A Bang Rather Than A Whimper

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 27, 2005, 09:57 PM | #

“Civil War II, [which] will shatter America into several new ethnically-based nations.”  (—quoted in the log entry)

I believe this is what is going to happen, whether peacefully or through war.  D.C. is going to get away with pushing things just so far.  Then you are going to see a series of sudden, very stark reactions by people who’ll have had enough, breathtaking jolts that will scare the living hell out of everyone, mainly the race-replacers.  In the U.S. there is a core of very serious whites who are at this moment watching the goings-on and biding their time.  They aren’t about to submit to D.C.‘s plans for them to live in a version of Brazil.  For this core who reject utterly that which D.C. is offering there will be but two alternatives:  returning with their families to their ancestral European homelands or taking their stand here.  Some will choose one, and some the other, fashioning “several new ethnically-based nations” (as the quote says) on this soil bequeathed them by their fathers’ fathers and their grandfathers’ grandfathers. 

Remember the old song telling what our fathers did, how they took their stand: 

In Dixieland I’ll take my stand,
To live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down South,
In Dixie!

That old song, surely one of the greatest, most inspiring songs ever sung, both tells the past and foretells the future:  it tells what was, and tells what must again be.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 27, 2005, 10:03 PM | #

Fred,

If you can make time give Chittum’s book a try. Get past the aweful book cover because the argument he builds is powerful.

PDF is here: http://www.geocities.com/anakonda_fi/

Even though, Fred, I’m not sure,  the Brazil scenario seems just a likely, but by God I want to fight. Regardless, the trends towards a calamity are well in place. Just imagine when the Mestizos take over the cities, police departments, and state govemments of the Southwest.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 27, 2005, 10:16 PM | #

Geoff it says “This page is not available.” 

The Gedapo?  Or just a typo in the URL? ...

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 27, 2005, 10:17 PM | #

> Gedapo

Cheka or NKVD maybe,  my allusions to police states are Soviet.

Fixed it. Sorry.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 27, 2005, 10:57 PM | #

Sorry to be a pest—it worked once, since which I can’t get back to it—it won’t let me back on.  Maybe my computer’s fault?  (The Gedapo is the Flemish Thought Police—hat tip to Johan van Vlaams who coined the shortened version of Gedachtenspolitie, a fitting coinage inspired no doubt by the Nazi Gestapo.)  I’ll google it and also look for it at Amazon.com.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 27, 2005, 10:59 PM | #

(What I did get, of course, was an ad for the Yahoo.com dating service featuring a big photo of a white guy and his, what else!, Mexican G/F.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 27, 2005, 11:03 PM | #

Anyway,

here

it is over at Amazon.com (let’s see the Gedapo jam Amazon now ...).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 27, 2005, 11:39 PM | #

Jim Kalb’s

take

, incidentally:

“Whatever disorders may arise, the Civil War Two Chittum describes seems quite unlikely. What then does the future hold? Rather than ethnic secession, most likely it will bring continued blurring of identity, including blurring of such American identities as white, black and Hispanic. The immediate outcome is likely to be continued strengthening of the N[ew] W[orld] O[rder] as other social formations weaken or dissolve. The ultimate outcome, however, will be growth of more substantive and enduring forms of connectedness to replace a NWO that will have become non-functional and broad ethnic categories with too little distinctiveness to be sustaining. The exact form and timing of the changes is unpredictable, but they are likely to involve both ethnicity and religion, and include quite radical changes in forms of life. Those dissatisfied with the present order of things should therefore not expect a cataclysm to sweep it away anytime soon, and must be prepared for a long and difficult struggle, with no guarantee for any particular outcome.”

Posted by Truth Be Told on October 28, 2005, 01:41 AM | #

The more thought I give the matter, the less likely any effective organized trouble from non-whites in America seems.

At their best, with their own govt’s, in their warm-weather home nations and with direct military aid (weapons/advisors) from friendly whites, blacks and Latins are remarkably consistent in their disorganized, weak and ineffectual military endeavors.

Rather, I see low-level organized violence from them in the form of street gangs as they compete with each other after whites get displaced. These can do plenty of harm to civilians, but they seem more opportunists preying on the weak than heros looking to fight for a cause.

Danger from economic dislocations resulting in shortages of food, fuel or medicine are likely, ala’ New Orleans, as prices rise with the inherent risk of supplying an area (most likely CA at first) in civil unrest.

Organized white troops are another matter, being a real threat, however they seem to be quite politically conservative. Also, they know better than most about race-quotas, treasonous gov’t leaders, and patriotism. Getting them to enforce a radical policy like firearm siezures will not be easy, and may result in desertions, defections and open insubordination or rebellion.

What I can see happening easily is our own Third-World immigrants reverting to the ways of their homelands as whites leave, which will threaten the well-being of whites nearby from supply and infrastructure interuptions. As usual, the darker folk will seek to follow us to get a piece of our more productive and pleasant civilization. It will be our responsibility to keep our society white, to stop a replay of the current folly.

Posted by Truth Be Told on October 28, 2005, 02:14 AM | #

The unmentioned catch in Thomas Chittum’s Civil War II scenario is economic productivity.

US non-white populations are currently over their capacities to support themselves. Just cutting the flows into, say, S. CA of water and power from the Colorado River would cause millions in LA or SD to flee or risk death.

Like animals bred in captivity, welfare policies have bred tens of millions of non-whites without the means to support themselves in a prosperous peacetime economy. These folk will be even further disadvantaged well forced to conserve, plan, and make do to survive. Crime will suppport a few for a while. After a season or two of parasitic looting, the ruling non-white street gangs will drop like flies from hunger, disease, or hypothermia.

Mother nature, along with the general lack of productivity and cooperation among non-whites will be the other side’s worst enemies.

Posted by John S Bolton on October 28, 2005, 03:55 AM | #

Power seekers, such as are enthused over policies which cause interracial conflict to raise its level every year, are not expecting any spontaneous breakup, such as Chittum may be forecasting. If and when officials make their move, there will be no doubt as to their signalling for riots to begin. Their tested method is pogroms, which are easily precipitated in formulaic style by assasinating minority leaders, having police shoot minority youths who are running away from them, and so on. Conspicuous appeasements and obvious siding with minority aggressors, efficiently elicit the needed aggression from the violent minorities. There is hardly a police department in the country without decades of practice in these approaches. The missing element so far has been the relative lack of reaction from the majority, which means only that they need to intensify the racial provocations. The goal is dictatorship, justified through civil war.

Posted by John S Bolton on October 28, 2005, 04:21 AM | #

Remember that none of this is about money or convenience of administration; it is all about how to get despotic power in a country which is resistant to tyranny. Officials have always threatened race war here, and they are certainly not about to stop now. The mass immigration of quota eligibles is a away of moving towards this power goal. Officials need interracial conflict to increase every year, but it is not for money. When civil war is successfully raised from the level of scattered riots, to a coherent fourway struggle, the races draw back from each other defensively, setting up tens of thousands of miles of green lines. These have to be patrolled, but in a deliberately ineffectual manner, by tens of millions of troops and riot police. By this time officials have taken on full emergency powers, which they do not want to lose; and this requires maintaining the conflict at a high level. Thus, disarming the public is most unlikely. The winding down of the war involves the shortening of the green lines down to hundreds of miles; this process is the racial partition of the country. At that point, the armed forces can return to prewar levels. The advancement of the minorities means nothing to the power seekers, just as the uplift of the proletariat was irrelevant to the leftist dictatorships. Our officials want military dictatorship, and they know exactly how to get it.

Posted by john fitzgerald on October 28, 2005, 06:41 AM | #

Jim Kalb differentiates between the immediate and ultimate outcomes, the ultimate outcome being played out along racial and religious lines.
The info on the net has awoken a vanguard of racialy aware whites that has relatively quickly come to an understanding of our situaton and what needs to be done. How effectively that understanding can be communicated to sleeping whites might
well have a decisive effect on the outcome.

Posted by who on October 28, 2005, 08:11 AM | #

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!  Auntie ‘Em, Auntie ‘Em.  Geoff, you are too funny—you made my day.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 28, 2005, 09:11 AM | #

Who,

Enjoy it while it lasts. Ryan Minor, Ernst Zundel, Gemar Rudolph are not laughing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 28, 2005, 09:12 AM | #

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!  Auntie ‘Em, Auntie ‘Em.  Geoff, you are too funny—you made my day.”  (—Who)

You laugh, Who, but the sky certainly fell in Rhodesia and then it certainly fell in South Africa.  By the way, I don’t see you moving to either of those two paradises ... What’s the matter—did the sky fall there, or something? ... Do you at least plan to take an apartment in certain sections of New Orleans, once it’s drained out? ... No?  You don’t?  But ... but ... isn’t that the paradise you want for everyone else?  Oh, I see—you want it for everyone else except you ... forgive me for being so obtuse, Who ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 28, 2005, 09:16 AM | #

“The advancement of the minorities means nothing to the power seekers, just as the uplift of the proletariat was irrelevant to the leftist dictatorships.”  (—John Bolton)

So absolutely true.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 28, 2005, 09:37 AM | #

Geoff, having lived and worked for nearly a decade in the former Yugoslavia, I can assure you that it was ethnically almost entirely homogenous, the only variation being between blond Northern European Austrian types and swarthy southern European Bulgarian types (my dear current wife is Bulgarian, before you crank up the ethnic insults TOO far!)

Yugoslavia’s problem was religion not race, since the main cultural divide in Europe, that established by Diocletian in 305AD between the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, ran bang through the middle of the country. It was also Commie of course, which didn’t help, and its northern parts had been torn by the monstrous Woodrow Wilson away from their happy home in the Hapsburg Empire.

Yugoslavia is a poster child for my contention that race isn’t actually all that important, and culture is much more so.

As to your civil war, I think it’s some way off, and don’t look forward to it, being far too old and fat to crawl around the undergrowth toting a rifle.

Having said that, the way we avoid the fairly low long term probability of civil war or race replacement is by constant and unremitting agitation against Washington’s corrupt political classes for properly enforced immigration controls with low quotas, and against PC and other leftism in education and justice.  I would also add a ceaseless battle against the proletarianisation of culture, which may be a lower profile issue for you.

We thus end up with similar policy goals, even if for somewhat different reasons.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 28, 2005, 09:38 AM | #

> the sky certainly fell in Rhodesia and then it certainly fell in South Africa.

And it fell in Yugoslavia, in the 1990s.

It is falling in Los Angeles, CA and Toledo, Ohio; it is also falling in the towns in the north of England.

America may become racially dissolute, like Brazil - but will the Europeans?

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 28, 2005, 09:41 AM | #

Martin,

Chittum fought in the Civil War in Yugoslavia.

Since you are a self identified “respectable conservative” I tend to discount much of what you say - since the respectable conservatives have utterly FAILED for the last 60 years.

The Left simply has the “respectable conservatives” outflanked. The RPs aren’t up to the job, sorry Martin.

Oh, and BTW, I never said - nor did Chittum - that the sole cause for internal conflict is race.

Posted by AD on October 28, 2005, 09:48 AM | #

We’re due for another Republic/Monarchy vote in the next few years down here. They have probably now imported enough minorities to get the vote through.

A large part of the population simply won’t accept a Republic if it goes through though. It will render the constitution null and void so all bets are off regarding the continuing unified Australian state. It will be an interesting time.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 28, 2005, 09:57 AM | #

AD,

I’ve come to see the invasion of Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics and etc… into European societies as a hammer used by the corrupted Elite.

Take Canada, you may recall Quebec wanted separation a few years ago.

The Francophone vote in Quebec was diluted by the presence of a third-world voting block - and that block was just large enough to to prevent independence for Quebec.

I think the same idea is being used in the US and Europe - divide and conquer. Stymy any effort of European populations to unite and throw off the yoke.

——————————————————

I dedicate these quotes to all the Respectable Conservatives that have succeeded only in bringing failure and betrayel to our nations.

A True Respectable Conservative

:

“For the first time in our nation’s history, we have added a Koran to the White House Library.” ~ President George W. Bush

Another Respectable Conservative

:

We are a nation of many races, many religious faiths, many points of origin. But our one shared faith is the belief that a nation conceived in an ideain liberty will prove stronger, more enduring and better than any nation ordered to exalt the few at the expense of the many or made from a common race or culture or to preserve traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity.—Senator McCain

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 28, 2005, 10:22 AM | #

In the U.S., there has only been a remotely Conservative government—respectable or not—for 8 years since 1928. And even then the Democrats controlled Congress.  It was us Respectable Conservatives that passed the Immigration Act of 1924, I would remind you. I harbor no illusions that if we descended into Hobbesian civil war either I, the people I care about or the values I uphold would prosper.

In Britain, we haven’t had a Conservative government since the Duke of Wellington lost power in 1830. Don’t blame the failings of democracy on us—we told you it wouldn’t work!

Chittum fought in the Croatian Army for a year—congratulations. I would suggest however that a banker gets a better idea of the big picture than a squaddie.  Also, in case he didn’t notice, those Serbs he squinted at through his rifle sight weren’t black!

Posted by Svigor on October 28, 2005, 01:58 PM | #

Yugoslavia is a poster child for my contention that race isn’t actually all that important, and culture is much more so.

I think that your contention is flawed.

Identity is what’s important.  There are many factors which contribute to identity, and race is obviously the most salient.  That doesn’t mean race is always most important - identity is always most important.  Race is just (generally) the most important part of identity because salience itself is the most crucial aspect of identity.

Posted by Svigor on October 28, 2005, 02:11 PM | #

I tend to be cautious about making “hot war” predictions, civil war predictions, etc.

That said, the current situation in which our media masters have lost their grip on our social nervous systems is extraordinarily dangerous for them.  The fact is that WNism and similar flavors are compelling.  They are still immature and in the process of distillation, but they will continue to grow at an alarming rate.

The fact is that properly presented, a majority of white people would choose a WN state over a multiracial one.

I don’t think the math works out well for our masters.

Posted by Truth Be Told on October 28, 2005, 02:59 PM | #

Svigor,

The fact is that properly presented, a majority of white people would choose a WN state over a multiracial one. I don’t think the math works out well for our masters.

This is why they work so hard to stigmatize and repress explicit and public white identity of any sort. They know they will lose an open, honest and rational debate, so they seek to win the game in the ‘parking lot’ they will lose on the field.

Posted by jlh on October 28, 2005, 04:32 PM | #

“WNism and similar flavors are compelling.  They are still immature and in the process of distillation, but they will continue to grow at an alarming rate.
The fact is that properly presented, a majority of white people would choose a WN state over a multiracial one.”

More and more people that I talk to are in basic agreement with many if not most of the ideas expressed on this board, until notions of white supremacy or neo-naziism or what have you are connected with them. But I am also finding that people’s negative reactions to those associations are not as strong as their conviction that something terribly wrong and in violation of all basic tenets of common sense and decency is going on. In other words, like Svigor says, there is a growing receptivity on the part of ordinary whites to seeing that the big swindle has been going on long enough. People just aren’t buying the left’s rubbish like they used to, and they are going to be looking for some other way. A proper presentation is just what is getting ironed out in discussions like this.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 28, 2005, 05:48 PM | #

Jlh,

Excellent comment. More and more folks are smelling the stench of lies. Anyway, I just want to republish what you wrote:

I am also finding that people’s negative reactions to those associations are not as strong as their conviction that something terribly wrong and in violation of all basic tenets of common sense and decency is going on. In other words, like Svigor says, there is a growing receptivity on the part of ordinary whites to seeing that the big swindle has been going on long enough. People just aren’t buying the left’s rubbish like they used to, and they are going to be looking for some other way.

The first group to be swept aside are the “respectable conservatives.” That group has been such an utter failure, nothing more than a side-show attraction at the circus.

Of course the Left, which has always outflanked the “respectable conservatives” won’t be so easy to deal with.

Anyone who uses the term conservative - at least in the USA - ought to be embarressed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 28, 2005, 05:54 PM | #

“The first group to be swept aside are the ‘respectable conservatives.’  The group has been such an utter failure [...].  Anyone who uses the term conservative - at least in the USA - ought to be embarressed.”  (—Geoff)

Hear!  Hear!  Hear!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 28, 2005, 09:14 PM | #

Gentlemen, if you don’t mind I shall continue to use the term Conservative.  It means a follower of the governing principles of William Pitt and the 2nd Earl of Liverpool. I really have no interest in tracing the various distortions colonials give to it, but there is only one correct meaning, that ascribed to it by John Wilson Croker in the Quarterly Review of January 1830.

Like Pitt, Liverpool and Jane Austen, I regard respectability as the principle bulwark of a civilized society.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 28, 2005, 09:20 PM | #

> Gentlemen, if you don’t mind I shall continue to use the term Conservative.

Conservatives… Yes, I’m sure there are some left… perhaps some Guelphs and Ghibillines too.

For that matter conservatives have as much relevance today as Pitt, the Guelphs or Ghibillines.

Posted by Svigor on October 29, 2005, 12:04 AM | #

Like Pitt, Liverpool and Jane Austen, I regard respectability as the principle bulwark of a civilized society.

Respectability in the current milieu is not a virtue, but a vice.

Posted by Phil Peterson on October 29, 2005, 03:16 AM | #

Gentlemen, if you don’t mind I shall continue to use the term Conservative.  It means a follower of the governing principles of William Pitt and the 2nd Earl of Liverpool.

Martin,

The question would be: if Pitt or Liverpool were to re-appear today and see the condition of our society, what would they do?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 29, 2005, 08:55 AM | #

Pitt would run for the Tory leadership and probably win it, being 15 years younger than the ghastly Cameron and a lot smarter.

Posted by Phil Peterson on October 29, 2005, 01:17 PM | #

But that doesn’t get to the heart of it. What would Pitt do if he became Prime Minister now?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 29, 2005, 01:34 PM | #

He’d blog for MR.com in his spare time.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 29, 2005, 02:14 PM | #

A man who started a program of planting oak trees in the 1790s to ensure supplies for the British navy of the mid 20th Century would take a satisfactorily long term view of British interests.  My guess is, he’d slow immigration to a crawl, privatise the education and health systems and make them much more elitist, leave the EU and attempt to restablish a loose economic confederation with Britain’s more attractive ex-colonies, surrounded by a modest protective tariff wall (he was no doctrinaire free trader and preferred to act unilaterally when possible.) In foreign policy, he would encourage the EU against the US and the “new Europe” agaisnt the Franco-German axis, since he believed like Walpole that having other countries opposing and balancing each other was in Britain’s best interests. He’d also bring back a hereditary House of Lords. His main difficulties would be in dealing with a monolithic leftist media and a fully democratic franchise, neither of which he had to deal with.  His preferred 1790s solution, moderate harassment of opposition extremists by various “Sedition Acts” probably wouldn’t be workable today.

Just a few random thoughts, which I’ve tried to tailor to Pitt’s known politics rather than simply projecting my own. It’s in reality an unanswerable question.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 29, 2005, 02:27 PM | #

> What would Pitt be doing today?

Sadly, in our present state, he might be smoking hashish in Morrocco; playing video games; or strumming the guitar dressed in baggy pants and with a baseball cap on backwards.

Oh, and visiting Auschwitz to atone for sins imaginery.

Posted by Svigor on October 29, 2005, 06:51 PM | #

What would Pitt be doing today?

If he’d be inclined to try the things Martin describes, he’d be going nowhere fast.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 29, 2005, 08:34 PM | #

Svigor, that’s why the second greatest mistake in British history (after going into WW1) was passing the 1832 Reform Act. The third was repealing the Corn Laws.

Posted by June Gordon on October 29, 2005, 09:41 PM | #

Who, Geoff invariably cracks me up, too.  If being a fool was a crime….  For example, in this all too typical entry, he lets people know he is caching weapons.  (And fertilizer for bombs, maybe?) All that is missing is the address.  The fact that this degree of numbskull is considered a ‘leader’ in the white supremacist movement would doom it if so many other things didn’t already.

The scenarios Beck and his compatriots envision are never going to occur.  The reason is fairly simple.  Most people are more moral and more intelligent than white supremacists.  They do not aspire to be treated better than everyone else in the world or to oppress other people.    When one reads piffle like this entry, it becomes clear just how out of touch with most Americans the participants in sites like MR are.  “Majority” in the title notwithstanding, they are a wee component of the population, and likely to get even smaller.  Even their own children will usually reject their views.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 29, 2005, 10:07 PM | #

You know something, June?  Svigor was right—you are an honest-to-goodness nut case whom we should’ve ignored completely from the get-go.  He told us long ago that was the only way to deal with you, based on his prior experience, but we didn’t listen.  There’s something wrong with you.  You’re a sick woman.  You give people the creeps.  Go get yourself a good shrink somewhere and a few powerful prescriptions, will you?  You’re weirding everyone out here.  Go weird out Morris Dees or something.  You sound like you have a fixation on him anyway.  Bye.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 29, 2005, 10:36 PM | #

I suspect June is a subcontinental male college student at a third or fourth tier US college. To do him credit, his fictions and insults, while obnoxious, are at least literate—doubtless a result of the excellent Indian/Pakistani school system.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 29, 2005, 11:58 PM | #

In regards to June’s latest vomit

> he lets people know he is caching weapons

I did not say I was caching weapons

> And fertilizer for bombs, maybe?

At no time have I ever created or planned to make a bomb, fertiziler or any other kind.

> he fact that this degree of numbskull is considered a ‘leader’ in the white supremacist movement

I belong to no political organizations, I am registered independent in the voting records.

Secondly, I am not a White Supremicist.

> The scenarios Beck and his compatriots envision are never going to occur.

Fires of ‘civil war’ erupt in Paris

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1604595,00.html

Posted by guest1 on October 30, 2005, 12:23 AM | #

It’s more likely June is a paid employee of the ADL/SPLC or similar organization. This site like many other sites are certainly monitored by them.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 30, 2005, 01:11 AM | #

“Delphine Batho, the opposition Socialist Party security spokes[man], called for ‘serious answers’ to the questions raised by the violence.”  (—from the Guardian article linked in Geoff’s comment, 3:58 AM)

“Serious answers”?  How’s this then, Delphine?:  has your government ever considered the immediate restoration of immigration sanity to France by reducing racially- and ethnically-incompatible immigration to zero followed by the swift expulsion of all illegals, no questions, delays, or appeals, and, finally, humanely but strongly encouraging racial and cultural (i.e., Moslem) incompatibles admitted legally but in excessive numbers to go home permanently, by means of financial incentives generous enough to attract lots of takers coupled with a 180-degree reversal of multiculti policies in favor of a return to the nation-state France used to be?  You want “serious answers,” Mme Batho?  We’ve got a few for you.

Posted by Phil Peterson on October 30, 2005, 04:06 AM | #

I suspect June is a subcontinental male college student at a third or fourth tier US college. To do him credit, his fictions and insults, while obnoxious, are at least literate—doubtless a result of the excellent Indian/Pakistani school system.

LMAO

Posted by Phil Peterson on October 30, 2005, 04:12 AM | #

Martin,

Pitt will be up against an electorate that votes for Labour/Lib Dems about 55 percent of the time.

And he would be so far to the right of the current Conservative Party that he would be labelled a “Racist”, “Nazi”, “Sexist”, “Homophobe”, a “hatemonger” and a “Radical”.

The moment those labels are put on him by the Left (which has a monopoly over labels), the “respectability” will be gone. And Pitt’s position will be the same as ours.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 30, 2005, 04:34 AM | #

I’d like to return to “respectability” and Pitt the Younger.  Pitt’s first difficulty as a politician in Britain today would not just be the left and the media.  His difficulty would be that Conservatism cannot be practised in an advanced liberal polity.  The one is complete anathema to the other.

Pitt’s only chance to return national politics to a condition in which Conservatism - meaning the maintenance of stability and, through it, freedom - could function would be to favour those forces in society tending to stability through the ballot box.  Reform of the franchise is the only basis on which he could proceed.

Let’s suppose that he managed it, and an additional vote was accorded to houseowners, company directors and married parents, for example.  Some of us conventional and highly respectable folks had, therefore, four votes!

Self-evidently, our interests would be expressed through national politics.  The game would be most fundamentally changed - and that would be Pitt’s second difficulty.  He would be having to deal with the consequences of five decades of extreme liberal politics.  He couldn’t just commence managing the affairs of state as though a smooth policy transmission was possible.  It wouldn’t be.

In fact, restored freedom of expression and association would quickly expose three options open to us:-

1. The racially socialist course of today.  (It is, as we know, kept in place only through the application of unjust and unnatural laws and pseudo-moral pretences.  Therefore, it would collapse and in place of its strictures and dictums a thousand suppressed, awkward questions would begin to arise.  It would be finished, and the lie of racial equality with it.)

2. The right-liberal, “respectable Conservative” course which views all humankind as individuals and economic units.  (This, too, would be unable to sustain, since this idea that people are just individuals or economic units is untrue outside of a liberal zeitgeist.  Conservatives would have to choose not between Heathism and economic Thatcherism but between Heathism and something more akin to Powellism.)

3. The “Powellite” course of a revitalised sense of English identity among the English - a course of national reclaimation requiring deep and thoroughgoing change inevitably including the repatriation of alien populations whose presence is only (sort of) justifiable if economic unitry is the measure of Man.

So Pitt would find himself riding one of the latter two horses.  The question is which - the child of a Conservatism bastardised by equality and OMOV democracy or the child of the new but “old” politics?

Posted by Kubilai on October 30, 2005, 04:07 PM | #

I suspect June is a subcontinental male college student at a third or fourth tier US college. To do him credit, his fictions and insults, while obnoxious, are at least literate—doubtless a result of the excellent Indian/Pakistani school system. - Posted by Martin Hutchinson on 10/30 at 02:36 AM

Martin, you are probably closer than you think.  Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for this however, look at the email that June uses….(.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).

Pajaranita becomes Anita Pajar or maybe even Nita Pajara.  I wonder if she truly is one of those wonderful Subcons that we hear nothing but good things about?  I’d say the chances are quite good that she is.  Psychotic little troll.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 30, 2005, 04:58 PM | #

If memory serves, pájaro is “bird” in Spanish, and maybe the “anita” ending could be some sort of added-on feminine diminutive suffix?  So, perhaps pajaranita could be “little female bird” in Spanish?  But I don’t think she’s Mexican or Hispanic.  I’d say she’s a white woman who, as Mrs. Blessed has suggested, might be “a certain age,” alone, in a state of shock that she wasted her life devoting it to women’s lib insanity and now doesn’t know where to turn any more, and stalks anti-leftist sites sort of in a daze, babbling her women’s lib extreme left-wing drivel without even realizing what she’s saying.

Posted by Kubilai on October 30, 2005, 06:03 PM | #

You could be right, Fred.  She/he sure does do a lot of trolling of anti-left sites.  Either way, quite a sad little person.  Relegated to stemming the tide of “racism”.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 30, 2005, 09:08 PM | #

GW, I think your analysis of where a resuscitated Pitt (presumably not a sick 46 year old alcoholic but a 24-30 year old boy genius) would go today is pretty well spot on, except that he’d combine 2 and 3.  Pitt/Liverpool Conservatism believed that you could be BOTH nationalist and economically liberal; it was the Whigs after 1832 who so damagingly separated the two. 

In both Britain and the US, it is a combination of 2 and 3 that I see as the way forward, not 2 alone (even without the heavy sludgy social democrat government that formed the 1990s “Washington Consensus”) or Geoff’s 3 alone. I’m closer to a follower of James Buchanan (both the President and the “public choice” economist) than to Patrick, even though I’m generally an admirer of the latter.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 30, 2005, 09:26 PM | #

Martin, I agree with you.

But, my contention is the system is broken beyond redemption. The conditions our ancestors knew are defunct. America is no longer a nation but an imperium ruled from Washington, which includes not only the 50 US States, but satellites around the globe.

Note:
I think it is legitimate that a subset of people - united racially and ethnically - (point 3) would want to secede from the imperium and manage their own affairs independent of the Washington Tyranny.

Posted by John S Bolton on November 01, 2005, 01:07 AM | #

Self determination of nations is a fake principle, which applies only to those who cannot gain from it. Power seekers want civil war, in order to justify military rule; peaceful reconciliation is what they want to avoid. Power seekers know that quotas and other anticaucasian racial policies are immoral and impractical for any larger purpose than the fomenting of race war. They know that the mass immigration of quota eligibles onto net public subsidy, greatly facilitates this move towards civil war, and nothing else. There is no other explanation for the dogged pursuit of policies which increase racial and ethnic conflict every year; it has to be deliberate. The moderate left would not inflict on itself defeat after defeat, rather than give up on the smallest of these racial provocations against the majority, unless all their hopes of power ride on this move towards civil war.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 01, 2005, 08:37 AM | #

I think John Bolton makes some excellent points in his comment just above.  At the very least, what we’re seeing is deliberate, not some muddled “bureaucratic” failure of our élites to adequately foresee the consequences of race-replacement.  On the contrary, these consequences must be exactly what they were after all along, otherwise it’d be child’s play to stop the whole process dead in its tracks in five minutes—and even to reverse it, undo it to whatever extent might be desirable.

Posted by JB on November 01, 2005, 09:47 PM | #

June Gordon:
“Most people are more moral and more intelligent than white supremacists.”

You mean most whites have adopted morals (i.e. individualism, egalitarianism) that are leading them to their demise. What you’re not saying because it doesn’t fit your anti-white obsession is that no non-white group has adopted such morals. The white side is loosing because it refuses to acknowledge that there is a demographic war going on and that they need to fight back if they want to survive. How intelligent is refusing to bring a gun to a gunfight ?

What if let’s say blacks believed agreeing with the 14 words was a sin, that those who said “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for black children” were haters that deserved to be attacked by the government, would they be more moral than those who cared about the existence of their group ? If the federal government was out to oppress and weaken blacks by all sorts of means such as mass immigration of non-blacks in black areas then what should be the moral response ? Explain your model idea of morality to us June.

June Gordon:
“They do not aspire to be treated better than everyone else in the world or to oppress other people.”

Whites are treated worse than the others: most of the governments of their countries encourages every non-white groups to secure an existence for themselves and their children but it specifically refuses to allow whites to do the same. Which group is being denied the practice of morality allowed and encouraged for all the others ? Which group is becoming a minority in their own countries ? You keep on repeating platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.

I usually don’t care what Mexicans do in Mexico, africans in africa, etc. that’s their business even if I consider a lot of it disgusting and wrong. I wouldn’t invade their countries or continents to change their ways. What I object to is them being here in large numbers and the governments whites fund with their taxes making war against their white populations by allowing the invaders in and telling us it’s a good thing. That sickens and angers me.

Besides most americans used to be racists and would not have objected to the MajorityRights’ message. That change of mentality and morality didn’t simply happen, it wasn’t some kind of progress: it is the result of a deliberate campaign by a certain ethnic group to alter the host society in a way that benefits their interests. Good for them, not Good as in universally good.

June you don’t subscribe to some kind of moral universalism: you subscribe to a destructive set of feelings and ideas that gives itself a cover of universalism but whose obsession is destroying the very group the most compatible with universalist ideas.

Enjoy the irony while it lasts

Posted by Terri Zucker on November 11, 2005, 03:40 PM | #

It has been a pleasure to read intelligent dialogue between a group of obviously well-educated men.  Due to the idiocy of women like June, I am a female misogynist.

I was born and raised in Southern Alabama, lived briefly in the French Quarter of New Orleans, and spent 5 years in New York City.  One person commented that any type of civil war would erupt in the South, and I certainly agree with that premise.

Southern men are a completely different breed from effeminate, white corporate types.  There is a seething anger and hostility towards Hispanic and other thirld world immigrants in the deep South.  The refusal of the local and federal government to enforce immigration laws and endless calls for amnesty from “conservative” politicians exacerbates the tension.  Southern blacks are equally angry about this invasion and may find common ground with whites.  Don’t forget that even the poorest white man has a cache of impressive guns and ammunition. 

The Minuteman Project and other grassroots movements are definitely the signs of a WN movement.  Initially, the focus is on stopping illegal immigration, instead of legal third world immigration.  There is talk from the Bush Whitehouse that border enforcement would be used in conjunction with permitting an additional 400,000 yearly visas, not discounting the guest worker program.

  My question is this… They know this immigration mess is a recipe for disaster and societal disintergration.  How would civil war two be profitable for multinational corporations?  Does Dick Cheney think that Halliburton would get the war contract and resulting clean up contract?  Since globalists only care about profits and self-interests, wouldn’t this conflagration hurt them for a long time?  I would be grateful for some feedback. (except June)