|
|
|
Griffin, Moslem Grooming and a “misinterpreted” article Today Sean Thomas, the Daily Telegraph blogger, journalist and, under a pseudonym, author, posted a piece about the latest case of Moslem Grooming, this time in Oxford. It was titled “Oxford gang rape: did people ignore this sort of scandal because racist Nick Griffin was the first to mention them?” The article skips through a little of the history of the offence before arriving, in the last two paragraphs, at the efforts made by Nick Griffin to raise consciousness of it and shame the police into action:
Comments on the article were disabled. But appalled commenters raised the concerns on an unrelated thread, myself among them. Thomas let it be known via a tweet that his original article had been doctored by a DT editor but it had since been amended. It was still bloody awful, obviously. So I emailed him to tell him so:
Somewhat to my surprise Thomas replied, beginning by saying that, “I respect your opinion, and position, even if I disagree with much of it. However I do not have time to enter into a long debate.” He then went on to explain that his blog had been misinterpreted, or perhaps he had just not made a clear case. But what he was trying to say was that Nick Griffin’s reputation attached to his work on the Moslem Grooming issue, and “made it easy for the Establishment to ignore the truth of what he was saying”. I think this is most unlikely. Many desperate young girls - victims of these paedophiles - escaped their captors long enough to report their situation to the police and social services. They were uniformly ignored, an attitude that prevailed over a period of a decade at the very least. In one case, social workers told parents that their daughter was simply choosing a life of prostitution. This wasn’t happening because the BNP had got hold of the issue and was campaigning on it. It happened because the professionals involved had a deeply perverse sense of values and were derelict in their duty of care. We are not out of the woods yet. I’ve lost count of the number of prosecutions since Heywood, and the police are now actively looking out for this type of offence. But the racist nature of it is still denied. Two days ago I watched an interview at the end of Channel 4 News in which Jon Snow (who has an African wife), a concerned Moslem “community leader”, and a Jewish woman named Sue Berlowicz, apparently the “deputy children’s commissioner” and a woman who is compiling an official report on organised child abuse, all agreed that racism played no part in proceedings. Doubtless that judgement would not extend to a white gang that targeted Moslem children. Probably the police would want to know if they were BNP members, too. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 May 2013 08:38 | # Last night Allison Pearson posted an opinion piece on Moslem Grooming, taking a much more honest and robust line: And comments are open. Pearson still talks about teaching Moslem children Western values, as if we want to host these populations forever, and could survive if we do. Currently there are 1430 comments in the thread, and they are falling like rain. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 May 2013 08:45 | # t&p, And on Question Time our hero was reduced to telling the nation that he “didn’t know” why he once believed that the Holocaust never happened. He was turned into a liar right there precisely because the ground is too damned hard for any mere politician to water. 4
Posted by Dude on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:17 | # “He was turned into a liar right there precisely because the ground is too damned hard for any mere politician to water.” As I have suggested in another guise and in another time, political parties need a political warfare department. Anything can be said, it just depends on how it is said. Not expecting certain questions and having a suitable reply is really unforgivable. The media time ‘fairly’ allocated towards unfavoured perspectives is only allowed because the participant is put into a hot seat and bombarded with accusations. They are not asked about their opinions on current topics. Also seeing the DT threads and other online news and commentary sites, demonstrates that the same arguments are generally voiced and responded to in perpetuity, even when the good have the upper hand as on the DT presently. In due course I would suggest a Wiki style page, entitled perhaps http://www.strawman.co to comprehensively refute the usual suspect arguments. Then instead of answering, you can just direct people to: strawman.co/your-silly-reply.html The ‘Snappy responses’ page here, does not quite achieve the same result, having a different aim. 5
Posted by Bill on Thu, 16 May 2013 10:10 | # I think it was Wandrin (sp?) who maintained on these threads that no matter the circumstances, no matter who was right or wrong, whether it was factual or moral, the left would be forever stamping on the face of the right. This vile case under discussion proves Wandrin was correct. Zero tolerance to the right in the future will mean something entirely different. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 May 2013 10:23 | # At 11.18 am this morning the thread to Allison Pearson’s article, with about 1700 comments, disappeared. No “comments are closed”, with the thread in tact. No attempt to moderate along PC lines. Nothing. No sign that a thread ever existed. The righteous anger of our people is still too difficult for the media to accommodate. They are only makes things worse. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 16 May 2013 14:20 | # From the connotations as weapons category: groom verb transitive verb 8
Posted by anon. on Thu, 16 May 2013 14:50 | # I never knew that the orange socks man had an African wife. 9
Posted by jrackell on Thu, 16 May 2013 20:02 | # Weren’t Channel 4 going to run an expose on Moslem peadophile rings targeting white girls just a few days before the local council elections when the BNP were gaining a lot of popular support, sometime around 2004 or 2006? I think the documentary did air at some point. Griffin couldn’t have been the only one knowing about these crimes; obviously people were coming forward to tell him after having exhausted every other channel. Standing up for your community, which Griffin was doing, gets you political legitimacy. Everybody in the “right-thinking” Establishment knows that and they didn’t want to give Griffin any political legitimacy, so they forsook these girls and let the crimes continue. Somebody was giving orders to the police to ignore the issue. The Establishment was complicit in these crimes because they had foreknowledge of them and were letting them continue so they could deny Griffin political advantage. Thomas is confessing he knew about the crimes but was pwned to play the game against Griffin. Very eloquent post, GW. Thought your questions got to the meta issue a bit early, which kind of let him off the hook specifically about his own negligence in not investigating the abuse. 10
Posted by Morgoth on Thu, 16 May 2013 20:29 | # I saw something interesting today. In the Canteen, this morning, a lad walked in and said, loud and clear for 20 people to hear (in Geordie) ‘’ Has anyone seen what those Paki bastards have been doing to white lasses?’‘ Once upon a time there would have been a tut or a calming remark from the more Liberal minded, but there was nothing at all. Its not just that they have given up trying to appear smarter than others by defending Muslims, its embarrassing for them to even try. Ed West who pushed the envelope pretty far at times has just written his last piece for the Telegraph, ending a rather cryptic post with ‘‘So thank you, and I will continue somewhere the struggle against cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Lib-Lab-Con, Common Purpose, Gramscian hegemony and reality in general. And remember, if you think things are bad, they can always get worse, and probably will.’‘ I’m starting to wonder just what he wrote in his recent book ‘‘The Diversity Illusion: What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set It Right’‘ 11
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 16 May 2013 21:32 | # A counter point to “the BNP made us cover it up” line is “so you admit the political establishment deliberately covered it up then?” 12
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 17 May 2013 02:57 | # Dude - I was intending to do a better version snappy responses/come backs//thread wars page here. Listing stuff I’ve used, or seen used effectively. I would like comments and suggestions here, to hone and edit where necessary for maximum effect. And of course people to contribute any good ones they have. Obviously the they could certainly be re-used in your strawman page. Linking to that kind of page can work but better to reference directly, most people dont seem to follow links. Of course I have done it yet, mundane reality keeps intruding, but it will happen. Saw a great one at the DT recently, I paraphrase: Race Replacer: We have always been a nation of immigrants. Our Guy: So that means we are already diverse and thus we dont need any more immigration. Bang. Straight in the back of the net! (Or touchdown if you prefer) Thats what we need, a ton of those. 13
Posted by ukn_leo on Fri, 17 May 2013 11:50 | # State what we do want rather than having the lefties yelling we are just nazisthatwanttokillsixmillionJews. “Nationalists do NOT want to abuse your children” 14
Posted by Dude on Fri, 17 May 2013 16:41 | # Hey Lurker You may be right on that (not clicking through to a refutation). That is at least, until the site has more credence as a rebuttal source. Then the lack of a click-through will be synonymous with an intellectual challenge unmet. I kind of envisioned it as both a rebuttal source and as a reservoir of concise intellectual arguments and perspectives for the nourishment of people on our side. A wiki set-up allowing wide scale contributions and also a wide array of perspectives to have an extended reach. That is what I meant above by it having a different aim to ‘snappy refutations’, which acts more like a grenade box, providing ready armament to use in a skirmish. Maybe complementary. As with you, the humdrum and the inconsequential conspire to prevent any attempts towards fulfillment. I will though start to utilise Google Docs to keep a list of the most common arguments of the enemy to be answered. 15
Posted by Jon on Fri, 17 May 2013 19:15 | # James: “From the connotations as weapons category: groom verb transitive verb 3 Exactly. It makes it sound like they’re giving the girls stylish haircuts or putting them on a fast track for a corporate management position. They’re hyper-euphemistic when it comes to vibrants and hyper-dysphemistic when it comes to anyone white who has a sense of peoplehood. 16
Posted by CFE on Fri, 17 May 2013 19:40 | # Lurker: I think we should take ownership of the words “racist”, and “racism”. It’s a Pavlovian trigger. It’s one of the enemy’s most powerful weapons. It means nothing, yet it can mean whatever the MIWL or YKW using it wants it to mean. As long as we defend against the charge, we are on the back foot. We should neutralise their weapon.
“I want my people to live, so I guess I’m a racist.” “I care more about my family, and extended family, which makes me a racist.” “I’m racist - I understand and appreciate HBD” “Of course I’m racist - everybody is racist. I just don’t pretend otherwise to look good. It’s biology, after all.” “I want less violent crime, less rape, less welfare, more social capital, so yes I’m racist.” “Forcing integration brings out the natural racist in everyone.” “When did you stop being a racist, and why?” (Good for ‘antiwaycists’) How about: “I don’t condemn antiwhite racism - it’s natural to defend your EGI. They are going to do it with or without our approval. I just say that we need to do it too.” “These idiots going on about antiwhite racism fail to recognise that it’s natural to defend ones EGI.” “Those Ashkenazi are so smart - no wonder they’re so racist.”
We all know who coined the words, and why. To deny it is to play into their hands. 17
Posted by CFE on Fri, 17 May 2013 20:38 | # Further to the above: I understand that a former poster here, Fred Scrooby, activated the term “race replacement”, which was then popularised by others here, and is now widely used. This was an important achievement. It seems to me that the senior intellects here should develop and define a matrix of definitions of the word “racist”. “Racist” - in the sense that I believe the races have different characteristics.
My point is, that to be able to make people think about what “racism” actually means, to deconstruct the meaning, and to control the deconstruction, is the right project to build on the solid mental foundations of the “race replacement” meme. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 17 May 2013 20:50 | # “racism”‘s meaning isn’t constructed, it is conflated. 19
Posted by CFE on Fri, 17 May 2013 21:03 | # OK - should you and the other uberbrights spend a little energy de-conflating “racism”‘s meaning in order to clarify and make real its meaning to Euroman? 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 17 May 2013 21:14 | # “Antiracism is a white genetic defect.” No, really, I mean it. It is a genetic defect. Do you think a large percentage of ANY other race worries if it is being offensive to other races? And note how the antiracist ‘meme’ has infected nearly the entire white world, even in places which never had a thing to do with real racism (eg, Lister’s beloved Denmark). This is not “Jewish brainwashing”, or “liberal modernity”, or similar phrases with limited explanatory value. Racial utopianism appeals to a larger percentage of whites than it does to other races (yet another proof, as it were, of fundamental racial differentiation - which we know exists even without having as yet identified all the genes or chemical processes leading to political beliefs). That is all we really need to know. None of you will ever defeat this utopianism via either science or (heehee ... cough cough) ‘ontology’. It will only be defeated by a changed ethical philosophy reaching that subset of whites which is innately indisposed to racial utopianism, but nevertheless confused about the morality of taking coercive measures in support of white racial survival. I remain constantly and sincerely surprised that what I have just written is considered anything other than obvious. That it is so is yet another example of the frequent observed disjunction between intelligence and wisdom. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00 | # The genetic defect of “whites” is the inability to wipe the excrement off of the principle of individualism with which the aggressive hypocrisy of group-oriented genotypes has smeared it. Look, its simple: If you’re a gang and you want to take stuff from a bunch of individuals, your first resort is to gang up on them one at a time until you have all their stuff. There’s no hypocrisy in this—its just the pure eat-or-be-eaten evolution characteristic of pre-sexual organisms. This is the virtue of the Chinese approach to forming dragons: Its honest. This was also the virtue of the pre-JudeoChristian dragons of the west. However, if an honest dragon runs into a culture of individual integrity that is too populous, eventually the alarm will go out that a dragon must be slain and, precisely because individual integrity results in high-trust contracts, the individuals can apply the full power of reason to creating a temporary counter-dragon that, because of its greater integrity, can defeat the invading dragon. After a while, a “dead zone” or “no mans land” evolves, so there can be a peaceful territory segregated from the cultures of biological (as opposed to contractual) group integrity, beyond which there be dragons. The only way to penetrate this defense is hypocrisy: Jesus Christ becomes the archetype of “the individual” and is the Christian “ticket” upon which free-rides the Judeo culture of biological group integrity as exemplified by Moses when he called to his side those that agreed with him and immediately ordered them to violate the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” by ordering them to slay all those who disagreed with the “fiery serpent” he was forming out in the desert. Now that they’re throwing off the “Christian” aspect, they’re replacing it with garbage like “Lockean” excrement or, worse, Austrian School excrement. Naturally moderately perceptive people are revolted by “individualism”. The less perceptive are simply taken in by such “individualism” and are food for the biological culture of group integrity. 22
Posted by Silver on Sat, 18 May 2013 00:37 | # No, really, I mean it. It is a genetic defect. Do you think a large percentage of ANY other race worries if it is being offensive to other races? “Macroracially,” no, but “microracially,” yes, very much so. Most other populations are substantially more mixed than whites, and they are concerned about racial sensitivity with respect to the small differences that make up the core of their ethnicity. The more someone diverges from that core, the more concern about insensitivity lessens. For example, I can find you plenty of Brazilians and Mexicans only too happy to disparage “pure” (pure-looking) negroids and indios, but who at the same time consider it unseemly to disparage someone only slightly racially differentiated from themselves. There aren’t any hard and fast rules, but as far as I can tell it seems to work itself out fairly consistently. I don’t know that what whites are up to these days really qualifies as “racial utopianism” (save for a small handful of far left lunatics). Much like Latin American “cosmic race” idealism, it’s just taking the path of least resistance. Racial mixing as opposed to racial purity has the virtue of being possible or easy or inevitable, so if one just reorients one’s view from considering it racial destruction to considering it a form of racial creation one can feel good about the product and good about the future. Considering mixing a negative and attempting to achieve racial purity in a society already as mixed up as latin America, on the other hand, is all but the political equivalent of unbaking a cake, and would surely lead to endless frustration, hopelessness and despair. As the USA and other white countries have traveled further down this road these attitudes have become increasingly prominent among whites too. There is one other factor, though, that also feeds into white antiracism. Whites seem to love one-upping each other with flamboyant displays of racial sensitivity. I think this behavior has its root in the keen awareness of racial difference that whites possess. They may lack an innate sense of racial solidarity, but not of racial awareness. All whites possess this awareness, from antiracist loonie to raging nutzi; they both possess it, but part ways in what they do with it. Whereas the nutzi uses it as a weapon to hurt other races (or wants to use it as such), the white antiracist uses it as a weapon to hurt his own race. And whereas the white social climber in days gone by might have socially displayed a “racism” he didn’t particularly feel, the white social climber of today is only too willing to improve his standing in society by burying his competitors with the charge of “racism,” no matter his own private feelings about other races. Obviously a group’s political leaders behaving in such a fashion would make it exceedingly difficult to gain recognition of even minimal white racial political concerns, and that is exactly what we observe. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 18 May 2013 05:49 | # Silver@22 Sounds like former race-realist Ian Jobling’s “competitive altruism” thesis. Perhaps true for some, but I stand by what I said. I think a lot of whites really do care about combatting the “evil” of racism, and I think that trait is a derivative of the general, superior, and innate white ethicality. It is an ethics that I believe is profoundly unnecessary, and perhaps even itself unethical, but is sincerely held. I’ve had many a vicious racial argument over the years with white antiracists, under conditions in which they easily and at no social cost have revealed their true “racial colors”, if they were mere social climbers. The issue is why it might be the “path of least resistance” for whites to acquiesce in their own racial dispossession. One can blame Jewish MSM control, but then the issue becomes how that was allowed to happen. Anyway you slice and dice, whites seem to have less innate attachment to their own race than others races have to theirs. Indeed, by your ‘go along / get along’ view, wouldn’t it be so much easier for American blacks to be antiracist wrt their own ranks? Given their considerable outnumberment, and the advantages accruing to those who successfully integrate into white society, surely they would be the first to disparage black nationalism? But the reality is very different. Blacks don’t criticize black racists because they have a huge, innate attachment to their own race. Whites, within their present, corrupted moral paradigms, are uniquely unfitted for existance under multiracial conditions. 24
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 18 May 2013 06:15 | # On another note: Did y’all catch this? What a disgrace! A real conservative father, if he had an ounce of guts, would have boycotted his disrespectful daughter’s wedding. Boehner probably paid for the whole thing. I would disown her, if she be mine. 25
Posted by Zeke on Sat, 18 May 2013 06:55 | # The story of Moses and the serpents appears to be one of a refutation of sacral kingship in ancient Israel. It suggests that individuals take responsibility for their sins, no longer relying on kinship or lords to compensate for their wrongdoings, but look to God for forgiveness and atonement. This is the saga of the Latin Roman church in N. Europe. An organisation that Fraser suggests advocated that “the rational order of the universe suggests that sin always be punished” conceiving the relations between God and man as legal relations placed in “the framework of rights and duties and moulded into a Roman jurisprudential legal framework”. The culture of Germanic oral law and its tradition of the personal and subjective was undermined and replaced in the secular realm by the notion of Roman res publica imbedded in the Twelve Tables. 26
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 May 2013 07:20 | # ... It is the wish for objective innocence or objective power, its narrative pursuit in individual distinction that has Whites so easily copping to the anti-racist bullshit. I agree with those who say our creativity has been perverted as such, and would add that that creativity stems from our optimal level of sublimation. It also makes us susceptible to insecurity and guilt trips: hence the susceptibilty to prove that we are not racists and to yes, climb socially, by showing how objectively powerful and innocent we are by espousing anti-racism. By espousing individualism we hope to appear innocent of group bias, of revealing our relative interests and dependence - by which we appear weak and guilty indeed. We may be genetically susceptible to that because of our optimal sublimation and creativity, but we did not create the narratives and rules which called for our reaction (quest for pure objectivism) and its instigation, the Jewish narratives of Christianity, Marxism, PC, Austrian school, neo-con Zionist warring, etc. I don’t think our individual competence will be lost as we emphasize our need to cooperate. If Whites are doing anti-racism because they think it is what moral, powerful, smart and cool people do, then the next step is to promulgate narratives which demonstrate that smarter people, smarter individuals, are thinking about things very differently. 27
Posted by Jon on Sat, 18 May 2013 08:28 | # “Political Correctness” is arguably among the most ingenious marketing/propaganda formulations ever devised. It of course, as with most Orwellian language, inverts reality. But “PC” recursively deems itself “correct”. Here, in order even to refer to what you’re talking about, one must repeat for the umpteen billionth time a fallacious judgement about phrase’s referent. Not to fear, I’ve come up with a replacement that describes what we’re really talking about: “prescribed canard”. Now, if someone utters or types some inanity like, “we’re all the same under the skin”, you don’t have to unwittingly agree that he’s “correct” anymore. I ask anyone who opposes what is referred to with “pc” to spread this revised meme far and wide. 28
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 May 2013 09:31 | # Personally, I would not deny the label of “racist” applied to myself, would rather defiantly wear it like a pirate flag. Where I would take issue, however, is with the definition and implications of the term. I certainly would not go the route that David Duke has gone of late - charging others with racism: viz. calling Jews the true racists. Similar as criticizing Israel for not being liberal, this is to legitimize and universalize terms of criticism that are poison to us: anti-racism and non-discriminatory, open borders liberalism. 29
Posted by wobbly on Sat, 18 May 2013 10:14 | # CFE
Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white. 30
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 May 2013 10:40 | # Anti-racism is anti-social classifications and discrimination on the basis thereof. Of course it is basically enforced against Whites. So, it is legitimate to call it a code word for anti-White. Though that will not be the best argumentative angle to take in all circumstances. It is anti-social classification: and that is why you might hear absurd statements such as discrimination against homosexuals is “racism” (by a black kid in Craig Bodeker’s film); or a scientific department measuring and taxonomizing groups of people charged with “racism” Anti-racism is anti-classification and judgments made on its basis, which is both impossible and immoral for reasons of accountability, ecology, protecting developmental processes and more.
31
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 May 2013 11:12 | # LH@24 Yes I caught that and posted it on the Culture and the Death of God thread along with this gem: [ http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-paul-ryan-now-backs-adoption-children-homosexuals ] but somehow it disappeared along with the last 40 comments on that thread. I also posted a comment on that thread stating in no uncertain terms that whites DO have a genetic defect that causes them/us to be maladaptive in a multiracial environment. It’s too obvious to ignore. WRT being called racist: whites are afraid of being called racist because when confronted with that charge, they are forced into the position of proving otherwise. If they fail to prove otherwise their reputation and or careers are damaged to one degree or another. From my perspective, what we are witnessing is a proverbial bloodlust sport. People love to see other people destroyed—especially if they hold opposing political or religious views. Call it schadenfreude if you will. Moreover, in this day and age of political correctness, what easier way is there to destroy a white person’s reputation/carreer than to label him or her a racist or white supremacist? None other that I can think of. Lastly, every white anti “anti-racist” absolutely hates and mocks the dictates of “anti-racism” and the rules of political correctness; but at the end of the day, they are terrified by those dictates and rules thus they begrudgingly but quietly abide by them…............lest they be thrown to the lions…..... 32
Posted by Morgoth on Sat, 18 May 2013 11:21 | # One aspect I found interesting in this ‘‘grooming’’ case is the Pakistani who told a 13 year old girl not to tell her parents because they would be racist towards Asians. Its highly likely that he would have been correct, a working class couple in their 30’s or 40’s probably would’ve been ‘‘racist’’ in the sense that they knew the danger of a Pakistani man hanging around with their daughter, or rather, they antenna were in healthy working order. It is obvious non whites are, literally, taking full advantage of this word weapon of mass destruction. So what is the central cause of its power? I see people making the claim that there is a biological weakness in white people towards out group altruism or that the universality of Christianity is to blame, then of course we have political correctness. If we could break this down in pie chart form what would be the percentage or size of each representative segment?. Personally I’m of the opinion PC is to blame for around 95% of the problem, and that most whites don’t even buy into it internally but are bullied by it externally. The people who went through university or higher education almost always come out of it as anti whites, they then move on to positions of power to enforce their ideas onto the rest. If we have a special weakness in our biology then it certainly didn’t stop us having a healthy ethnocentric outlook in the past, and when we colonized and ruled the earth. And that would go for the ‘‘Christianity made us pussy’s’’ idea, too. But I’m open to ideas… 33
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 18 May 2013 11:29 | # Correction: at the end of the day, they are terrified by the perceived consequences should they be caught transgressing those dictates….... 34
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 18 May 2013 15:32 | # DanielS, you’re among the moderately perceptive. You continue to smear excrement on “individualism” not realizing that if an “individual” is not free to make and act on generalizations that he authentically perceives to be true, “individualism” is meaningless. “Individualism” is a moral defense against “racism”, not because a truly free individual refuses to engage in behavior that may get him labeled a “racist” but because by conflating meanings under the word, those accusations hold no moral meaning. This brings up the ontology of “freedom” which, I submit, has more to do with the term “degrees of freedom” in statistics than it does in the excrement-smearing meaning assigned under which an advocate of “freedom” must mean that the ideal is that an individual radically self-creates by, for instance, denying his biology. No, by “degree of freedom” in statistics we are talking about sampling a population for some purpose which, in the case of the biological individual, is to express with the greatest integrity his or her genotype as measured by Natural selection. 35
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 18 May 2013 15:52 | # Zeke, it is quite clear that the “fiery serpents” referred to in in The Bible are “dragons” and it is equally clear that this term is used throughout Eurasia to refer to openly aggressive group entities. Fraser failed to understand this central feature of prehistory hence his entire mythological analysis fails at its foundation. 36
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 18 May 2013 16:44 | # Posted by James Bowery on May 18, 2013, 10:32 AM | # DanielS, you’re among the moderately perceptive. You continue to smear excrement on “individualism”
It is clearly problematic as an emphasis in particular as we attempt to defend ourselves as a group against other groups. I try to deal with that. I don’t really believe that our becoming eusocial is a more significant threat at this point and perhaps not ever. I recognize that you value the sovereign and competent White individual as paramount. Though I think that’s well and good, and can see cooperating with that value, it is a bit hard for me to deal with as I try to advocate and prescribe cooperation for those Whites who deserve advocacy, i.e., those who will fight or at least align with other White people in defense. Obviously advocating cooperation is a different concern than individualism.
not realizing that if an “individual” is not free to make and act on generalizations that he authentically perceives to be true, “individualism” is meaningless. I’m not perfectly sure what you mean here, but I doubt it because it does not sound like the kind of mistake that I would make. “Individualism” is a moral defense against “racism”, not because a truly free individual refuses to engage in behavior that may get him labeled a “racist” but because by conflating meanings under the word, those accusations hold no moral meaning. It is not the only reason why people gravitate toward individualism, of course, but it is one way to adopt the narrative of innocence and power as sanctioned by the powers of the West.
But again, I’m not 100 percent clear on your concern with conflation. To me it is clear: anti-racism is anti-social classification and the making of judgments and separatisms on the basis of those classifications. I agree and realize that there are conflations with other definitions in racism - e.g. supremacism.
That sounds like something I can agree with not something I would put excrement on. Graham would be more hostile, but I understand his emphasis against liberal individualism. I guess that you are advocating collapse of the structures that would link and support parasites to the detriment of the more sovereign and competent, with the idea that the latter will do better in the wake of the collapse. Its a theory that may be true and good. However, I believe that there are other ways to fight, perhaps cooperative and leaving less to chance. No, by “degree of freedom” in statistics we are talking about sampling a population for some purpose which, in the case of the biological individual, is to express with the greatest integrity his or her genotype as measured by Natural selection. I don’t have a problem with that. 37
Posted by wobbly on Sat, 18 May 2013 19:01 | # Morgoth
For humans “out-group altruism” starts at the edge of extended family not race or nation. Another way of looking at it is to see “race” starting at the level of extended family. Looked at in these terms White people having larger amounts of out-group altruism isn’t a weakness in homogenous white nations because altruism extending beyond the extended family allows extreme levels of voluntary co-operation *within* the nation thus creating an unusually high surplus of public goods - hence why everyone else wants to come and live in homogenous white nations thus destroying that homogeneity and eventually the great surplus of public goods. The majority of most other populations* only extend altruism beyond their extended family in-group to their tribe or nation in times of war or when they’re living as a minority within a majority population. That’s why most of their countries suck and they’ll all (all groups not all individuals) at least partially free-ride in homogenous white nations. The weakness is only a weakness while it is not consciously understood. It didn’t need to be understood when white countries were homogenous and now it does but once you understand what that “weakness” actually is and does you can see it’s actually Horus’ Green Goddess - White Devil voodoo - the source of White strength. (*NE Asians are maybe a separate category here as they seem to have developed their own way of getting past the extended family in-group limit.) 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 May 2013 23:40 | # Morgoth, I am increasingly attracted to the idea that intra-group conflict is used to define the weak lines of identity in the absence of the powerful and authentic connective environment of our evolutionary past. Thus we have naturally arising (and therefore perfectly legitimate) tribal proxies such as class loyalty, local and regional loyalties, loyalty to social groups (football clubs, say), the workplace loyalties of the heavy-industrial past, etc; but operating within and alongside we also have a manufactured line of conflict. By manufactured I don’t simply mean the coercion of opinions. I am getting at something behind that, which, ultimately, I would finger as the condition of the early Christian as the universalised gentile Other, loaded down with the entirely foreign notion of Original Sin, with belief instead of experience, and turned through 180 degrees to confront his own nature. That’s where I think it comes from. As we should all know well, it reaches us down to us through the Catholic humanist, then Renaissance neoplatonic, then classical liberal, then Marxist, then neo-Marxist ideological periods. It is not, of course, the whole of what those ideologies are about, but it is indivisible from them; and it tears at the fabric of the recovering European identity. James, You did a nice job of explicating the Jewish angle through the lens of esoteric/exoteric. How about fitting out individualism for the same treatment? In particular, what happens to the notion of the individual when we place it on the continuum between consciousness and mechanicity? 39
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 19 May 2013 02:28 | # Status - seeking Whites have learned what type of political thought on racial matters raises their status (viz., concern for non - Whites) and what type lowers their status (viz., concern for their own race) and a sea - change in this suicidally insane mindset will be difficult to effect. 40
Posted by Zeke on Sun, 19 May 2013 02:45 | # James, The point is not if the biblical serpents were ‘dragons’, it is that the Roman dragon came north twice, once forced upon the Celts by the armies of Caesar, (Harland p.64), but repelled by Arminius upon the banks of the Elbe and secondly with the Latin Catholic church. Fraser’s point is that Judeo-Christianity did not undermine the Germanic tradition of sacral kingship, for as Harland suggests Jesus too was a conqueror of groupism. “The morality that individuals may be guided by the holy spirit within them” did not change the magico-religious relationship the Germanic king held with his people. Fraser is simply suggesting the inherent conflict in Christianity between the transcendent and the immanent led to the Catholic Church presenting itself as the essential intermediary between heaven and earth. This disrobed “practical political authority of its religious function and character, reserving the spiritual realm to the province of the church”. Harland suggests that (p.67) the Church commanded obedience from its spiritual community by insisting upon their provenance for interpreting the meaning of the holy spirit relied upon their authority as representatives of the church. In other words their authority derived from church law and that law was based upon the serpentine nature, the word-construct that was Roman jurisprudence. 42
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 19 May 2013 11:14 | # Al Ross makes a good point too @ 39. He is right about the status seekers. But he leaves open the question on how to effect change in the suicidal mindset. There are no good answers to that question, only a simplistic solution with a very complex messy process: a return to racially segregated communities. But what chance do we have in accomplishing that? Less than slim to none, I approximate. Hell, we can’t even stop the massive influx of new non-white immigrants into our white homelands let alone legislate then enforce resegregation policies! Let’s face it, the ruling class has us firmly on the ground with a jack-boot crushing our necks! That said, Wobbly is right. White peoples’ altruistic outreach works fantastically at building great civilizations in a white homogeneous population. This altruistic trait, I beleive, has been acquired through natural selection/evolution; hence it is a genetically based behavioral trait hard wired in most whites’ DNA. The down side of that specific trait is it has proven to be extremely maladaptive in a multiracial environment. We see the results of such unfold on a daily basis. One more thing: I hear allot of talk about individualism being a bad thing ... that it’s somehow bad for white people. I say BULLSHIT! The fact is all normal white people strive for and embrace individualism/liberty. That too is hard wired in Euroman. I get the impression many here don’t know the difference between individualism and selfishness. Selfish individuals have a negative effect on society whilst UNselfish individuals help build great civilizations. Furthermore, it is under a capitalist system that unselfish individuals flourish. When UNselfish individuals flourish, everyone benifits. How do we form a moral foundation within a culture that allows for unselfish individuals to flourish? I’ll answer that at another time. But then again, the answer is all too obvious. A little reading of European history answers that question. 43
Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 19 May 2013 13:37 | # @ GW AND Wobbly Yes, much food for thought there. In order to understand this further it would be helpful to look at other peoples and consider whether they too showed traits or had cultural baggage that would lead to where they are today. For example, did ancient Chinese philosophy predestine the Chinese so that they would end up living in their peculiar communistic collective? can you trace the current back to ancient Chinese thought. The same could be asked of Arabs. This idea actually strengthens the case for Europeans being cursed with some sort of ‘‘Nice Gene’’ because we didn’t self correct as our altruism grew more and more destructive. 44
Posted by wobbly on Sun, 19 May 2013 19:17 | # Morgoth
Well we were in the process of self-correcting in the period 1880-1920 with the birth of racial science. A lot of the early stuff may have been bogus guesswork but left alone eventually it would have led to self-correction. That process was conciously blocked by the Jews via Boas and the blank slate. Both components are necessary: White nature and Jewish manipulation. 45
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 20 May 2013 02:22 | # How do we form a moral foundation within a culture that allows for unselfish individuals to flourish? I’ll answer that at another time. But then again, the answer is all too obvious. A little reading of European history answers that question. Do we have to even guess that the idiot Thorn is going to keep attempting to install the fifth column of the Jewish playbook, Christianity? You go commit suicide Thorn. Don’t you dare try to teach it to our White children. We will not look the other way. 46
Posted by Robert Reis on Mon, 20 May 2013 03:43 | # Western civilization died at Stalingrad.
“The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero Do you think a large percentage of ANY other race worries if it is being offensive to other races? Jews are so smart - no wonder they are racists. 47
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 20 May 2013 11:16 | # Robert, if you could stand with someone and look out my window right now, the statement that Western civilization has died and that it is hopeless for the White race could be considered crazy by your interlocutor. This is not to promote complacency. On the contrary, a tipping point may have been reached which is more perceptible in the west and opaque to the people here. My point is that you should not go to the other extreme of promoting passivity and giving up hope. Western civilization and people did not die in Stalingrad, though we would all most certainly been better off had Stalingrad not have happened. Yet, Greg Johnson wants to make deference to Hitler’s judgment a litmus test as to Greg’s judgment of an elite cadre. A homosexual who makes a non-emotive, deferential treatment of Hitler a litmus test, generously sprinkles his site with kindly images of the Führer along with male nudes, is the judge of the elite. Right. One of my initial altercations with Johnson had to do with the non-necessity of Hitler invading eastward - which Greg insisted was necessary. He may have considered me to have failed his litmus test, but by the same token, he was failing mine. Then he’s got these homo-erotic Nietzsche heads who actually think they are superior as they gaze upon the male Adonnis. I really became persona non-gratis when I looked critically upon one among this cadre, the Nietszchean homo erotic octoroon Dyal. It is not to say that one cannot derive benefit from listening to one of Greg’s discussions of Socrates for example. However, this is on the order of a talking book. He is saving us the trouble of reading Socrates ideas. But they are Socrates ideas. When it comes to Greg’s judgment, well.. I heard him on Renegade saying he has this idea (which I have been promoting strongly since 2009) that Jewish interests are trying to cover up the agentive fact in immigration and turn it into an inevitable causal matter. Any man as Greg Johnson who makes deference to Hitler a litmus test (in addition to being a homosexual - I am kindly avoiding graphic terms) is dubious at best as a judge of the elite cadre. There are marginals who are marginal because they are better. He is a marginal character in a less flattering sense.
48
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 20 May 2013 11:57 | #
No doubt it took a turn for the worse at Stalingrad; but, as so noted by Bishop Williamson, She started Her long spiral downward long before Stalingrad. In the following video, Bishop Williamson persuasively lays out the case that the decline of the West started in during Henry VIII of England’s reign. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/bishop_williamson_on_reason._and_on_faith_of_course
No, but widespread rejection of traditional morality (religion) is certainly driving it in that direction.
49
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 20 May 2013 14:21 | # Yes, Christianity is a middle eastern derived carcinogen that had set in and was matastasizing in Europe long before Stalingrad. 50
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 21 May 2013 06:28 | # <h2>Operation Thunder vs. Operation Barbarossa</h2>
Hitler had little choice but to attack the Soviets because the Soviets had decided to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement when they made the decision to attack Germany. Some reasons that facilitated Hitler’s decision were the Soviet losses in Finland, where a small Finnish army had prevented the reds from taking control, and being mislead by the head of military intelligence, Wilhelm Canaris, an agent of world Jewry; Canaris didn’t inform Hitler of the extent of Soviet preparation for the attack. The following is summarized from Juri Lina in “Architects of Deception.” The defector Viktor Suvorov (actually Vladimir Rezun) exposed Stalin’s intentions to force his way through capitalist countries in general and make all of Europe communist: “The Icebreaker” (Moscow, 1992), “M Day” (Moscow, 1994), “The Last Republic” (Moscow, 1996). Stalin’s decision to begin his offensive against Europe was finalized on 19 August 1939. In response, on 18 December, 1940, Hitler issued an order to prepare a plan for a first strike against the Soviets on 16 May 1941, which was later changed to 22 June. The Soviets had initially decided to carry out an attack on Germany on 12 June, 1941 (Mikhail Meltiukhov, “Stalin’s Lost Opportunity,” Moscow, 2000, p. 283), but on 24 May, the attack was rescheduled for 6 July; the rescheduling appears to have been a result of Hess’ flight to Scotland. This attack would’ve been Operation Thunder. On 21 June, 1941, the Red Army high command had received an order to attack Romania on 6 July; around 4.4 million men were going to be used. Hitler attacked the Soviets the next day… Operation Barbarossa. Soviet casualties were extreme because they were prepared for attack, not defense. Lina notes that some Estonian textbooks claim that the German preventive attack prevented a Soviet attack on Germany (M. Laar, M. Tilk and E. Hergauk, “History for the 5th Grade,” Tallinn, 1997, p. 190; M. Laar is former Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar). In the West, people are still taught that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union without declaring war, but Ribbentrop had delivered a note to the Soviet ambassador that Germany was going to attack the Soviet Union because of the planned Soviet attack. Ribbentrop was hanged after the Nuremberg trials because of the lie that Germany never declared war, but Russian historians later admitted that a declaration of war had been delivered.
This is totally false. Greg Johnson requires “deference,” not deference, where “deference” is defined as earning credibility or establishing rapport with the target audience [nationalists/patriots] to ultimately promote Jewish propaganda on the most important WWII issues [e.g., who’s responsible?, what were the motives?]. The proof in one convenient place, courtesy of Greg Johnson and Kevin MacDonald: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/07/dealing-with-the-holocaust/ [there’s plenty of additional proof at counter-currents.com] 51
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 May 2013 07:08 | # J Richards, I don’t like talking about World War 2. It is boring enough and waste of time enough where we should be cooperating, but I am concisely enough satisfied with what I say and concisely dissatisfied with your assessment for an efficient response. You say:
It is simply untrue that a German leader could not have conceived and implemented a cooperative alliance against any potential Soviet aggression.
Moreover, there was plenty of anti Jewish sentiment in the Eastern European countries and Russia. Therefore, removal of Jews from power and their expulsion could have been coordinated with sufficient imagination and cooperation. Is that all 20/20 hindsight? Yes, but so is what you are talking about. I appreciate how tortured the Germans and others were by Jewish machinations and thus try not to be to scolding and punitive in my attitude toward Nazi Germany’s strategic blunders. On the other hand, I can see those blunders and need not treat Hitler and Nazi Germany deferentially. They used logic and had some things right/some things wrong. We can use logic as well - if they had some things right that’s fine but we need not be beholden to their program in its plainly wrong aspects. It is not as if we cannot think for ourselves.
This is totally false. Greg Johnson requires “deference,” not deference, where “deference” is defined as earning credibility or establishing rapport with the target audience [nationalists/patriots] to ultimately promote Jewish propaganda on the most important WWII issues [e.g., who’s responsible?, what were the motives?]. The proof in one convenient place, courtesy of Greg Johnson and Kevin MacDonald: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/07/dealing-with-the-holocaust/ [there’s plenty of additional proof at counter-currents.com]
I read that article, dealing with the holocaust, but must have a look at it again if I am to discuss it. I can say that I have maintained that holocaust revisionism is not something we need terrible much; it can potentially make us look very bad; and that relativizing the issue by citing the “why?” of it (Jews, elite ones especially, were torturing the German people and the Jews became enemies of war as a result) and citing other mass killings, particularly where Jews were largely culpable, such as the Holodomer, is the more effective strategy. As far as I know, Johnson took a similar, though not quite as articulate position, that holocaust revisionism is a poor strategy. Though he took a lot of heat for that, I basically agree. I’d rather work aside the issue. To whatever extent, the Germans reacted as all of us have, at times, to intolerable circumstances, with rage and more or less overcompensation. Everyone can understand that. Nevertheless, 55 million dead Europeans hardly bespeaks a well measured campaign, a regime that should be treated deferentially. Nor, given the Nazi outlook and plans, was it the fault of those who fought against Hitler.
52
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 May 2013 07:21 | # To clarify:
53
Posted by Bill on Tue, 21 May 2013 07:40 | # Allied bombing statistics 1939–45 RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany 1939–45[161]
1939 31 — Total 964,644 623,418 Casualties After the war the U.S. Strategic bombing survey reviewed the available casualty records in Germany, and concluded that official German statistics of casualties from air attack had been too low. The survey estimated that at a minimum 305,000 were killed in German cities due to bombing and estimated a minimum of 780,000 wounded. Roughly 7,500,000 German civilians were also rendered homeless. (see Dehousing). In addition to the minimum figure given in the Strategic bombing survey the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany has been estimated at between 400,000 and 600,000.[8] In the UK 60,595 British were killed by German bombing,[2] and in France 67,078 French were killed by US-UK bombing.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II 54
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 May 2013 08:20 | # Bill, I imagine that the idea of rage and overcompensation could be applied to the Allied position too; i.e. not to be admired but having some causal basis. A general problem in WN has been the tendency to take on a position where German nationalism is almost assumed to be synonymous with White Nationalism. With that position taken, there is irresponsibly little discussion of civilian and overall casualties in Eastern Europe and Russia in the 2nd World War. And of non-German civilian and overall casualties in preceding wars. Hence, for someone like me, who treats WN sources as my staple news media, I have gone from a media that is largely Jewish propaganda to one that is all too German propaganda. 55
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 May 2013 15:58 | # Hence, for someone like me, treating WN sources as my staple news media, I have gone from a media that is largely Jewish propaganda to one that is all too German propaganda. 56
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 21 May 2013 16:12 | # Jim, I think I understand a little better what you mean by this: not realizing that if an “individual” is not free to make and act on generalizations that he authentically perceives to be true, “individualism” is meaningless. ...that I might create a better atmosphere where people come to realizations by themselves without my trying to force it on them. 57
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 May 2013 20:04 | # Re-hashing WW2 is definitely a waste of time at this moment in white history. It is the mark of what I like to call those trapped in a particular “ideological hothouse”; that is, a place here ideologically “correct” opinions (correct in accordance not with actual truth, but rather the psychic needs of the group in question) build and mutate upon themselves, with everyone vying to outdo his comrades in driving the ideology to extremes (a paradigmatic example is the website lewrockwell.com, where a particular ‘party line’ is adopted - total hatred of any type of legitimate/legal coercion (state action) - and then pushed past all commonsense: any military defense, homeland security, narcotics regulation, public health, border control etc measures are rabidly denounced merely for involving government, regardless of how beneficial they are to the nation). There may come a time for serious revisionist work on WW2, and much else in the past. But that will only come about after Western nations have been returned to their indigenous peoples. Until that time, we had better marshall our resources towards confronting and terminating our ongoing colonization and conquest via immigration - the one undeniable precondition for any enduring nationalist success. 58
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 22 May 2013 06:51 | # .. “However, in the evening of my life, facing immense dangers to my French and European homeland, I feel the duty to act as long as I still have strength. I believe it necessary to sacrifice myself to break the lethargy that plagues us. I give up what life remains to me in order to protest and to found. I chose a highly symbolic place, the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, which I respect and admire: she was built by the genius of my ancestors on the site of cults still more ancient, recalling our immemorial origins. The dominant discourse cannot leave behind its toxic ambiguities, and Europeans must bear the consequences. Lacking an identitarian religion to moor us, we share a common memory going back to Homer, a repository of all the values on which our future rebirth will be founded once we break with the metaphysics of the unlimited, the baleful source of all modern excesses.” 59
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 22 May 2013 15:17 | # Similarities to the rioting and looting that occurred after the death of Mark Duggan in England in August 2011, and what Wikipedia refers to as the 2005 “civil unrest” [sic] in France: 60
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 25 May 2013 02:12 | # Still waiting for an answer ...
61
Posted by Bill on Sat, 25 May 2013 05:01 | # @60 I went to some lengths to reply this question but could not access MR comments. I gave up. I’m not going to waste time compiling another lengthy comment other than to suggest the elites, like everything else, have got these scenarios covered. EU rapid response forces, NATO?, UN? US carrier task forces, RAF Drones, British police, British Miltary, US Drones, the imported dogs of war. There’s no shortage of options. Alternative. As I’ve said before, when push comes shove, we might be leaning on an open door. PS I brought this subject up here 4/5 years ago. 62
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 25 May 2013 20:24 | # Bill, I’ve been having trouble with MR commenting, too. Always ‘copy’ your comments before trying to post them. You can then ‘save’ them to an email file, and retry posting later. I’ve found that works, sometimes. Re the military, it’s a question that serious nationalists need to consider. I’m not certain that outside forces or powers would wish to intervene in a UK civil war, as that could engender tremendous postwar hostilities, even war itself. I think the key here is knowing how the British soldiery will respond. Will they actively intervene for the traitor-state; actively intervene for the patriots; or simply remain aloof, perhaps physically protecting political officials and commercial enterprises, while leaving it to local constabularies to regain order as best they can - and then acknowledging whoever wins ‘on the ground’ as their new overlords?
63
Posted by Bill on Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18 | # @62 Leon It’s tough one to call. there are many factors that have got to come to pass before the SHTF. The same questions are being asked about America. To deal with the permutations of scenarios of civil unrest in detail and how they will be dealt with would take far too long a comment. Suffice to say, just Google search ‘the coming unrest in America,’ or EU, or in Britain or similar and you will see it looms very large in the the thinking of the elites. I still think for us, it all rests on what happens in America, especially on what side will the military come down on. The tide is still long way out, but it’s on the turn, events such as last week can only make our people look up and take notice, they’re realising their day on the beach is coming to an end and must think about gathering up their belongings, the tide is gathering pace. This is how I have always seen the inevitability of it all. The day on the beach is coming to an end. It’s been a lovely day. This whole business could turn on a sixpence (dime) who knows. For instance who would have guessed that a Englishman (admittedly a serving soldier but in civvies) going about his business in the high street, would be butchered to death in view of the whole world? Perhaps if this had happened say five years down the line from now then who knows what it might have triggered off. conversely, if last week had happened five years ago who knows where would we be now? We must remember, our population doesn’t know what’s being discussed here, ok, a few do, but the vast majority are simply oblivious as to what is going on. The incident which happened this week has shook those people to the core, but still they don’t real know what’s behind it all. I keep banging on about the media but it is they who muddy the waters and lead the masses away from the reality of what is going on. How much has the butchering of one of the plebs shaken the chattering political classes? The BBC maintain it wasn’t two crazed up immigrants who chopped up the soldier, it was the vague concept of terrorism that did it, it was the brainwashing, it was the vile EDL, they were nice boys really. No it wasn’t, it was the BBC who were responsible, it was Cameron, it was the Telegraph, it was Blair and all the rest of them, in fact it’s was the whole bloody liberal zeitgeist that killed that soldier. I detest the media’s hand wringing and faux sympathy, the faux patriotism, the mawkish wheeling out of grieving parents making a complete spectacle of themselves to the world. There’s got be a reckoning. The elites are betting the farm that economics will trump nationalism, take a peek at the this weeks Observer and Andrew Rawnsley’s usual stuff, praising Cameron’s Churchillian defence and leadership of England, apart from a passing reference to the butchered ‘drummer boy’ Rawnsley devotes the remainder of his Sunday comment to Cameron and his woes, apart from that, last week just didn’t happen. Immigration? What immigration. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/david-cameron-george-osborne-spending To sum up, another defining moment has taken place hot on the heels of the UKIP phenomena and has reshaped the dynamic, there will be more. I often sign off with interesting times, and that’s exactly what they are, we simply haven’t been here before. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 May 2013 08:57 | # Bill, A haunting comment. Yes, the day at the beach was warm and long (nearly a whole lifetime, for the lucky ones, in fact ... 1950-2015? 2020?), but the sun has set, and the wind’s come up. One thing’s certain in my mind: neither the UK nor the USA will exist in their present forms in 2050. Some very big changes are coming. I think those changes will actually be bigger in Britain than America, but who really knows? We all just keep plugging away, setting the masses straight as best we can, preparing for the day when our message will resonate widely. 65
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 May 2013 09:51 | # . This issue doesn’t fit well on this thread, but since it emerged in response to J. Richards here, this sentence was part of my response to him here. Apparently the fact that I used the word “aside” could have been taken by the revisionist camp as weakly dancing around the issue or waffling on it. That wouldn’t be true. I put more stock in Christian Lindtner’s position on the matter than I do in the folks over at the White Network, who won’t deal with issues of WWII in anything like a balanced way. That’s clear. Nazi Germany was only good, never wrong, they were only victims and only those who opposed it were at all bad. ridiculous. ..... What the “holocaust” means in essence to me is a term applied to an epoch in WW II where lots of Jews died, clearly in sizable groups in some instances; and that is looked upon as not nice for Jews. Questions about means and genocidal intent would be a mere outgrowth and subtopic of a well conceived, well contextualized understanding of the matter of antecedent harm of Europeans (Germans, Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians and more) by Jewish interests. That is, in essence of motive, did they really want to kill Jews or did they really just want them to stop abusing and ultimately killing off Europeans; and toward that end did they in essence want to separate Jews in safe distance from those activities? I would not associate the mass death of Jews with a “hoax” when it is plain to see by visual evidence, and archival evidence (Christian Lindtner’s research on the Berlin records) that there were mass deaths of Jews, called by them the Holocaust or Shoa. In light of that, calling the holocaust “the holohoax” is trivial, no victory at all, but looking more like a mirror image of Jewish casuistry. Even if what Jewish interests say happened were a thousand percent true, it does not give them warrant to prevent European peoples from defending themselves, to keep non-Europeans from flooding their nations and having intermarriage imposed legally, culturally and practically. In fact, Jewish interests promoting these things, their insensitivity (to say the least) to European interests only calls attention to why so much rage might have been generated toward them prior to WWII.
Even David Duke seems to have jumped on the wagon, blaming Roosevelt more for the outcome of WWII than Hitler. Which is nuts. He apparently sees the German majority in America not as a potential bias to be harmonized but to be inflamed for potential revenue (Roosevelt was more to blame than Hitler). Again, even if that were true, that it was all Roosevelt’s fault and Hitler had no choice but to act as he did toward other European countries (and that isn’t true), it is history now. If you want to engage in 20/20 hindsight why not propose that German cooperation with her neighbors would have been fine, as opposed to oh, if only America had let Uncle Adolf and Himmler do their thing, then everything would be fine. Nonsense. That angle is mere pandering. I don’t respect it. 66
Posted by Tancred on Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:23 | # Blaming Griffin is just spin. The issue was well known about and a senior Police Officer from West Mercia stated that the raping and prostituting of white girls by muslims was known about but police had been frightened to speak out for fear of accusations of racism. In fact this has been going since at least 1988 ! Then it was young Sikh girls being targeted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wM6rlePt6E Post a comment:
Next entry: Independent Academic Validation of Industrially Useful Cold Fusion Device
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by tawdry and predictable on Thu, 16 May 2013 08:35 | #
“...watering ground too hard to penetrate” “...a man who doesn’t believe in ideas…”