a bug, but a feature.  They are merely an alien tribe undermining a competitor, and therefore must be seen in a different light than the subset of the white population that really believes this insanity.  A few exceptions exist here and there but, by and large, this particular brand of insanity among whites appears incurable. 

The good news is that the percentage of whites who are truly part of the cult, those who operate out of malevolence with malice aforethought (as opposed to ignorance and misinformation) is fairly small.  I would guess only a few percent, but perhaps as much as ten percent or even a bit higher.  There is of course a larger chunk that are easily influenced and susceptible to the machinations of the real sickos. 

The only solution is complete and utter separation from these lunatics (Leon Haller is correct).  They are not mere traitors for profit, but malevolent quasi-psychopaths.  The idea of a meaningful polity must necessarily exclude such people, for these are not fellow citizens with normal differences of opinion, exercising their voice in the public square.  They instead demand that whites be dissolved as a people, either dying out entirely or becoming Africanized hybrids.  How do you reason with that?  You can’t; it’s utterly outrageous. It’s like trying to reason with a knife wielding lunatic. 

Instead, always attack.  Never argue with these people with the idea of converting them, but rather with the goal of speaking to onlookers who still retain a measure of health.  In the private realm, build communities of all sorts, whether they be geographical white enclaves or simple networks of like minded people, perhaps a co-op gym (read Jack Donovan’s article on that) or a communal garden, or some sort of business.  The point being, don’t bother trying to convert the anti-white.  Instead, bother to exclude him.  Freeze him out in the private realm, humiliate him for the benefit of onlookers in the public realm (thread wars, etc.). 

In any event, that’s what we missed: we thought we were dealing with people who were merely mistaken, who had fallen into error, perhaps even as a result of good intentions.  But we were not dealing with such people at all. It should be obvious now that they don’t have good intentions, if they ever did.  They are destroyers, proceeding with malice aforethought, and it is our very people that they mean to destroy.  All else is just window dressing.

Create networks that freeze them out in the short run, with the long run goal of creating polities that exclude them entirely.


14

Posted by Bill on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:47 | #

Quality post by Trainspotter as per usual @13.

I think we can add two more types to the anti white list.

I think Raspail’s little helpers were committed Christians, who would ask themselves - What would Jesus do?

I suspect there are also many committed Christians who are in a deep state of cognitive dissonance asking themselves what harm can helping Raspail’s wretches bring to us and our children?

I also suspect some of these Christians are in a deep state of denial and simply hide behind the defensive wall they have built for themselves.  Whistling in the dark sort of?

Another category is the evangelical variant of Christianity of which I must admit am not familiar, who are becoming (I read recently) more numerous.

Add these to the ever present hard core ‘useful idiot’ total and it must amount to a sizable proportion of the white population.


15

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:23 | #

Christianity is rapidly becoming a fifth column in the West, which is sad because this transmogrification is so doctrinally unmandated. The problem is that the churches have become infected with the virus of utopian race-liberalism, just like every other Western institution. Indeed, the Cult of Diversity is actually replacing orthodox Christianity. It is more outrageous that the churches should be infected, than, say, the universities, however, because the church is essentially anti-(secular) utopian. One can understand, though not excuse, leftist atheists who have substituted racial unreality for radical economic egalitarianism. The Left, born in the utopian/egalitarian/proletarian hatred of the French Revolution, has always in the main rejected religion and traditionalism. With the discrediting of socialist economics (well ... at least the central planning aspects ... well ... at least soviet-style central planning outside of the monetary sphere), it was hardly a huge change for the Left to see racial aliens as the new revolutionary replacement for the disappointing old industrial proletariat.

But the Christian churches? What is their excuse for going along with this new utopian heresy? Trendiness? A desire for good publicity in the secular press? Or sincere brainwashing? Or all these elements simultaneously? 

There needs to be a new racial Reformation of the churches.


16

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:08 | #

Maybe, Leon, it is simply the Judaic view of the undifferentiated gentile working its inevitable way out in Christo-liberal opinion.


17

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:17 | #

If you want a short answer, ecology ought to resonate with any reasonable person - a means to turn the liberal mind, if any; and it is by definition, conservative; even on a vegetable and animal level, placing limits on zero-sum competition.


18

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:52 | #

“But the Christian churches? What is their excuse for going along with this new utopian heresy? Trendiness? A desire for good publicity in the secular press? Or sincere brainwashing? Or all these elements simultaneously?”

—-

All of that and more.

The churches have been thourouly infiltrated from the bottom up to the highest level with the most pernitious types of liberals imaginable. From Jews converting to Christianity then covertly liberalizing His word, to legions of homosexuals and communists doing the same. Add to the toxic agregate government funding of Christian charities and such (of course with all its secular-liberal strings attached) and it results in nothing more than another “anti-racist” institution—but cloaked in the supposed Christian religion.


19

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:01 | #

How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism

By: Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, December 03, 2004


According to historian Arnold Toynbee, civilizations grow and survive by overcoming successive challenges, and break down when they fail to meet some new challenge. With regard to mass non-European immigration and its attendant problems of multiculturalism, Islamization, and globalism, America and other Western nations face a challenge unique in history: to save ourselves from open-borders chaos and cultural destruction without becoming, in our own eyes, “racist,” “mean,” “exclusivist,” and “un‑Christian.” This is a moral and intellectual dilemma that most contemporary Westerners—if we bother thinking about it at all—find paralyzing. Unable to solve it, we have opted for a state of active or passive surrender—a condition from which we are only intermittently stirred by shocking acts of violence such as the September 11 attack on America or the jihadist slaughter of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

In fact, the moral dilemma described above is illusory. It is based on the false premise, unique to Western and especially modern Western society, that to preserve one’s own nation or culture is somehow to be unjust toward other nations and cultures. Whenever this sentiment has gained ascendancy, as under the influence of ancient Stoicism or of modern leftism, it has led men to believe that the only just social order is a world state, in which there is no Other because everyone belongs to the same society. The problem with this idea is that a world state can only exist by depriving individual nations of their right of self‑government, indeed of their existence, and by subjecting all mankind to the rule of a distant and unaccountable regime. Therefore, based on all our experience of politics and human nature, a world state could not be just either. Traditional Christianity resolved, or at least managed, this conflict between the particular and the universal by locating true universality in the City of God, while recognizing the limited but real value of distinct societies on earth.

But a moral tension that remains manageable so long as different peoples with their respective cultures are living in different societies, becomes insoluble when radically different peoples and cultures are living in the same society, especially if it is a democracy. If a democratic country has a large and culturally different immigrant minority, the native majority cannot readily announce that they are against the continuation of more immigration, because if they did so, the immigrant group, who are now the majority’s fellow citizens, would feel that the natives regard them as undesirable. As civilized, democratic people, the native majority do not want to insult the immigrant minority, or to deny their equal humanity, or to create even the slightest appearance of doing those things. So instead they—meaning we—surrender to the situation, accept continued mass immigration, and allow their country to be steadily transformed by an ongoing influx of unassimilated peoples and incompatible cultures.

Our challenge—the Toynbean challenge we must meet if we are to save our civilization—is to understand that the moral assumptions that have led us into this paralysis are false, and to break free of them. But this is extraordinarily difficult for us to do, because these assumptions, which are liberal assumptions, have over the past century become closely bound up with the Christian religion, the spiritual core of Western culture and identity. To work our way out of the present crisis, therefore, it will be necessary to criticize certain aspects of modern Christianity. This may offend some readers, particularly Christian conservatives who have come to identify Christian belief with American political virtue itself.

The problem would be lessened if people understood that Christianity is not a governing ideology, and that it is distorted when seen as such.

more…....

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10372


20

Posted by Bill on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:34 | #

To me, postmodern liberalism is Christianity Mk11.  Modern liberalism has pick’n mixed the old Christian Mk1 version and blended with the new.

At the end of the last century postmodern philosophy declared past white Christian deeds had prevented humanity from reaching its true potential freedom.

Postmodern philosophy declared there was no God, there were no rules emanating from the heavens, mankind was on its own and was his own god and his was the glory.

Postmodern thinking took Christianity Mk 1 and lopped off a few important branches that didn’t fit into the new millennium’s religion of modern liberalism.

They discarded the great Christian God himself upon which all Christendom rested, they discarded the human family which was also regarded as an impediment to the reaching of the promised Nirvana.  They deconstructed the notion of moral certainty in the coming world, all once perceived certainties were to be viewed as relative.

In idle moments when contemplating Christianity and modern liberalism I cannot help but notice the striking similarities between the two ideologies, (or should I say religions) which is strange because the modern left’s hated enemy is Christendom.  Odd that!

So what are these striking similarities between the two factions?

All are equal, all are tolerant, all are non discriminatory, all turn the other cheek, all love thy neighbour and so on.  So why is the modern liberal left so offended by white Christianity when they share so much in common with themselves?  What is perhaps even more puzzling is how the modern left have used some of the shared tenets of their close relatives to Taser them into abject submission and extinction.

The useful idiot of Christians going along with their own suicide is a no brainer.

The moden liberal will brook no challenge or authority from above, No God, no family, no anything that challenges the liberal’s right to shape their version of the future and how life should be. 

The answer to these questions I feel lies in the realm of the postmodern philosopher of the 20th century, who (perhaps) was commissioned to bring brilliant minds to bare as to why (in the eyes of the hirer) white civilisation had turned out so disastrously, namely the impeding of mankind’s progress to a higher contentiousness.

There is another but much neglected strand of modern liberalism that is kept under the radar and barely surfaces into the public realm, and I suspect has an important (or perhaps even more) important role to play alongside its political partner - and that is the New Age religion of liberalism.

I have read quite openly that those who cannot make it (perceived not to qualify to be beamed up) to the shining uplands in the New Age are to be eliminated, but we mustn’t feel bad about it - it’s all for one’s own good you know.


21

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:40 | #

Postmodern philosophy declared there was no God, there were no rules emanating from the heavens, mankind was on its own and was his own god and his was the glory.

Isn’t this European man returning to his ancient Greek roots…immanence not transcendence?


22

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:51 | #

“I have read quite openly that those who cannot make it (perceived not to qualify to be beamed up) to the shining uplands in the New Age are to be eliminated, but we mustn’t feel bad about it - it’s all for one’s own good you know.”

Continuing along those same lines, Miss B posted a piece in which she warns us about the ominous parallels between what happened vis-a-vis communist tyranny in the 20th century to what’s occurring today. Moreover, she provides concrete examples.

Here’s the link:

There is Nothing New Under the Sun. Know Your History.


23

Posted by Dude @ Trainspotter on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:09 | #

Does the anti-white liberal respond to this reality and question his values?  Not at all.

I wonder if this is the complete answer. I read some time ago an article regarding the different stages of psychological reaction to a potential threat. Wish I could find it again, it was on an unrelated issue. After the threat increases to a certain degree, the ‘natural’ response is to seek accommodation with the threat to lessen consequences for the threatened. And on it goes. At its most pop-psych, I guess you might say Stockholm Syndrome.

The other day, I also read an article that made the common sense observation, following a psychological study or other, that the potential lowering of a groups status, makes them tend towards more conservative reactions, politically speaking. While the consequences of the multi-racial, progressive dystopia can be partially offset for many - urban segregation, better schooling, working in the professions, then the reaction of those affected will be muted and accommodation will be sought. That is one reason why, most reactionaries (in the sense of those who dissent) are in the lower classes most affected and having less flexibility. But what if the alleged impending crisis, that threatens the more ring-fenced middle classes, comes to bear? What if it can be telegraphed in many forms to those people. Are their reactions likely to change? I was struck by Paul Weston’s recent outing at the University of Kent and the lack of a hysterical reaction (relatively speaking) that he received.

How many of us, have the ability to look at this situation from such a social science point of view? For instance at its most general, basic polling of a subset of the population to determine beliefs and expectations. Embedding into a telephone survey, certain key questions, where all the rest are there purely for putting at ease, the interviewee. With the growth in Europe, at least, of nationalism-lite parties, many, due to the PR election system of the EU funded to a reasonable degree and with many thousands of supporters, this offers a potential opportunity, for a more professional nationalism. I have also noticed among the younger generations a pan-European outlook at both the political/cultural as well as the political superstructure level. While I am opposed to the EU, this perspective is liable to help pan-national cooperation.

How can we develop such investigative methods, that will provide us with a strategy, based on what we see in the data and which then can be stress tested and reworked? And analyse the statistics and information available to us in each separate field (ethnic harmony, education results, population replacement, marriage, penal policy) and produce a report on the subject for criticism and reworking? I have to say, I don’t presently have those skills myself but am engaging in some Moocs, that might help this maths-averse and genetically [.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)],  behaviourally, social psychologically academically deficient person, become more comfortable amongst data and analysis. A task open to anyone who wishes to. Of course many would have already explored these subjects much furher for the graduate degrees and be well ahead, some even from elite universities.

This is one reason why, I’ve wondered about the feasibility of a racialist/nationalist/traditionalist/conservative/ LinkedIn, with privacy safeguards and a wide reach (so perhaps low-lighting the racialist aspect for a nativist one) where people can join (first names only /email addresses designed purely for the site, not personal etc) who wish to do something off-radar and perhaps list their skill-sets and pledge, say, from 1 hour a month up to 20 hours pm for things that play to their strengths. I’ve no strong idea of the best structure, but it might combine the networking of an LI with the job requests of a freelancer site, where jobs are posted, people are invited to tender. Ideally this would be a charitable service, without payment (perhaps driven by in-site good-egg credits) but might perhaps include an off-site (to avoid taxation and legal requirements) agreement on kick-backs.

In our domestic populations, the most aware are also the minority, politically, but globally we are many hundreds of thousands, millions if you define us more widely.


24

Posted by D @ T - a qualifier on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:47 | #

I was referring to the wider Euro population, those who shun outwardly ethnocentric behaviours, not to the politically active liberal, which in retrospect, I believe you’re referring to. By all means shun, shame, attack and exile those.


25

Posted by Bill on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:04 | #

Is modern liberalism merely an adjunct in the great scheme of things?

There is far too much of this….

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/paradigm-shift/aquarian-conspiracy.htm

.... swirling in the currents and eddies of the internet, but rarely gets an airing among the more serious pundits on the white national circuit.

I chose the above link not exactly at random from a Google search ‘The New Age Movement,’ but because of author Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the book the Aquarian Conspiracy.

Although plentiful on the Internet the New Age narrative here in Britain has been as rare as hen’s teeth in the everyday media.

And yet recently, we have same sex marriage (no debate - no mandate) and also currently in Britain church and state related matter has suddenly slipped into the headline news.

The left in Britain is openly hostile to Christendom and yet the BBC religiously (NPI) broadcast Sunday Prayers never missing an opportunity to televise the Royal Family at prayer in Westminster Abbey or St. Paul’s Cathedral or Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.  What hypocrites they are!

I’ve lost count over the years the number of times when watching the BBC News how stuff I’ve learnt on the internet months or even years previously is seamlessly slipped into the narrative of the present day.  It happens too often to be a coincidence - which suggests there is a co-ordinated direction of whatever agenda it is they’re pursuing.

What is the driving force that is behind what is endlessly discussed here. But where the New Age Movement) is rarely mentioned.

Anyone seen Revolution Harry?


26

Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:58 | #

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

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


27

Posted by Dude @ Morgoth on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:59 | #

Latest press release after Paul Weston’s arrest:
Paul Weston was arrested for breaching a Section 27 Dispersal Notice. After
several hours in a cell at Winchester Police Station this charge was dropped
and Paul was “re-arrested” for a Racially Aggravated Crime, under Section 4
of the Public Order Act, which carries a potential prison sentence of 2
years. Paul was then fingerprinted and obliged to submit to DNA sampling,
after which he was bailed with a return date to Winchester Police on May
24th.

Had the woman who complained to the police made an official statement, Paul
would not have been released last night, but fortunately she did not.

The case is now being presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. If they
decide to prosecute, then Paul will be arrested, awaiting trial, when he
presents himself to the police on May 24th.


28

Posted by Bill on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:34 | #

I’ve been following the antics of the monkey throwing fece campaign against Farage and his UKIP party.  Playing the man and not the Ball ad hominem attacks, rubbishing and vilifying ones opponent has become de rigeur for the lib-lab-con brigade.

Lib-lab-con and its Telegraph blogger shills just don’t get it, or maybe they are just beginning to - that their tactics are having the entirely opposite effect of the desired result.

One leftist liberal Telegraph blogger, Dan Hodges, recently garnered over 5000 comments to his masterpiece essay solely by using the above tactics, namely by screaming all UKIP supporters are racist.

Perhaps at this point I should mention I also think the racist card is losing its mojo, its becoming more evident by the day.  I’m talking Internet here, whether it will translate down to the streets only time will tell.  I do think there are real signs the British public are becoming sick and tired of the whole race business. 

The onslaught of the lib-lab-con brigade’s fece throwing has reached such epidemic proportions they are convinced UKIP will be sunk without trace, but alack, surprise-surprise, all the polls suggest UKIP are going from strength to strength.  the left are bemused they simply can’t understand it.  I wonder why?

Britain is an overwhelmingly small ‘c’ conservative people, that’s what we are, that is who we are, we hate bullies, and the lib-lab-con are just that, a bigoted bunch of left wing liberal racist anti white bullies.

UKIP supporters are digging in their heels and are more determined then ever to resist, and so I suspect are many uncommitted voters, the effect of elite bullying is angering ordinary British voters and are sick of it.  I think it will be a huge favourable factor for UKIP come polling day (EU parliament representatives) on the 22nd of May 2014.

Farage can’t believe his luck - he’s on a roll.     


29

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:32 | #

Even YouGov, which consistently finds lower support for UKIP, are having to acknowledge the party’s progress:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8759

The weekly YouGov/Sunday Times poll is up online here. Topline figures are CON 31%, LAB 36%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 15%. UKIP at 15 is high by their recent standards, though we’ve seen a couple in recent weeks.

... There is even better news for UKIP and the Greens on European election voting intention. YouGov have been showing UKIP challenging Labour for first place since the debates, they’ve now overtaken – topline European VI stands at CON 19%, LAB 28%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 31%, GREEN 8% – UKIP in first place, Greens challenging the Lib Dems for fourth.

... Turning to UKIP, most people do tend to see UKIP as a protest party (57%) rather than a serious party (20%) – but amongst UKIP voters themselves 71% think they are a serious party with workable policies. Only 25% of people say the UKIP posters this week are racist – 66% do not. Asked about Nigel Farage personally 27% think he is racist, 50% do not. Judging by this and the European election voting intention figures the fuss over the UKIP posters is more likely to have helped their support than damaged it.


30

Posted by Bill on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:35 | #

The coming political crisis.

Further to my @ 28 above.

Elites at a loss to understand why UKIP are not surrendering and rolling over in the electoral race war.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10791905/A-week-of-woe-for-Ukip-and-yet….html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/27/ukip-likely-win-european-elections-despite-racism-scandals

My forecast political collapse is edging ever nearer.  Even if Farage is not the real thing this escalating race war is taking on a momentum of its own - nothing can stop it now.


31

Posted by wobbly on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:46 | #

This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view.  It is emotionally rooted.  It is faux-moralistic.  It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument.  I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation.

I don’t think it is faux moralistic it is 100% proof religion. The difference is the priesthood is wholly malign and seek the physical destruction of the flock. Upper middle class multicult liberals are directly descended from some of the most religious Europeans and nothing has changed except the priesthood.

 

Nothing seems to touch it.  What, then, will?  What, if anything, are we missing?

Hmm, we seem to be seeing different things. It used to be there were dozens of genuine brain washed white liberals on every forum but they have almost completely disappeared. All there are now are Jews or other ethnically motivated individuals, a few homosexuals and crazy people - literally crazy.

The standard middle of the road brainwashed liberal white person has almost completely disappeared.

The last few homosexuals will eventually realize they will be thrown under the bus in favor of muslims and there’s nothing you can do about the crazy people except use them for batting practice.

I think you may have been doing it so long you’ve forgotten the time when there used to be lots of average white people parroting the multicult’s catechism?

 


32

Posted by Bill on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:01 | #

Small talk.

Farage, UKIP’s fox, continues to scatter the feathers in the lib/lab/con coop.

Acres of press coverage for Farage now, not all of it complimentary though, but who said there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

The latest this morning is typified by the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10797659/Nigel-Farage-will-not-contest-the-Newark-by-election.html

There’s been no hint so far of Farage’s two fisted, head butting attacks on the political class as witnessed on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

One might say Farage is doing OK as he is, treading almost a PC line but not quite, steady as you go Nigel, don’t spook the herd seems the way to go.

I’ve heard him say he will make this EU round of elections as a referendum on immigration, which in turn will ratchet up for 2015.  Sound tactics!

When is he going to give lib/lab/con the Von Rumpuy hair drier treatment?

When is he going to tell the British public like it is?


33

Posted by Silver on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:52 | #

I think you may have been doing it so long you’ve forgotten the time when there used to be lots of average white people parroting the multicult’s catechism?

That’s true.  On “general” sections of various forums I used to constantly get accused of being “KKK” and assailed from all sorts of directions.  This hasn’t ceased, but it occurs far less frequently than it once did.  Similarly on mainstream-y blogs and comments sections it takes a lot more before some lib throws a tantrum over “racism.”

Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that people have necessarily changed their minds.  Perhaps they’ve simply grown tired of being trounced and made to look foolish in debate and are now simply stewing in silence.  That could explain why the heat has been turned up so much on “racism” in institutional settings - places where anti-racists are unquestionably in power and cannot easily be questioned.


34

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:15 | #

Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that people have necessarily changed their minds.

True but there’s been a change.


35

Posted by Bill on Thu, 01 May 2014 20:35 | #

I’m posting under this thread because in reality what I’m talking about here hasn’t got a category of its own as such.  I’m talking UKIP here.

As most regular visitors here must be aware, there is an important election about to take place here in Britain, namely British candidates for representation in the European parliament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27142516

There’s a new kid emerged on the block of British politics in the form of one Nigel Farage, who is leader of the United Kingdom Independent party (UKIP) who in racing parlance has crept up on the rails to take the political world by storm.

According to some senior MSM political talking heads, UKIP have the momentum of head of steam to cause the biggest shock to the status quo in the history of the system.  This indeed is heady stuff, are they joshing? Having a laugh as we say, I for one don’t think so.

With only three weeks to go, already there is a sense of anticipation in the air, for the people of Britain are sensing for the first time in decades they are to be consulted on the question of who rules Britain?  Is Britain to be run by the British themselves, or are they to be ruled by the political elite class in the shape of the European Union? (The forerunner of the new order)

Britain is ruled/governed and subjected to, (as are all white nations) by the ruling hegemony which is postmodern liberalism - which in turn is channelled through Washington- London, EU and UN.

Everything the British people rail about, and are sick and tired of, from immigration to being micro managed, to the hated political correctness, to the obsession of racism, is a product of modern liberalism.  Funny thing is, the people of Britain have no idea where all these things come from and nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to tell them, for all the people know, these established phenomena could be being beamed down from the dark side of the moon.

Is Nigel Farage, in the coming weeks going to tell the British people where all their woes are coming from and why?  I think not, but at least he can start to plant ideas in the minds of the people. (Dot connecting is the name of this game)

Farage has made it quite clear from the start his cross-hairs are squarely focussed on the EU (and hopefully) the connection to mass immigration, although he has already established that EU immigration is the direct result of EU diktat, however, the elephant of non-white immigration is to remain shrouded in mystery .

Farage must go all out for the paralysing straightjacket that is racism, coupled with the thought crime of political correctness, for it is these things that are infuriating the British peopleand are getting really p*ssed off.

As I have repeatedly stressed, Farage climbs into the ring with weapons of mass destruction under his belt, and to mix metaphors he’s facing an open goal, will he slam the ball into the back of the net?  Hmm, we all know he won’t.

Our people are without knowledge of why things are happening to them and the BBC isn’t telling them, so it is all down to one Nigel Farage, good luck with that one. 

I suspect as events progress, I’ll be back with more to say.

PS.  I see on the latest news Farage was bush-whacked getting out of his car by an egg wielding thug, who rubbed it in his face.  It might easily have been a gun!

Be careful out there.


36

Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 May 2014 19:27 | #

Interesting post by Dan Hodges Telegraph 02/05/2014

It’s now just under a fortnight since Ukip launched their European election campaign. And in that time our carefully – some would say painfully – constructed consensus on what is acceptable discourse on the issue of race has been shattered. Smashed to dust in 11 days.

One of the arguments most often used over that period – during which there has been a ferocious debate about the racist nature of Ukip’s campaign – is that the word “racism” is actually used to stifle debate. It’s thrown presumptively in the face of anyone who dares to raise any legitimate issue, from increases in immigration to the nature of Britishness.

And those who deploy that argument are right. It has. I’ve done it myself.

For years, those of us who have supported mass migration, and believed in the social and economic benefits its brings, deluded ourselves. We conned ourselves into thinking we represented the majority viewpoint, and reacted with visceral anger towards anyone who dared challenge our cosy world view.

And it was a disaster. We did shut down debate, which in turn created a political vacuum. One that was filled initially by the BNP, and is currently being filled by Ukip.

But now the pendulum has swung back. With a vengeance. Where once everything was decried as racist, suddenly nothing is racist. Where every legitimate question about immigration was ritualistically dismissed as base prejudice, now every overt and coded racial, homophobic or misogynistic slur is deconstructed, and rationalised and legitimised.

Bold my emphasis.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100269826/jeremy-clarkson-and-n-r-ukip-and-romanians-is-this-really-2014/


37

Posted by Bill on Sun, 04 May 2014 17:20 | #

DT bloggers decamp to Breitbart?

The first time I came across the name Breitbart in press terms was just before Delingpole of the Telegraph decamped under a cloud to join Breitbart’s newly established conservative online blog in the UK.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/02/delingpole-quites-telegraph-ahead-of-uk-launch-of-brietbart-com/

The Telegraph is no longer credible, it is a busted flush but lamentably and disingenuously it continues to masquerade as a champion standard bearer of British conservativism.

The old timer long suffering savvy nationalist commenter has deserted in droves and given up in disgust or despair, or both.  I’ve noticed for some time the inclusion of links to Breitbart on the DT threads and as the heightening interest in the EU election intensifies so does the linking to Breitbart.  It looks like Breitbart is becoming the natural home of the former more aware of the DT threads.

Again, due to UKIP and the EU election, the DT threads routinely amass thousands of comments of which are mostly juvenile. It’s like being in a school playground yelling- ‘Ya -Boo! my dad’s bigger than your dad’ being the more intellectual comments on display.  IOW’s the DT threads are barely worth visiting.

There’s very little reference to the big picture of globalism and the part the EU plays in all of it.  There’s equally little comment on the real reason why we’re being pushed off our shrinking lebensraum by lab rat engineering.  The DT’s (ie. whole left zeitgeist) is very canny in the manner of how it steers and controls the limits of discourse simply by censorship.  The vague euphemism of race replacement (in some distant future) is regularly trotted out but never pursued to its logical conclusion.

So what we have (as I speak) is a totally faux debate of how the sanitized systematic elimination and destruction of Britain is to be implemented.

Without spooking the intended victims of course.

Breitbart is a welcome alternative.


38

Posted by Bill on Sun, 04 May 2014 17:54 | #

At last!  There are signs.

The blogosphere has become upbeat in the past week, there is a definite spring in its step, in fact it is allowing itself to become a tad optimistic, is it possible this optimism is being translated to street level?

It is difficult to gauge the mood and determination of the general public, especially in the large cities which have been transformed by the vibrant other.  Such places as London, Birmingham, Leicester, Manchester, Bradford and scores of lesser towns across Britain’s once industrial belt.

I don’t think Britain’s demographics has reached the same parallel as America as yet, where the demographics are distorting the big voting picture to the extent voting will be of little value, not yet, but it must be getting close.

I think if the 2015 election goes ahead then it will be most likely the last time the lib/lab/con traditional pattern of voting will endure.  Demographics is bound to influence Britain’s political future and seal the fate of whites.  Which many say is the raison d’etre of mass immigration in the first place.

Do Britain’s dwindling whites realise it is that close?


39

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 05 May 2014 08:12 | #

Good stuff, Bill!

BTW, how many nonwhites are in UK today? What is their % of total population? Does anyone have accurate knowledge?


40

Posted by Bill on Tue, 06 May 2014 06:53 | #

Leon Haller asks a question @ 39

BTW, how many nonwhites are in UK today? What is their % of total population?

Does anyone have accurate knowledge?

Right on cue in this morning’s Telegraph. 6/5/2014

Growth of ethnic groups ‘undermines English identity’

Non-white people will make up almost 30 per cent of the population by 2050, according to a report by Policy Exchange

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10809481/Growth-of-ethnic-groups-undermines-English-identity.html


41

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 06 May 2014 08:18 | #

And there’s that ass BoJo saying he is “pro-immigration”.

Anyway, is this paragraph accurate?

Almost one in three people in Britain will be from an ethnic minority within a generation, a report suggests.
Non-white people will make up between 20 and 30 per cent of the population by 2050, Policy Exchange says. The current share is around 14 per cent.

14% is awful in historical terms, though by US standards we would be delighted if only 14% of the USA were nonwhite. We last saw that level in approx 1975 (and a good era that was, disco and gas lines notwithstanding).

Do you think that 14% is a deliberate lowball?


42

Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 06 May 2014 10:03 | #

The DM has the same story with reader comments:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620957/Ethnic-minorities-make-one-population-2050-Britains-melting-pot-continues-grow.html


43

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 May 2014 10:05 | #

Leon,

The much-maligned 2001 Census found:

a) The native population numbered 50,366,497 or 85.67% of a total population of 58,789,194.

b) Other whites (including Irish) totalled 3,787,401 or 6.87%.

c) Non-whites totalled 4,635,306 or 7.86%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The 2011 Census for England Wales only found:

a) The native population numbered 45,682,100 or 81.46% of a total population of 56,076,000.

b) Other whites totalled 2,506,800 or 4.45%.

c) Non-whites totalled 7,467,927 or 13.64%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#England_and_Wales_2

Yes, I know the percentages don’t add to 100.  But that’s what it says on the page in question.  Note also that the million strong Polish invasion doesn’t show up in the 2011 Census.  It’s all rather odd.



45

Posted by Bill on Tue, 06 May 2014 11:23 | #

Trying to get a handle - some thoughts.

It is difficult for me as a resident of Britain to imagine mass immigration into the United States having the same impact as such a tiny place as Britain, I for one imagine the vastness of America and the luxury of oceans of wiggle room for white flight it provides in contrast to no hiding place Britain. Canada and Australia can also be spoken of in similar terms as the US.

White flight here in Britain rarely hits the headlines but it has surely become part of the social landscape - noticed but hardly spoken of.  On my travels through these threads over the years I have made comment on the effects of immigration on Britain’s housing situation.  Fast forward to the present day and it obvious England’s housing problems are dire, prices are through the roof (NPI) and way beyond the reach of first time buyers, new building is never going to keep pace with the growing population, precious agricultural greenbelt surrounding the larger towns and cities is being swallowed up and built upon.

In addition to the chaos surrounding the housing situation there is little evidence (where I live) of the building and provision of the necessary infrastructure needed for the continuance of a civilised living arrangement.

As more than a casual observer one could be forgiven in thinking that a collective insanity had taken hold, our unapproachable elites (BBC) are spinning their fantasies, there is no public conversation taking place as to explaining what their game plan is, 60 million people are gazing cowlike on the touchline at what’s going on, and from where I’m standing they, (cattle) are not even curious among themselves.  It really is a sci-fi situation over here.  Invasion Of The Body Snatchers has got nothing compared with what’s going on in 21 st century Britain.

Someone is reported as saying never let a good crisis go to waste, well here in Britain our current government have decided to use immigration and the housing crisis to lift Britain out of the economic doldrums, well at least sufficiently to get themselves elected in 2015.  The economic crash of 2008 was precipitated with a remarkably similar programme of building homes for millions of people, regardless of whether they could pay for them or not.  By using undreampt levels of immigration it looks like our government has embarked on a rinse and repeat cycle which will end up with exactly the same result.

One really must ask oneself, do they, architects, really know what they’re doing?  Is there a game plan?  If so what is it and how is it going to be rolled out?

I well remember a comment once here, which said, they, (architects) don’t give a damn as long as ‘what is’ is destroyed.


46

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 06 May 2014 11:51 | #

Leon,

If I recall correctly, Paul Weston stated that of those under 16 years of age in Britain, 4.5 million are native Brits while 3.5 million are not. If we are to assume the vast majority of those that are non-native Brits are Muslims and other non-whites, that reflects a more accurate description of the demographic shift. Weston continued: if the current demographic trend continues as is, it will only take two generations before the native English become a minority in their own country.

As simple as that is for race realists to understand, the vast majority of white people in America cannot comprehend the dire situation of what’s taking place right in front of their faces, let alone what’s happening in England and the rest of western European countries. White conservatards in the KWA are more concerned with issues such as how the Democrats destroyed the black family structure via the “welfare plantation” than they are with their own dispossession.

Here is an example of how stupid and ignorant white American conservatards are WRT race:

http://moonbattery.com/?p=45424


47

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 07 May 2014 00:43 | #

One really must ask oneself, do they, architects, really know what they’re doing?  Is there a game plan?  If so what is it and how is it going to be rolled out?

I well remember a comment once here, which said, they, (architects) don’t give a damn as long as ‘what is’ is destroyed.

I think a mixture of selected aggression and paranoia effectively programs them to uncontrollably attack the host. There may be an official game plan as well - see “World war Z” for details - but it’s a product of their evolved behavior imo rather than the cause.

 


48

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 May 2014 02:30 | #

Thanks for the responses, gentlemen. Bill makes a good point, which I tend to neglect, wrt the vast difference in geographic size between West Europe polities and the US. This makes the English people’s quiescence in the face of this ongoing, highly visible as well as undesirable, invasion all the more surprising.

I still think the answer is to be found in ethics, even if the Christian churches are dead in the UK. The notion that race-patriotism and population maintenance is somehow impermissible ‘racism’ could not have arisen except in a society still residually saturated with subconscious Christian understanding. Liberalism takes the Christian ethical precepts (at root “Do unto others ..”) and twists them to serve its own unrealizable utopian egalitarian ends. I don’t think one needs to throw out the baby with the bathwater (get rid of liberalism not Christ, IOW), but, however that may be, it still appalls me to reflect upon the ease with which whites succumb to racial universalist brainwashing. That is a biological more than theological problem, I think.

Or perhaps it’s merely that liberalism is the overarching “thought-world” of the age, and that it then seeps over into everything, theological discourse as well as secular politics. Whatever, its destructive consequences, esp wrt race, are undeniable. It is truly the ideology of Western suicide, as James Burnham termed it a half-century ago, and it must be stopped.


49

Posted by Bill on Wed, 07 May 2014 10:24 | #

Continuing my theme of Britain’s housing situation.

When I began to realise the depth of deception by our politicians in regard to immigration my mind immediately turned to the question of where are all these newcomers going to live?  In fact I commented on a BBC thread at the time expressing my concern in terms that it was all a no-brainer.  It was all a long time ago and a gazillian comments have since flowed under the bridge. I cannot recall the reply or even if there was one.

Suffice to say, these chickens have truly come home to roost.

My mood these days has changed to one of how are the elites going to maintain a necessary semblance of order - in order to implement their agenda.

From a personal perspective Britain ceased to be what I recognised from my childhood sometime in the 1960’s, I couldn’t articulate why this was so at the time other that I weirdly perceived that males were becoming femminised.

Television is the story of Britain since the’60’s, tomorrow’s historians will have no problem in tracing the demise of Britain after studying a few hours of footage of 20th century state Television.

However Television is not the theme of this comment so let us return to Britain’s housing situation.

Britain’s housing situation is turning into a full-blown crisis,

Our Government is targeting the economy as the driver of public confidence and feel good factor (so what’s new?) that is not only to (hopefully) return them to government in 2015 but also and perhaps more importantly, is to stabilise the bubbling signs of discontent brought about by the arrival of a new political competitor in the form of UKIP.

And what is to be the driver of this economic offensive?  Whoda thunk it?  The new engine of growth is to be continued mass immigration and building millions of new homes to house them.

Already unintended consequences are throwing a spanner in the government’s calculations, mainly because they, (elites) have failed to recognise they no longer have the means of raising the purchasing power for the would be buyers of these new homes to buy.

Our politicains do not seem to realise we are a post industrial western nation and no longer live in a world of jobs for life, that the nation’s service industries are no substitute for the real thing.

No doubt on the advice of others, our government has embraced a regime of austerity thereby reducing further, job opportunities, and denying the means for those in work the chance of buying a new home.

Jeeze!  I’m no economist but at least I’m aware of something called supply and demand.  Our elites (it seems)never gave supply and demand a thought when they invited millions to come and live in Britain, neither did they give the native British families a thought as to the anguish and misery all these newcomers would cause by taking their homes.

So what do our government do?  They borrow billions of pounds to hand out to would be new home buyer, always providing the first time buyer can cough up an eye watering deposit on a 300K home.  Which they can’t of course.

All this and more makes me very suspicious of what’s coming down the pike.

It stretches the bounds of possibility that our elites didn’t foresee all of these pitfalls so how are they to overcome this massive housing dilemma and maintain course for the destruction they crave.

Already there are signs of things to come.

I’ve already received an invitation by my local authority to give thought to the idea of thinking of having a lodger come to live in my house, the going rate quoted as being £80.00 per week.

Social housing families are already being forced to relocate and down-size if they have spare capacity (bedroom) if they refuse they are liable to a reduction in their housing benefit.  The labour government have already dubbed this as a bedroom tax.

By far the biggest area of spare capacity in the housing market is in private housing, where only one person (usually the surviving widow) is living in the property.  Many moons ago I opined that this spare capacity will be seized upon when push comes shove, whether our ‘Englishman’s home is his castle’ mantra private property owning class will protest and resist this seizure is doubtful, if what we’ve seen previously in reluctance to say NO!

The temptation to forceably eject and relocate little old women from their long-time family home will be too strong for politicians to resist.

Interesting times indeed for an observer of events.


50

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 07 May 2014 12:57 | #

The temptation to forceably eject and relocate little old women from their long-time family home will be too strong for politicians to resist.

Yes, the same pressure is driving the increasingly common calls for euthanasia.


51

Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 07 May 2014 15:42 | #

Bill: The temptation to forceably eject and relocate little old women from their long-time family home will be too strong for politicians to resist.

wobbly: Yes, the same pressure is driving the increasingly common calls for euthanasia.

Or the Third-Worlded NHS could just accidentally-on-purpose “malpractice” them into the grave.

 


52

Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 07 May 2014 17:23 | #

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328568/Nation-states-dead-EU-chief-says-belief-countries-stand-lie.html

“Mr Van Rompuy’s speech in the German capital told his audience that ‘the time of the homogenous nation state is over’.”

Echoing Peter Sutherland and Wesley Clark.


53

Posted by Jonathan Portes on Wed, 07 May 2014 19:03 | #

Bill, apropos the situation of the hypothetical ‘little old lady’, (ie an elderly widow), living alone in the big house, which the government eyes covetously with a saliviating mouth - no doubt with the object of stuffing the said house full of wogs once it’s been sub-divided into bed-its let out by a Shylock-like paki landlord accepting tenants ‘from the social’.

No, Bill don’t think of the regime starting to ex-appropriate the suburban villas either in exchange for market value or not as the case may be, no they’ve got it all sewn-up already with a far, far subtler and effective strategy - the regime just takes the luxury of sitting it out for a few years and waits for the granny to peg it. Then her estate is stung for inheriatnce tax at 40% levelled at anything valued over £400,000 ie a London shoebox. Of course, to raise that sum, pop goes the house to the paki landlord - which will be converted tout de suite into nasty, awkardly shaped flats with cardboard walls, to house another bunch of pakis, funded at your expense to enrich the first paki, by the ‘social’.
Simples. This way out goes whitey’s wealth, in comes paki’s wealth and more pakis and nary a new council estate need be built. And whoever said ‘Dickensian slums’?

Did you see ‘how to get a council house’ on channel 4 last week?, about that shit-hole called Tower Hamlets and Bangladeshi scroungers of 25 years UK residence and not being able to utter a word of English?


54

Posted by wobbly on Wed, 07 May 2014 23:07 | #

Or the Third-Worlded NHS could just accidentally-on-purpose “malpractice” them into the grave.

they’ve been doing that for a while: google “Liverpool Care Pathway”


55

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 07 May 2014 23:46 | #

Did you see ‘how to get a council house’ on channel 4 last week?, about that shit-hole called Tower Hamlets and Bangladeshi scroungers of 25 years UK residence and not being able to utter a word of English?

I saw that. It was incredible, makes one wonder if somehow some nationalist subversives are making these programs.


56

Posted by Bill on Thu, 08 May 2014 05:48 | #

Can someone help me out here?

Neoliberalism is a cheerleader for a property owning democracy for profit ideology

Cultural Marxism says private property is a naughty no-no.

How can this conundrum (internal contradiction) be resolved?

Who’s going to emerge the victor?

Private property will be taken over by the state.

I think I’ve answered my own question.


57

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 May 2014 23:06 | #

Bill,

Neoliberalism is actually the economics of globalisation ... the open global market as a power platform for international finance and the dateline corporations.  It involves deregulation at the national level and liberalisation internationally.  It involves the privatisation of assets, but this aspect has become entangled somewhat with the socialisation of bank losses, which is one aspect of neoliberalism (ie, the ownership of politics by corporations) we knew a lot less about prior to 2008.  It also involves a free market in people, and therefore a model of Man which is essentially that of the interchangeable economic cypher.  That’s the “individualism” that Thatcherites and libertarians think is so fine and freeing.

Cultural Marxism is a favourite charge of UKIPers.  Actually, it is a dead term on the left.  Dead of embarrassment, no doubt.  Now they have even shrunk away from using its successor, “neo-Marxist”.

The culturalisation of Marxism had little to say about the distribution of wealth and property as an egalitarian cause.  Its bugbear was the cultural hegemony of the non-Jewish white male, and this remains transparently the case with the highly poisonous discourse of White Privilege and anti-racism.


58

Posted by wobbly on Thu, 08 May 2014 23:17 | #

Neoliberalism is a cheerleader for a property owning democracy for profit ideology

The “property owning democracy” spiel was just spin for their privatization of council housing stock.

Cultural Marxism says private property is a naughty no-no.

Cultural Marxism pretty much ignores economics completely.


There is an underlying conflict between those who prefer the state-centric model of hell e.g. 1984 and those who prefer the banking mafia’s corporate model of hell e.g. Metropolis but it’s really a conflict between two sets of sociopaths where one set want power first and money second and the second set want money first and power second.

 


59

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 May 2014 04:00 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on May 08, 2014, 06:06 PM | #

Bill,

Neoliberalism is actually the economics of globalisation ... the open global market as a power platform for international finance and the dateline corporations.  It involves deregulation at the national level and liberalisation internationally.  It involves the privatisation of assets, but this aspect has become entangled somewhat with the socialisation of bank losses, which is one aspect of neoliberalism (ie, the ownership of politics by corporations) we knew a lot less about prior to 2008.  It also involves a free market in people, and therefore a model of Man which is essentially that of the interchangeable economic cypher.  That’s the “individualism” that Thatcherites and libertarians think is so fine and freeing.


Speaking of “neo-liberalism”, lets not forget that US corporations have the legal status of an individual, with individual rights.

 


60

Posted by Bill on Fri, 09 May 2014 07:49 | #

Thanks @ 57-58-59 in reply to my 56

The circumstances of my commenting @ 56 were rather pressurising, it was a spur of the moment thing and I had to be elsewhere quickly, so I dashed it (comment) off and went on my way.  On reflection I should have left it and returned to it later, phrasing the question more nuanced.  As it turned out the replies received indicate the question must have made sense.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

It comes as a shock to the system (to say the least) that as you enter the straight for the finishing post of life you learn you have been given the blue pill all along.  Maybe it’s always been like that, the Darwinian fittest pulling the wool over the tribe’s eyes in order to retain their power. That is until some young bull wrests it from them and the process starts all over again.

I need to make sense of what I see going on around me in my sheltered everyday life, hence my interest in the on-going crises both in Britain’s housing and politics.  I find my involvement in such local mundane matters soon takes on the proportions of a degree course in political theory.

No wonder my head hurts. (lol)

Seriously, it’s an effort for me to confine comments to a chewable bite size, the subject being so varied and vast, not to say - damned interesting.

I should get a life really. 


61

Posted by Bill on Fri, 09 May 2014 09:24 | #

GW @ 57

UKIP don’t impress me much, (I hope I’m wrong.) as such I’ve not been taking much interest lately.

Thus.  I don’t get….

Cultural Marxism is a favourite charge of UKIPers.  Actually, it is a dead term on the left.  Dead of embarrassment, no doubt.  Now they have even shrunk away from using its successor, “neo-Marxist”.

UKIP is an enigma to me, my gut instinct is telling me things I don’t want to hear, a confirmed case of cognisant dissonance at last.  I try and curb my mental gymnastics in calculating all the permutations on offer.  Its like trying to grab a handful of candy floss.

UKIP is the chosen agent of change in the emerging political crisis, starting with the EU elections and reaching its climax in 2015 (or before).

How do you see things?


62

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 09 May 2014 09:40 | #

Neoliberalism is essentially about achieving liberal ends through the rational use of markets. Socialism is not remotely equivalent in any way to capitalism, including the hegemonic corporate variety (and much less so to the ideal version of the libertarians). Socialism ruins man’s productive economic life. It is inherently irrational for reasons elucidated variously by Mises (calculation) and Hayek (dispersed knowledge), and it violates what conservatives take to be the ‘enlightened self-interest’ aspect of human nature (ie, we work harder and better when the lion’s share of our own productivity accrues to us).

Neoliberalism is equivalent to neither classical liberalism (Turgot, Jefferson, Herbert Spencer, Eugen Richter, the early J.S.Mill), nor the latter’s modern variant, libertarianism, though they all share what I imagine GW would refer to as a common ontology. Without getting too deep here, classical liberals emphasized individual rights above all else, from which they deduced a political agenda of private property, the impartial (egalitarian) rule of law (no special treatment based on class or family status), free markets, free trade, and, mostly, a secular state, which existed to secure individual rights, and not for other purposes (like wealth redistribution, promoting Christian moral virtue, advancing racial interests, biological improvement, imperialism, etc). What they advocated has often been called the “nightwatchman state” (ie, governments as mere umpires, defending property rights, whether from criminals or foreign armies, and enforcing contracts and tortious claims).

Modern libertarians usually agree with the old liberal agenda, but their emphasis is on radical anti-statism above everything. They want the most minimal state possible, and tend to extend this even to the “nightwatchman” aspects of it. Some libertarians are ‘anarcho-capitalists’, believing that the only just society is one without any state at all (‘state’ here defined as, at a minimum, ‘a territorial monopolist of the judicial function’).

Neoliberals are mostly secularists and ‘globalist-universalists’. By the latter term I mean they favor a ‘flat’ world. By ‘flat’ we mean a world in which barriers preventing commercial activities between people are removed as much as possible. What are these barriers? Obviously, they consist in laws infringing on the possibility of trade penetration (eg, France forbidding American fast food franchises to operate there); obstructing the free flow of capital (ie, foreign investment and/or direct ownership); and preventing the free flow of people.

Ultimately, however, neoliberalism seeks not only to maximize the flows of goods, capital and workers, but to harmonize and standardize them, too. There is a true totalitarian impulse underlaying the ‘flat worlders’. To the neoliberal, any aspect of human existence which has the effect of diminishing value - itself further understood solely in a material efficiency sense - constitutes a ‘barrier’ to commerce which must be eliminated. Hence the modern antagonism on the economic (pseudo-) Right, as well as the ‘cultural Marxist’/PC/Diversitarian Left, to all ‘primitive’ (ie, non-economic) attachments, such as kin, clan, folkish cultures, nations, races (esp, of course, to the white race - obviously other elements and causes of our racial decline overlap here as elsewhere), and ultimately, I predict, even religion (at least insofar as religion entails efficiency-reducing activities or commitments). Hence also the fanatic antagonism to ‘discrimination’.

The neoliberal’s ultimate goal is to transform the whole world into a culturally and racially ‘flattened’ one of interchangeable economic producers and consumers. We true conservatives reject this assault on the world’s true diversity, understood racially and eugenically as well as culturally, and I imagine WNs do, too.


63

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 09 May 2014 09:56 | #

UKIP is the obvious choice in the forthcoming European election. A good showing by them will continue driving Cameron to the Right, however moderate and therefore inadequate Farage personally might be.

The only real question is whether that, in turn, will aid the cause of Scottish independence. I can sympathize with nostalgic Unionist rightists who wish to preserve the UK, but am I being an ill-informed American when I suggest that England’s only racial hope lay in ridding itself of the Far Left Labour menace (apparently worse than ever under Miliband - how is it possible a Jewish Marxist might become the UK’s PM?), which cannot happen until leftist Scotland is removed from the political equation?

If I were an Englishman, there is nothing I would rather see than Scotland going away. Thoughts?


64

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 09 May 2014 11:27 | #

WRT the following piece, some may think Paul Craig Roberts is a bit off his rocker; some may think he’s spot on. Overall, I tend to lean towards the latter. In fact what is asserted has already become obvious for those who’ve been willing to open their eyes. What do you think?

Gangster State America

Where Is America’s Democracy?

Paul Craig Roberts

Anyone who looks carefully behind the veil of words cannot find democracy in America. For years I have been writing that the US government is no longer accountable to law or to the people (see, for example, my book, How America Was Lost). The Constitution has been set aside, and the executive branch is degenerating into Caesarism.

Government is used to impose agendas that result from the symbiotic relationship between the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony and the economic interests of powerful private interest groups, such as Wall Street, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and extractive industries (energy, mining, and timber). Dollar imperialism, threats, bribes, and wars are means by which US hegemony is extended. These agendas are pursued without the knowledge or approval of the American people and in spite of their opposition.

Professor Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Professor Benjamin Page of Northwestern University have examined American governance and have concluded that the US is an oligarchy ruled by powerful rich private interest groups and that the US government has only a superficial resemblance to a democracy. Their analysis is forthcoming in publication in the journal, Perspectives on Politics.

Their conclusions are striking:

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

“When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.”

“In the United States, our findings indicate that the majority does not rule–at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.”

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

A number of factors have contributed to the demise of democracy and accountable government in the US. One factor is the concentration of the US media in a few hands. During the last years of the Clinton regime, a formerly diverse media with significant independence was concentrated in five mega-corporations. The value of these corporations consists largely of their federal broadcast licenses. To insure the renewal of these licenses, the media avoids challenging the government on significant issues.

Another factor is the offshoring of US industrial and manufacturing jobs. This development destroyed the manufacturing and industrial unions, which were the backbone of the Democratic Party’s financial support. Now the Democrats have to appeal to the same interest groups as the Republicans–Wall Street, the military/security complex, and the polluting industries that despoil the environment. As both political parties are now financed by the same private interests, both political parties serve the same masters. There is no longer any countervailing power. The Obama regime is simply a continuation of the George W. Bush regime.

Two recent rulings by the Republican majority on the US Supreme Court are another decisive factor. The court ruled that it is merely an exercise of free speech for oligarchs to purchase the US government (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission). A corrupt Supreme Court has invented a “constitutional right” for corporations and oligarchs to use their vast financial resources to form a government of their choosing.

Private interest groups in the US are so powerful that they can purchase immunity from law. On March 27 a retiring Securities and Exchange Commission prosecutor, James Kidney, said that his prosecutions of financial criminals at Goldman Sachs and other giant US banks were blocked by SEC political appointees who “were focused on getting high-paying jobs after their government service.”

In a recent test to ascertain the responsiveness of members of Congress to monied interests in comparison to voters, two letters were sent to congressional offices. One letter asked for the representative to meet with community groups in his district. The other letter asked for the representative to meet with a group of active donors. The latter letter received by far the most responses from members of Congress.

In the US and Europe there is constant propaganda about “gangster state Russia.” According to this propaganda, President Putin is a tool of oligarchs who use Putin to rule Russia and loot the people. In my opinion, this propaganda originates in the Washington-funded NGOs that constitute a US fifth column inside Russia. The purpose of the propaganda is to destroy Putin’s legitimacy and that of his government in hopes of bringing to power a Washington-compliant government in Moscow.

My impression is that the Russian government has curtailed activities of some of the oligarchs who used the privatization era to seize control of resources, but that the government’s actions are consistent with the rule of law. In contrast, in the US oligarchs control the law and use it to acquire immunity from law.

The real gangster state is the US. Every institution is corrupt. Regulators sell protection from law for well-paying jobs in the industries that they are supposed to regulate. The Supreme Court not only permits money to purchase the government but also sells out the Constitution to the police state. The Supreme Court has just refused to hear the case against indefinite detention of US citizens in the absence of due process. This is an unambiguous unconstitutional law, yet the Supreme Court refuses to even hear the case, thus granting unchecked police power to the gangster state. http://rt.com/usa/156172-scotus-ndaa-hedges-obama/

Another defining characteristic of a gangster state is the criminalization of dissent and truth tellers. Washington has done everything in its power to criminalize Julian Assange and Edward Snowden for revealing the US government’s illegal, unconstitutional, and criminal actions. Washington reeks of hypocrisy. On April 26 the State Department announced its third annual Free The Press campaign, a propaganda exercise directed at foreign countries that are not Washington’s puppets. The very same day the Justice Department told the Supreme Court to reject the protection US journalists have under the Constitution against being forced to reveal their confidential sources so that James Risen can be imprisoned for reporting a government misdeed. https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/state-dept-launches-free-press-campaign-while-doj-supreme-court-force-reporter

In the 21st century Washington has squandered trillions of dollars on wars that have destroyed countries and killed, maimed, and displaced millions of people in seven or eight countries. Declaring its war crimes to be a “war on terror,” Washington has used the state of war that it created to destroy US civil liberty.

In the 21st century it is difficult to find a significant statement made by Washington that is not a lie. Obamacare is a lie. Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction is a lie. Assad’s use of chemical weapons is a lie. Iranian nukes are a lie. Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea is a lie. No fly zones are a lie. Russian aggression against Georgia is a lie. 9/11, the basis for Washington’s destruction of civil liberty and illegal military attacks, is itself a lie. The fantastic story that a few Saudi Arabians without government or intelligence agency backing outwitted the entire national security apparatus of the Western world is unbelievable. It is simply not credible that every institution of the national security state simultaneously failed. That Washington would tell such a fantastic lie shows that Washington has no respect for the intelligence of the American people and no respect for the integrity of the American media. It shows also that Washington has no respect for the intelligence and integrity of its European and Asian allies.

Washington won’t even tell the truth about little things in comparison–jobs, unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, economic recovery. Washington rigs the markets in order to cover up its sacrifice of the economy for the benefit of a few special interests. In the name of “privatization,” Washington hands over public assets and government responsibilities to rapacious private interests.

The conclusion is inescapable that the US is a gangster state. Indeed, the US is worse than a mere gangster state. The US is a shameless exploitative tyranny.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/06/gangster-state-america-paul-craig-roberts-2/

 


65

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 09 May 2014 14:21 | #

Arlette Baldacchino:

Running on Norman Lowell’s platform


http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20060527/local/emergence-of-the-new-right.52835

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/voice-of-albion-w-paul-hickman-5-7-14/


66

Posted by wobbly on Sat, 10 May 2014 03:37 | #

some may think Paul Craig Roberts is a bit off his rocker; some may think he’s spot on

Spot on. We’re a long way into the red zone of big lie territory.

If I were an Englishman, there is nothing I would rather see than Scotland going away. Thoughts?

Hard to say.


67

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 May 2014 08:32 | #

Bill,

Was my explanation @62 helpful?


68

Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 May 2014 10:59 | #

Leon @ 67

Bill,

Was my explanation @ 62 helpful?

Yes it was, it is all grist to the mill.  It was remiss of me not include you among my acknowledgements @ 67 for which I now make amends, that goes for anyone else on these threads whom I have omitted.

My problem essentially revolves around the right-left thing.  I too, at one time (in recent years - since alighting here) was persuaded that there was no longer such a thing as right - left.  I’m no longer of that persuasion and have reverted back to the right-left paradigm as my default.

I’ve thought hard and long over this question but have never really been convinced that left and right thinking in politics no longer applies in this modern age.  With me it’s an instinctive belief, one might say almost transcendent (lol).

I think such leanings are in our DNA, in our character, in our personality, it’s not something we choose, we don’t choose the colour of our eyes or hair or even our skin, we’re plonked down on this earth hardwired by nature.  Left leaning or right are not human constructs. (lol)

Right-left politics is only a human construct in terms of dividing people to cause division, it’s the same old divide and conquer, men-women, black-white, Man U - Man city, England-Germany, Red team - Blue team.  The list is endless but those doing the dividing always prosper.

Wobbly @58 came nearest to my thinking but he did not give the two teams an identifying label when he comments.

There is an underlying conflict between those who prefer the state-centric model of hell e.g. 1984 and those who prefer the banking mafia’s corporate model of hell e.g. Metropolis but it’s really a conflict between two sets of sociopaths where one set want power first and money second and the second set want money first and power second.

This is a subject that could run and run, the question for me still remains, is this elite alliance with its global agenda and with my labels attached, Neoliberalism - Cultural Marxism, a left-right thing?  Does the team think this is a this a sound alliance (oops! I forgot Islam,) or like me, think it it an alliance fraught with internal contradictions and liable to fall apart? 

The nub of it for me is, we’ve been press-ganged into a world where language has lost all meaning, words mean now whatever you want them to mean, there are no absolutes, are no truths, all is up for grabs, identity politics victim-hood is the new elites faux hegemony.  It is within this topsy-turvey insane world view all of these conversations are taking place.

Good luck with that one.

Beam me up Scottie.


69

Posted by Robert Reis on Sat, 10 May 2014 11:59 | #

http://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/lizzie-van-zyl/
This is what Lizzie Van Zyl looked like after the British had gotten through with her.


70

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 10 May 2014 14:23 | #

......
Now, to protest White genocide we should partake of “the White man march.”

Why, because it is such a well conceived idea:

- organized

When? oh, any date will do..

A march in protest? Yes, but nobody will be marching.

What will they do? Anything, but holding signs which display that one is a sucker to Jewish language games by arguing against “diversity”, to argue against diversity, that is a good idea: diversity = equals White genocide (not that genetic assimilation by immigration and integration equals genocide).

But it’s not a protest as a protest has a legal status that requires permits.

Who will do it?  Anybody, but try not to bring swastikas along…nothing really wrong with this ancient Aryan symbol nor fundamentally off kilter with the guy who popularized it, but they’ve been so misrepresented by Jewish spin that the unintelligent will never understand how really good they were.

Where? Anywhere.

Never mind.

Its a great cause, with a legal basis, fighting White genocide. Ok, all for that.

But why is this method for fighting White genocide such a good idea?

Because the man behind it holds fast to the good-will of Adolf Hitler.

Now, the Euro DNA Nation, that’s a bad idea. Why? Because the guy behind it does not hold fast to the good-will of Adolf Hitler.

And we don’t want any guilt trips laid on us for Hitler….ok…no problem.

Now, lets go about laying guilt trips on descendents from Allied countries to no end…and call that White Nationalism and fighting White genocide.


71

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 11 May 2014 03:51 | #

the state-centric model of hell e.g. 1984 and those who prefer the banking mafia’s corporate model of hell e.g. Metropolis but it’s really a conflict between two sets of sociopaths where one set want power first and money second and the second set want money first and power second.

Arent they in fact one and the same? Or becoming so anyway.


72

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 May 2014 08:01 | #

Aren’t they in fact one and the same? Or becoming so anyway.

It might be a bit too glib and overly dramatic to say that neoliberal economics and neo-Marxist social policy are the railway tracks that run straight as an arrow into the global labour complex, through the gate marked “Arbeit Macht Frei”.  But, anyway, return to your work.  There’s a hundred skilled migrants banging on the company doors right now, and they’ll all do your job for below the minimum wage.  All that matters to management is the share price, and don’t you forget it.


73

Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 May 2014 09:23 | #

I read in a Telegraph comment section this morning bookies are offering 100 - 1 UKIP winning the 2015 election.

Hmm?  I might have some of that.


74

Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 May 2014 13:56 | #

Things have got a bit blurred lately, not surprising really being that everything we encounter in our daily lives defies gravity.

So this morning it was back to basics, I Googled something like Communism and the culture wars.

Among the avalanche of results I pursued this…

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Cultcommsup.pdf

It is a very readable but lengthy piece, almost of the size of a smallish ebook, for me it hit the spot, sort of sets up all the ducks in a row.

Time well spent


75

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 May 2014 16:19 | #

The purging and persecution of white race-realists from mainstream life continues apace.

30-year New York Times Science Writer Out After Writing Book About Genetics, Race

Nicholas Wade, a British-born science reporter and editor for more than 30 years with The New York Times, is no longer with the newspaper — just days after the release of his latest book, in which he depicts blacks with roots in sub-Saharan Africa as genetically less adapted to modern life than whites and Asians.

Was The New York Times uncomfortable with Wade’s science or his conclusions? It’s unclear. Neither Wade nor his former employer returned requests for comment.

Wade’s last Times article appeared April 24. His Penguin Press book “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” arrived in bookstores on Tuesday, May 6. In excerpts from his book posted by Time.com on Friday, he is identified as a “former science editor” of the Times. Until then, coverage of his book called him a current Times journalist.

Wade’s main thesis is that “human evolution has been recent, copious and regional.” He writes, “Though there is still a large random element, the broad general theme of human history is that each race has developed the institutions appropriate to secure survival in its particular environment.”

Blogs that focus on genetics — in particular those which see racialism as a given of life — have been anticipating the book’s publication since review copies were distributed in mid-winter. Some wondered if it would prove a cultural bombshell — “The Bell Curve” on steroids. That 1994 book argued that racial differences were key to understanding intelligence.

Yet to date, Wade’s book has drawn relatively little attention from the mainstream media and prominent pundits.

In a review on The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, “Bell Curve” co-author Charles J. Murray called the book “historic” for its honesty about racial differences but also questioned some of Wade’s reasoning.

In Slate, Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, said the book’s central theories were “simultaneously plausible and preposterous: plausible in that they snap into place to explain the world as it currently is, preposterous in that I think if he were writing in other time periods, he could come up with similarly plausible, but completely different, stories.”



On his “Marginal Revolution” blog, George Mason University economics professor and regular New York Times contributor Tyler Cowen said he was disappointed with the book — not because he disagreed with its main theses — but because it was not as well-argued as he hoped. Cowen specifically faulted Wade because his “discussion of intelligence and its evolution should have been drenched in the Flynn Effect. It wasn’t.”

The Flynn Effect is a term coined in “The Bell Curve” to describe the volumes of research by New Zealand scholar James R. Flynn showing that IQ scores have been steadily rising around the world for decades, but in an uneven fashion.

Wade’s first book about how genetics have shaped history — “Before the Dawn: Recovering the History of Our Lost Ancestors” — got a largely positive critical response in 2006. The Times’ own review, however, questioned his repeated assertions of the “hard truth” of racial differences.

In “Before the Dawn,” Wade wrote that sub-Saharan Africans were generally less likely to have two alleles — genetic DNA codes — associated with cognitive skills. The book triggered feuding between Wade and anthropologists that continues to this day.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/30-year-new-york-times-science-writer-out-after-writing-book-about-genetics-race/#ixzz31QNdkv9h


76

Posted by wobbly on Sun, 11 May 2014 20:17 | #

@Lurker

Arent they in fact one and the same? Or becoming so anyway.

They’re currently allied because mass immigration suits both. There’s an underlying conflict though which you see flare up from time to time in arguments over banking, tax havens, anti-american vs pro-american etc.

The Marxist vs Banking Mafia conflict is an ideological conflict on the surface but underneath it’s a personality clash between two different types of sociopath imo.

 


77

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 May 2014 11:49 | #

The Sun Has Got His Hat On—Cultural Marxism Has Its Goose-Step On

By Sean Gabb on May 11, 2014

Witch hunts usually run out of steam in one of two circumstances. The first is when the hunters turn on each other. The second is when they make absolute fools of themselves. That has now begun to happen in England.

David Lowe worked for thirty two years as a disk jockey at BBC Radio Devon. He was always popular with his listeners—until recently he committed the ultimate sin.

Read more>>

https://vdare.com/articles/the-sun-has-got-his-hat-on-cultural-marxism-has-its-goose-step-on


78

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 12 May 2014 12:12 | #

FINALLY, a libertarian I really like!

Nigel Farage and UKIP: A Step in the Right Direction

Finally, undepressing news out of England!—what appears to be the imminent breakthrough in the May 22 European Parliamentary elections for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the emergence of its leader, Nigel Farage as the most popular politician in the country. [UKIP leader Nigel Farage “most popular party leader”, says poll, By Asa Bennett, LondonlovesBusiness.com, March 15, 2013] I know some American patriots have preferred the British National Party and are suspicious of what has been called (not without reason) “the Conservative party in exile.” But I believe UKIP is a step in the right direction.

Opinion polls currently suggest that UKIP will win the elections outright—beating the Conservative and Labour Parties, and possibly annihilating the Liberal Democrats. [Ukip soars to top of polls despite Farage ducking byelection battle, by Nicholas Watt and Patrick Wintour, theguardian.com, April 30,2014]

The European Parliament is a body with little real power. Most decisions in the European Union are made by the permanent bureaucracy. Its main rival is the Council of Ministers, an ad hoc committee of politicians from the individual member states. Paradoxically, however, this means the five-yearly Euro-elections have become an opportunity for people to vote for the party they really like.

UKIP results for the past twenty years:

European Parliament
Election year # of total votes % of overall vote # of seats won Rank
1994[173] 155,487 1% 0 8
1999[174] 696,057 6.7% 3 4
2004[175] 2,650,768 16.1% 12 3
2009[176] 2,498,226 16.6% 13 2
Source: Wikipedia

Because of its past and expected success, UKIP has finally been given equal status with the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties by the Main Stream Media and by the Electoral Commission. After its years of virtual blackout, a party flatly opposed to the existing order of things will fight the coming Euro-election as an insider.

The credit for this remarkable achievement belongs to UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage. He stands for EU withdrawal on “Thatcherite” grounds—his economic policies are free trade, low taxes and skeletal regulation. His other policies: secure the borders and deal with illegal or fraudulent immigration; and to restore Britain’s traditional liberties by stripping all Political Correctness out of law and administration.

I have spoken with Farage several times, and watched him speak with others. What he says in private is an abbreviated and more scathing version of what he says in public. UKIP is a force in its own right. But that force is greatly magnified when its leader is a man of conviction.

In contrast, the leaders of the three mainstream parties in Britain are effectively interchangeable. David Cameron (Conservative) is related to the Queen. Ed Miliband (Labour) is an ethnic Jew. Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) is half-Dutch. The differences end there.

All three are rich. They all have the same Politically Correct opinions, and are committed to the same Globalist agenda. In foreign and military policy, they all take their orders from Washington’s neoconservatives. None has had a proper job outside politics and government. They are all patronising liars. Their only meaningful point of difference is over which of them should lead the dance to the off-stage band.

Farage has made UKIP unbeatable in any fair debate. In March and April 2014, Farage took part in two televised debates with Nick Clegg, who as well as leader of the Liberal Democrats is also Deputy Prime Minister. The idea was to put Mr Farage against one of the most intelligent and engaging front men for the Ruling Class, and give the debate maximum coverage. The organizers truly believed that Farage would be revealed as a bag of wind mouthing a few populist slogans.

I cannot imagine what hubris led Clegg to agree. He lost the first round, and was utterly crushed in the second.

But debate is only part of the Ruling Class response. Ignoring UKIP has failed. Arguing with it is failing. Smearing it may still work.

Hence the relentless drumbeat in the MSM of claims that UKIP is filled with racists, sexists, homophobes, general lunatics, sluts—and that Nigel Farage is a bad man in his own right.

In 2006, David Cameron said in a radio interview that “Ukip is sort of a bunch of … fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly.” [Ukip are closet racists, says Cameron, By Jamie Lyons, Independent, April 04, 2006]In 2013, Andrew Feldman, one of Mr Cameron’s university friends, and a close political ally, called UKIP activists “Swivel-eyed loons.”[Ukip sees surge in interest after Tory brands activists swivel-eyed loons, By Rowena Mason, Telegraph, May 19, 2013] Also in 2013, Michael Heseltine—a strong supporter of the EU and one of the backstabbers who helped bring Margaret Thatcher down in 1990—called UKIP a “racist party”—“Of course it’s racist, who doubts that? Farage isn’t racist but his party is very attractive to a racist agenda.” [Ukip is a racist party, says Heseltine, By Christopher Hope, Telegraph, October 02 2013]

Every utterance made on the internet by any minor UKIP activist or candidate is now being trawled by the MSM for evidence of Political Incorrectness. Thus one has been pilloried for calling Islam an “organized crime under religious camouflage”, another for suggesting that Nigerians can be criminals. [Ukip local elections candidates’ ‘racist’ language is exposed, Eveing Standard, May 1, 2014.] Godfrey Bloom, a UKIP member of the European Parliament, was reported to have called the Third World “bongo bongo land.” [Godfrey Bloom: ‘Bongo Bongo Land’ Should Not Get Aid, Ukip Launch Investigation Into MEP’s Rant, By Tom Moseley, Huffington Post UK July 8, 2013] A UKIP local councilor was given national coverage when he suggested that the winter floods were God’s punishment for allowing the sin of gay marriage. [UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage, BBC, January 19, 2014[

Nigel Farage in particular has been subjected to repeated and vicious attack. The MSM filled with claims that he fiddles his expenses in the European Parliament that he is an adulterer [Could Nigel Farage’s ‘weakness for women’ be his Achilles’ heel?, by Andrew Pierce, MailOnline March 14, 2014] and that he runs UKIP as a tyrant.[ UKIP: Nigel, Kirsten & Annabelle Fuller Junius on UKIP, March 19, 2014.]

Some of this may be true. But nothing reported comes close to showing that UKIP or its members are preaching violence against homosexuals and ethnic minorities, or calling for Christian theocracy. The words reported are either fair comment—or used to be part of the common currency of politics when England was a free country.

As for Farage, no one is perfect. Establishment politicians mostly lead private lives of astonishing squalidness. And the only alternative to autocracy in a political party is rule by monomaniacs with a partiality to five hour committee meetings. Mr Farage tyrannizes over UKIP, and good luck to him, in my view.

In any case, the smears have failed. UKIP remains on target to win the European elections. Wherever he goes, Farage draws bigger crowds than the Prime Minister.[ Nigel Farage says UKIP could cause an ‘earthquake’ in British politics, By Natalie Robinson, Cambridge News, May 3, 2014.]

One criticism is worth dealing with: that UKIP and Farage are not sufficiently nationalist.

My simple answer: I like economic liberalism and middle class patriotism. My longer answer: the defeat of Political Correctness is the first step to overthrowing the present order of things. After that, we can argue about what comes next.

For this, UKIP is a more powerful opposition movement than the BNP ever was.

Economic liberalism and civic nationalism are the default prejudices of the English mind. For all it tried to reach out, the BNP was always an exotic import in terms of ideology. For all it has tried to live down its past—for all, perhaps, it has rejected it—its leaders may be too compromised by what they said and did before about 2000.

UKIP has no inconvenient baggage. And, if pan-nationalism is to have any meaning, it must surely allow every people to express its nationality in its own way. The French and Germans must have their national statism. America must have its constitutional purism behind trade barriers.

Let us Brits have our warmed-over Victorian liberalism.

We shall see which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Backand his novel The Churchill Memorandumand other works can be purchased through Amazon.co.uk.  For his account of the Property and Freedom Society`s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.

Sean Gabb’s novel,The Break, comes out in e-book on the 2nd June 2014. You can read the first 20 per cent for free.


79

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 13 May 2014 09:11 | #

Hey, did you know that Donald Sterling was .......... JEWISH??!!

Man, I’m behind the times, but I haven’t seen anyone mention this.

I still don’t like the PC brouhaha over his very moderate comments, but this does kind of put things in a different light.


80

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 13 May 2014 12:01 | #

Leon@79

It just proves that in the minds of the radical left, ideology trumps all.

As a side note, isn’t it a bit ironic that a jew named Silver threw a jew named Sterling under the bus?



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..
Previous entry: The politics of culture - Part 2

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:24. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:16. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:58. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:34. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:11. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:20. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:29. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:38. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:54. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:47. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:44. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What lies at the core' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:19. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:34. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:53. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:04. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:35. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:44. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 06:48. (View)

affection-tone