Inevitablism on a roll

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 22:20.

Irwin Stelzer can be justly proud of his career.  As his entry at Wikipedia makes clear:

Irwin M. Stelzer (born 1932) is an American economist[1] who is the U.S. economic and business columnist for the Sunday Times, the Courier-Mail, the Guardian and a contributing editor of the Weekly Standard. He is also an occasional contributor to the Daily Telegraph. He resides in London and the United States. Stelzer has served as a managing director of the investment banking firm of Rothschild Inc and was co-founder and president of National Economic Research Associates, Inc which became NERA Economic Consulting and which was subsequently sold to Marsh & McLennan, Inc. He is a signatory of the Henry Jackson Society, a senior director and fellow of the Hudson Institute and has edited and introduced a book on neoconservatism. He is a visiting fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford ...

... he is someone whose writings are taken seriously by powerful men on both sides of the Atlantic, and who is no doubt on first-name terms with many of them.  Today, in the Daily Telegraph, he offered them his view on How to make immigration work in Britain’s interests.  I won’t bore you with the details.  He is, as a man of the Establishment, concerned that “hostility to migrants is sweeping Europe”.  He has a plan.  “Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants” from the EU, he says.  “Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output,” he says.  But the losers who see their job prospects taken away by immigration and their neighbourhoods transformed could be paid off.  “How so?, he says ... “By requiring employers to bid for the limited number of entry permits, the proceeds to be remitted to the communities on which the immigrant imposes costs, or to HM Treasury.”  He says.

No doubt, “powerful men” will read the column, welcome Stelzer’s little scheme (with reservations, of course), and file it away for some opportune moment when the minister is in melt-down and the briefing paper for tomorrow’s Cabinet is still to be written.  But what of those damned losers in the migration game?  The indigenous, as they seem to be calling themselves these days.  Are they grateful for Mr Stelzer’s ingenuity?  Are their fears and hostility calmed?  Are they looking forward to selling-out to race-replacement for a few thousand quid?

Well, I’ve never seen a thread like this one in any English national daily.  Never.

A brief selection for your amazed eyes:

stolenfrom

“Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants from the other 26 EU member states”

Well there is - we can leave that disaster of an undemocratic entity, and be a free nation again. We could possibly have writers on the DT that don’t deliberately try to flood our small island with countless 3rd worlders…..Imagine that?

Anyway, how’s Israels immigration policy coming along Mr “I don;t care about Britain” Stelzer? You utter utter c£nt

james1

“We could possibly have writers on the DT that don’t deliberately try to flood our small island with countless 3rd worlders…..Imagine that?”

That’s why i despise them.

They choose to take their 20 pieces of silver and destroy any future for their own children. Disgusting traitors.

stolenfrom

We’ve got Brogan on another blog trying to tell us that we ‘must now learn to trust our MPs’

Bunch of cumts!

dougie

It’s not his country though is it? As far as he’s concerned we’re just goy.

james1

I didn’t even bother to read the article. He’s got a nerve writing about it though, then again, every johnny foreigner thinks they can stick their oar in about Britain nowadays don’t they.

Politicians, journalists, bankers. All one and the same.

james1

Ever felt like you been rumbled Mr Selzer?

The BS, it just don’t work no more, like it used to.

Can’t wait for the next instalment of ‘Telegraph View’ on immigration lol

Oh dear, what now eh.

james1

So when is Israel going to open the floodgates to the world Mr Selzer?

After seeing what a resounding success mass immigration is in Western Europe, surely you want some of your own enrichment no?

(Edited by a moderator)

proleishplumber

Irwin says “From France (deport Romas), to Germany (preserve national identity), to Sweden (xenophobes win seats), to the Netherlands (no more burqas), an anti-immigration tide is sweeping across Europe.”

How can anyone take this man seriously? ‘No more burqas’ is an anti-immigration stance, is it? But aren’t the ones with the burqas they want to ban already here? Swedish nationalists are ‘xenophobes’ are they? Wanting to stop immigration means you fear foreigners, does it? You cynically confuse and conflate issues and use far-left smear tactics even as roll out your oh-so-reasonable rhetoric.

Americans sell work permits for $10,000, says Seltzer. We should do the same, presumably. Of course once these ‘workers’ are here they are not just workers but fully-fledged Britons, and I am expected to regard them as every bit as British as me, to treat them as my own kin. So Irwin has put a price on my ethnic identity, and this price is whatever $10,000 is in Sterling at current exchange rates. No deal, Mr Seltzer.

dougie

It would be easier to take Irwin Stelzer more seriously if he started advocating non Jewish immigration to Israel. But no. It’s only white countries such people think need “diversifying”.

Steffiegirl

I wonder if the government reads or knows about the comments from the general public and how we all feel - it doesn’t seem so.


tommo2

They do. I’ve written to my MP many times on the immigration issue. He responds with the mantra that immigration is good for the country. What do we have to do to get the message across - blow-up parliament?

henrietta

The thing of it is, *they don’t care*. They don’t care what ordinary people think, and they don’t seem to care much about British culture or the quality of life of people who live in Britain. The only way forward is to make them care, but it isn’t clear how.

proleishplumber

When Irwin Seltzer talks of ‘our’ interests, who is he referring to? I am not Jewish, I am a white-Anglo Saxon Protestant.

Clearly, this is an outrageous thing to say, isn’t it? How awful of a white man to think he could have his own racial or ethnic interests that diverge from that of the Jews, or other groups! Jews, of course, along with all non-white European Christian groups, are permitted to have their own ethnic, religious and racial interests.

I am not interested in ‘sensible curbs’ which are nothing more than a bone being thrown by our masters during hard times, with the intention of gearing our race-replacement back up to current genocidal levels as soon as economic conditions allow.

What I want, Mr Seltzer, Mr Miliband, Mr Soros, Mr Saatchi, is for all non-white immigration to be ended completely, and for me and my people to be allowed to pursue our own racial and genetic interests regardless of what you may think.

watt

Brave comment. Interesting that throughout the world indigenous peoples - Maori, Aborigine, Red Indians etc - are revered but in Europe the indigenous are threatened with race laws if they assert themselves ; in England the flag removed from public places and equated with fascism. We let this happen.

thelennoxman

Good comment proleishplumber. Keep saying it as it is, we need more people like yourself on these blogs, to keep hammering the message home.
Seeing as a lot of them on here, still thinks Cameron is a Conservative and labour stands for the working man? You can see why the country is going to the dogs.

wnc

As an American, with all of our free speech rights, I could not post what you have posted for fear of forever being branded “racist.” A post like this could and would cost me my job. Believe it. That’s what it has come to here in the US. The blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims can say and do as they please but us, nope.

Axl Rose of Guns and Roses hit the nail on the head with his lyric from One in A Million:

“Immigrants and faggots, they make no sense to me. They come to our country and think they’ll do as they please. Like start some mini Iran or spread some F-ing disease. They talk so many G-damn ways, it’s all Greek to me.

jose_maria

Who actually wants integration with muslims if that means we become like them?

What if it means we actually become them?

What if integration means that we become a coffee-coloured mass of muslims?

No ta.

karna1983

I admire the British, it’s a shame you are being forced to become intolerant.

jose_maria

Intolerance? No, we object to their presence not their existence.

jwhite3

There is but ONE reason why mass immigration is such a big problem in the West, and that is immigrants, like Irwin Stelzer, have been allowed to influence immigration policy.

tiggypetsworth

Name 10 benefits from immigration - 300 spoken languages and new and varied foods do not count.

europeansocialist

1) Learning from other cultures - increase in cultural diversity.
2) Higher net tax take overall paying for aging native population.
3) Demonstrates Britain’s appeal - today the UK confirmed as 4th
most admired nation.
4) No more grey boring and stale egg ‘n’ chips Britain thank God.
5) Physical embodiment of mixed couples and children, best of
both worlds.
6) A younger, more dynamic workforce. Brits do not want to pick
vegetables at 6am but immigrants do and will.
7) Skilled workers in vital sectors esp. NHS.
8) Sporting and musical contribution of immigrants and their
descendents.
9) Shapes country in new and improved image - see USA.
10) Flushes out bigots/little Englanders and exposes them for
what they are, i.e. fundamentally un-British.

jose_maria

1) Can be done via the internet.
2) After beenfits have been included, unlikely.
3) Thanks, they can come on holiday and then go home.
4) Cookery courses available at all tertiary colleges…
5) ... is called genocide, and reflects your true agenda.
6) Not at poverty rates of pay they don’t. So let the market adjust…
7) What, like that ‘German’ doctor who administered a fatal od to his patient? http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/german_doctor_struck_off_in_uk_for_killing_fenland_man_with_morphine_overdose_1_464604 I wonder how the family is feeling…
8) You call that music? And nil-nil with Montenegro…
9) Yes, this is called cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing.
10) The real bigots are the social engineers like you.

dickgreendoxon

There has been very little coverage of this government’s (Theresa May) decision to grant amnesty to 135,000 failed asylum seekers, who have been granted permanent residence in the UK….solely to clear the backlog! Including dependants, this amounts to about a quarter of a million people.

Whilst some of them may now be able to work (assuming they can find a job…..May’s timing is astonishing), they will also be able to claim the full range of benefits.The potential lifetime cost to the taxpayer of a single unemployed asylum seeker, wife and two kids is about £1 million…....compared to the £5/day they currently receive in basic state support.

“Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output.” No, Mr Stelzer…....some immigrants do, far too many do not. We have too few of the first category, and far too many of the second. And, frankly, I find it astonishing that an American lectures us on this…..the average American citizen is pissed off with mass immigration, with people flooding into an economy which is no longer creating jobs, but haemorrhaging them. Just like here.

brenda_lacluster

Hear hear dear, as someone with relatives in Indiana, Irwin would be lucky to escape with his life if he gave this little address outside a welfare center.

grahammilne

There are too many of them
They aren’t integrating and have no intention of doing so
They are a drain on our welfare system and take our jobs
They are outbreeding us to the extent that we will be a minority in our own country in a few decades
The survivial of our country is at stake
So without any racism on our part they must go
Any other nation would be justified in doing the same

ameliemaryann

For starters, we will be a minority in Leicester next year - 2011.

cyphre

It really comes down to who Britain belongs to.
Does it belong to the corrupt socialists who have sold it out for profit and pure self interest?
Does it belong to big business who just see a potential profit in cheap labour?

Or does it belong to us, the native people of Britain?
I suggest it belongs to us - the indigneous people of Britain and the only -people who should have a say in immigration is us - those who own this homeland!

The whole issue of immigration should be subject to a referendum where the people can vote on it.

I for one will vote against any and all immigration. I don’t have to justify or apologise for who I have in my home.

In Britain only the British are relevant.

archipoeta

Please don’t lump together immigrants from Eastern Europe who are literate and, if not actually Christian, don’t subscribe to a belief system that wants to impose its values on the host nation, and those from the Third world, who are in many cases sub/illiterate and wish to impose Islam on the rest of us.

uberwest

Why not? Do the Poles or Romanians care any more that they are taking jobs from British workers and / or forcing wages down for the jobs they do?

No they don’t.

But this is another negative aspect of an unfettered immigration policy, it’s creating hostility to people who otherwise we wouldn’t have any reason to be hostile to. But it’s important to remember who’s to blame - the politicians.

jabjabhook

Personally, I endorse every sentiment expressed.

Civil uprising is needed immediately.

We are going to have to start filling our prisons with the middle classes before our politicians will listen.

We can all break a window for England if it is the right window.

The local bank might be a good place to start.

Register your protest now.

understandingreality

Well said.

Tags: Media



Comments:


1

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:22 | #

The inevitable rising? Right. Compare the data. Anecdotal evidence from the website of an English Daily versus people actually fleeing the country. Over the last ten years over three million Britons emigrated; second only to Mexico. 500 comments on an English Daily versus over 3 million emigrants clearly indicates a growing commitment to ethnic nepotism. No doubt Britons are forsaking their kindividualism for the love of their co-ethnics. Just ask the BNP. wink


2

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:49 | #

The English are now, apparently, the largest minority in Wales becoming a veritable Greater Little England beyond Wales.

http://welshpatriot.blogspot.com/2010/09/mewnlifiad-fawr-2010-and-white-flight.html

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


3

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:49 | #

Once the Good and the Great have all “fucked off to Australia” to enjoy the ever congenial company of the Silvster, the last line of Britain’s defense will be…Chavs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1gu-OAgV4

Luckily they will be “militarised”, Lord knows they need it.


4

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:44 | #

As the number of English people settling West of Offa’s Dyke increases we must expect some ethnic interbreeding. As the amorous Welsh girl said to the Englishman, “Prestatyn boyo”.


5

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:45 | #

Astounding really.  This is good news. Never during the many, many years (since University studies in the 80’s) that I have been following this have I seen such collective anger.  Surely we approach a tipping point.


6

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:28 | #

If it is inevitable that a new order be established, then isn’t it incumbent upon us to delve more seriously into the formal structure of such order?

How do people think this new order will come to be?  What form will it take?  What form should it take?  What can practically be done now to help it take more the form it should?

This is not part of the “ontology project” except insofar as it pertains to populous action on the streets, which must be an exoteric expression.  Since the esoteric “ontology project” is insufficiently developed to take exoteric forms, we must do with what we have lest the opportunity bypass us as the “inevitable” becomes de facto but not necessarily de jure.  If you prefer lawlessness, then stop reading this admonishment.  It is not for you.

I’ve put forth the following de jure proposals—any of which is specific and unambiguous enough to be right or wrong as an exoteric launching point dealing a particular evolutionary phase of the new (or should I say, restored) order:

<ul><li>Political Platform for Mayoral Candidates<li>Libertarian Nationalist Political Economy and its Traitors<li>Local Currency Based on Four Stages of Electronic Barter<li>Laboratory of the States Platform<li>Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments<li>Actuarial Militia Reform<li>Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals<li>TECK: The Electoral Corruption Killer<li>A Contract Between Americans</ul>

Please do better or at least contribute your insights.


7

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:41 | #

Statecraft, or anti-statecraft as Bowery would have it, is not separate from the “ontology project” but an expression of it as the former in ordering social relations and hence reproductive trends, will act as a selective pressure on the genetic stock which it relies upon for the (continued) existence of its work product - the state.  The purpose of the “ontology project” is not merely to explicate to ourselves what we are but to facilitate those now latent potentialities in ourselves (e.g., statecraft), which are also part of what we are, which can secure the existence of what we are.  Ontologically informed statecraft will mold what we are in accordance with the needs of the continuity of its work product - the state.  The state being the means by which we will secure our genetic continuity.


8

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:15 | #

Thank you, CC.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph moderators face another challenging day:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booker-prize/8063053/Booker-Prize-Its-a-funny-old-thing-Jewish-humour-....html


9

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:16 | #

Moreover, the state is in actuality an extension of what we are collectively in that it is an expression of what we are.  It is our extended phenotype.  If it is an optimal expression of what we are, what we are per se (our gene pool) will eventually be brought to, or at least closer to, optimality.  What can truly be referred to as “ontological nationalism”, with this added dimension of ontologically informed statecraft, is inseparable from this search and striving for optimality.  Not only is something the same as itself with itself when it is itself, but it also contains within itself the best means by which it can continue to be itself lest it go extinct: the latter of which is its optimal state from an ontological perspective.


10

Posted by from intellectual to palingenetic beefcake on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:59 | #

Hunter’s latest at Occidental Dissent:

Since January 22, I have been engaged in a rigorous physical fitness routine, which has allowed me to shed almost 60 pounds. From May 2008 to January 2010, I completely let myself go physically, and packed on an enormous amount of weight. At my lowest point in August 2009, I had ballooned to an incredible 224 pounds. I was miserable, depressed, and lethargic.

Something had to change. I was ruining my health.

The causes of my physical decline were easy to diagnose: spending too much time writing on the internet, sitting idly in a computer chair, reading and thinking about abstract ideas too much, soda, drinking too much, eating high calorie meals late at night, fast food, poor eating habits, and not getting enough exercise.

Perhaps now a reconciliation with Greg Johnson will be possible.


11

Posted by cartman sez on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:46 | #

Something had to change. I was ruining my health.

You can reach your goals; I’m living proof ..... Beefcake, BEEFCAAAAAAKE!

Anyone catch where, about a year ago, he claimed to keep himself in form with a mere 30 push-ups per day? No Heidegger muscle zen, that.


12

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:37 | #

JB,

I’m going to try to find some time to read your various links. I still maintain, however, that the best approach for the moment is to reconfigure something like the BNP as a single-issue anti-immigration party. And then just keep hammering away at the practical problems associated with being colonised and conquered by socially and culturally undesirable aliens.

We don’t need to reimagine The Racial State (someday yes, but no need to try to involve people in that type of discussion now), or sally forth with a New Ontology. What’s wrong with the old ontology, or whatever? Just ask the British a variant on Reagan’s famous line, “Are you better off today than four years ago?”. “Is Britain a better place for YOU, sir, as a result of the invasion?” I don’t think this is so hard.

And stop whining about the Jews. They are too concealed. And once the native British recover their manhood, they will sniff the wind, and modify their behavior accordingly. Diviso et imperio.

—————

On another note: Does Fred Scrooby still write here? I haven’t seen anything from him in a while.


13

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:25 | #

What’s wrong with the old ontology, or whatever?

But that’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

Or do you mean liberalism?


14

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:04 | #

”...the latter of which is its optimal state from an ontological perspective.”

But do we authentically seek merely an optimal state from an ontological perspective?

We might consider whether the state of Being in such a context may not be optimal from the perspective of inhabiting oneself amidst that outward habitus, and thus inclines toward the elicitation, from the ineffably authentic persona, an existential cry for relief from confinement of the Self within a structure of its own mere projection, confused with the objectification of social structure at the level of individual subjectivity.


15

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:39 | #

Does Fred Scrooby still write here? I haven’t seen anything from him in a while.

It’s my personal theory is that Fred no longer has time for blogging since becoming the full time personal trainer and sparring partner of H. “Whirlwind” Wallace.

So far, I’ve resisted the urge to believe Gorboduc is his manager.


16

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:42 | #

“conflated with” would be a better phrase than “confused with”.


17

Posted by Englander on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:49 | #

It’s impossible to say how many of these comments are from ordinary people, and how many are from committed online nationalists. One thing is clear though, and that’s that they aren’t being shouted down as much as they used to be.


18

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:49 | #

It’s my personal theory is that Fred no longer has time for blogging since becoming the full time personal trainer and sparring partner of H. “Whirlwind” Wallace.

Could be - I understand that Fred is having to take more time at meals for the thorough gumming of this food, pending some extensive dental work.


19

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:36 | #

Leon Haller writes:

“I’m going to try to find some time to read your various links. I still maintain, however, that the best approach for the moment is to reconfigure something like the BNP as a single-issue anti-immigration party. And then just keep hammering away at the practical problems associated with being colonised and conquered by socially and culturally undesirable aliens.”

Reading my specific proposals is less important than this kind thinking regarding “What’s the next step?”

As I alluded in my admonishment:  There are various stages in the evolution of the new (or restored) order and my various proposals deal with stages of that evolution—indeed, some are from my own preferences, such as The Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals.

Having said that, let’s get on with the task at hand, which is “What’s the next step?”

Your point about simplifying the issue to the most pressing around which the populace can rally in the formation of a new party is to the point.  I would submit that the issue most pressing in people’s minds is not immigration but political economy.  Immigration is a tributary issue.  Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between the United States and Parliamentary forms of government:  It is impossible to form a new political party short of a civil war here whereas in Parliamentary governments, it is practical now.

So in our discussions let’s presume a Parliamentary government since I am less concerned with where the revolution begins than that it begin in some nation within the Eurosphere, and the Parliamentary environment has shown recent signs of national life.

Toward that end, I would suggest that Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments is a superior next step because it basically calls the left on their progressive bluff.  They want to appear to be the benefactors of the unemployed by presenting them with government hand-outs to compensate for their dispossession.  This is, of course, ridiculous since what they really want is to fund their hierarchy of Apparatchiks through which to trickle-down their social goods from the central banks, leaving the indigenous dispossessed out of the beneficiary stream and preemptively declaring declaring them “haters” with the full and certain knowledge that “hate” is the direct function of their form of public-sector trickle-down economics.


20

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:48 | #

Perhaps now a reconciliation with Greg Johnson will be possible.

I’m not sure about that.  Greg Johnson likes his bottoms fat.


21

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:08 | #

Neo,

My preceding statements were in reference to the racial collective, not to individuals in particular, though obviously the racial collective is the sum of racially-like individuals.  I propose a polity of law crafted to preserve the racial collective.  An elite individual will be free to pursue his self-interest and self-actualization within the confines of the law so long as said does not violate the law, hence damaging the interest all racially-like individuals have in the survival of the racial collective, the protection of which is vested in the state.  He need not worry about having his home burned to the ground by disgruntled English peasants, so to speak, so long as his conduct is kept within legal bounds.


22

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:47 | #

I propose a polity of law crafted to preserve the racial collective.

How is this contract made binding? As JB suggests, read Spooner and JB’s “A Contract Between Americans”. It’s brilliant.

Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:

We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor’s Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.

This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their “posterity” to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

The interest of the elite individual will be sustained by a reproductive differential.


23

Posted by PF on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:15 | #

skkkkkkkkweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!


24

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:58 | #

Yes, PF, this is exactly what we need to rise to the opportunity of reviving national life.

Could you expand on that?


25

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:30 | #

Soren Renner’s combat - shod cephalopod seems to be burning the midnight oil at both ends.


26

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:41 | #

I find the latter completely unworkable. It basically seems to let gangs in by the back door*, among other things.

*A leader and his dogs go up to a man. One of the dogs says to the man: “I, an individual sovereign, challenge you for you have offended me gravely. Wink, wink, if you win, I’ve got some mates with me. Not that one of them will challenge you if you win, just saying.”

If we speak of a duel with firearms, a slight advantage falls to the one who is challenged.

For - if he loses - he’s dead, anyway.

But if he wins the initial encounter (perhaps by putting the Big Dog down with a flashy Mozambique), the others are not going to stick around for single combat with an ace who’s now nicely warmed up to the task.


27

Posted by PM on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:12 | #

The comments from ‘proleishplumber’ were mine, hence the use of the term ‘race-replacement’, so maybe not all the commentators are typical, average voters (I’ve been BNP for years).
I post comments under the same name at the Guardian, and they are often deleted after a while. I was fully expecting the same thing to happen on this thread, paticularly because I used two words, ‘white’ and ‘Jew’ that you cannot get away with. But I thought I would chance my arm, and not only did it remain but got over 70 ‘recommends’ and follow up comments. I noticed after I had broached the Jew-business that several others started talking about Israel.
I wonder if the DT are relaxing their policies and allowing more dissenting views on the comments board? It cetainly seems like it.


28

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:04 | #

Alex writes: “I’ve just looked at the seven points again.

As correctly pointed out by Leon Haller, relevant discussion here should focus on “What is the next step?”  With that in mind, before proceeding to answer your question, let me describe how The Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals could provide The Next Step:

A public registry is kept of individuals whose legal identity and address are verified, who agree to The Seven Points.  These individuals then constitute Society and are, by default, Sovereign, not Shielded, but all members of Society may, in accordance with the Agreement, publish:<ul><li>Offers or Revocations of Offers to Shield (if Sovereign), <li>Acceptance or Revocation of Acceptance of a Sovereign’s Shield, <li>Sexual Acceptance or Revocation of Acceptance of a Man (if female of reproductive age), <li>Challenges to Individual Combat (if challenger and challenged are Sovereigns)</ul>

Up to this point, the only departures from a secluded Society have been the lack of geographic restriction on residence, and the definition of “public” which, in the case of a secluded Society would be those within the geographic restriction.

But now we get to formation of The Next Step:

Any person in the world who would ordinarily be called “a public figure” is presumed to be part of Society.

“Inevitablism” then takes on a new meaning which I leave to you to interpret.

Alex again:  “The first point is that violence is allowed only in self-defence or in enforcing the contract.

The actual first sentence of the first Point is: “Except in self defense or enforcement of this agreement, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another.

This sentence does not preclude ordinary individual violence.  For example, if two individuals get into an ordinary fist fight, there is no implied legal consequence.  They may even seriously spar with weapons till, say, “first blood” during informal single combat.  Moreover, if an individual burns another individual’s unoccupied dwelling to the ground, there is no implied legal consequence.  This is all restricted violence which, except that it is individual to individual, is of the same qualitative nature as a game of football or rugby.  If, however, any of these acts is taken in a context where it can be reasonably ascertained that it constitutes an act of willfully killing, disabling or permanently disfiguring another, then it is legally actionable in accord with Point 3.

Alex hypothetically situates: ““I, an individual sovereign, challenge you for you have offended me gravely. Wink, wink, if you win, I’ve got some mates with me. Not that one of them will challenge you if you win, just saying.”

Point 6c states: “There shall be at least a one year interval from the time one Is engaged in formal combat as the challenged before one may again be engaged as the challenged.


29

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:14 | #

GW,

Those are very encouraging comments indeed!


30

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:36 | #

Alex writes: “So, the protection against spurious challenges is that they can only be issued once a year? That’s reasonable enough, altho’ I wonder if that wouldn’t give someone too much of a clear pass for a year after a challenge.

In “The Next Step” context, yes, it is a weakness.  For example, a public figure’s position on immigration would clearly make him, as a public figure, the likely target of a formal challenge by some highly competent Sovereign, and his failure to show for formal combat at the appointed time and place under the prescribed conditions would subject him to the death penalty for cowardice, to be carried out by anyone in any manner at any time.  In order to subvert this, the public figure would call upon another Sovereign who would be willing to permanently give up his/her Sovereignty and be shielded by the public figure, if not to sacrifice his/her very life for the public figure—by preemptively challenging, and then losing to, the public figure.  Either way, the public figure just needs one dog per year.  This is a serious problem since civilization has been breeding for dogs for a long time, and a lot of them would happily act as such for money if not simply Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” award or sainthood from the Vatican.

Alex asks: “ So, what I was getting at originally, is there any provision for the community to decide based on discretion what is and isn’t a reasonable challenge?

No.

There is only a law against conspiracy under Point 5:

No additional agreements that give a group’s decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these agreements, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals who have entered into this agreement shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation: Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum’s recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum’s recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.

This could be used in accord with Point 7 against such a public figure since they would almost certainly refuse to abjure the realm, hence its judiciary, in matters pertaining to the Agreement.


31

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:54 | #

*A leader and his dogs go up to a man. One of the dogs says to the man: “I, an individual sovereign, challenge you for you have offended me gravely. Wink, wink, if you win, I’ve got some mates with me. Not that one of them will challenge you if you win, just saying.”

NN,

You missed the point. It isn’t the leader challenging, it’s a dog. So that means the leader and so the organization of the gang remains after the individual wins the first duel.

So what?

We’re not asking the challeng-ee to exhaust himself in fist fights.

If he wins the first duel of (fire)arms, his advantage is progressively enhanced by the demoralization of subsequent opponents and the warm-up provided by prior episodes.

The risk involved is the temptation of the gang to refuse to continue according to the rules.


32

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:04 | #

NN writes: “duel of (fire)arms

Point 6 reads:

Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:
<ol type=“a”><li> All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.</li>
<li>A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefor.</li>
<li>There shall be at least a one year interval from the time one Is engaged in formal combat as the challenged before one may again be engaged as the challenged.</li>
<li>Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage.  All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.</li>
<li>No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.</li>
</ol>

The rationale behind this is to put the enemies in The State of Nature that created them.  The sword and cordage are presumed to be the sort of capital equipment that an individual could, and likely would have at his disposal as a result of his own resources in The State of Nature.

If it can reasonably be demonstrated that some form of firearms likely would be at the disposal of any properly trained man based on his own resources in The State of Nature, then it might be reasonable to include such a firearm along with ammunition that can similarly be fabricated.  I’ve met folks in the Pacific Northwest who claim to be able to fabricate the equivalent of a Southbend Lathe from stone tools and low grade ores from the area, so this is plausible.

Under no circumstances are the enemies to be tested on such silly criteria as their ability to shoot accurately at 20 paces.


33

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:47 | #

Under no circumstances are the enemies to be tested on such silly criteria as their ability to shoot accurately at 20 paces.

And I presume that my perhaps lengthy affair of honor in The State of Nature means animal hides/furs for clothing and no toilet paper.


34

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:11 | #

You apparently missed the first 2 sentences of 6d: “Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed

The Assembly would determine clothing and other provisions on a criteria that meets the intent.  For instance, is cloth something that an individual can reasonably fabricate?  Probably.  Snark aside, toilet paper most likely would not be carried by someone in the State of Nature, although I see nothing forbidding it in Point 6.

As to the time length of the “affair of honor”, it can safely be presumed that in The State of Nature, things would only come to the point of mortal combat if territory of some sort were in permanent and vital dispute, so we can equally safely presume a fairly limited area so as to require confrontation within a short (days) period of time.  Most likely an area with surface water would be chosen so that, as predators await prey at drinking areas, it would be within a day.


35

Posted by PM on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:12 | #

There is now a similair comment thread in the DT regarding the sack-thing that Muslim women have to wear over their lovely heads. I don’t agree with all the comments, but they are certainly heading in the right direction.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8067708/Islamic-face-veil-part-of-British-way-of-life.html


36

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:58 | #

Alex Zeka writes: “In the current context, I can really see some obese America-lovin’ evangelical who’s never been in a fight in his life challenging a member of the enemy class, and getting his ass handed to him.

That’s an interesting scenario because it provides a window into the origin of Paul’s anti-Christianity among the Gothic kings.  Dasein’s point about “the toughest guy at school” being a “decent fellow” is to the point as it is a living example of the kind of guy who would be the Goth with “their understanding of their roll as enforcer for the will of the community.”  If someone was obviously a bully, they’d get their ass handed to them preemptively by the kind of individual sovereign who found such behavior a mockery of the genetically-based moral faculty.  The decent tough guy might preemptively challenge the bully to mortal combat and thereby “play God” in directing evolution away from that mockery of morality.  However, at first he might simply go and tell the bully to cut it out.  That would be enough for most bullies.  Next he’d tell the bully “You didn’t listen when I told you to cut it out.  Let’s step outside.” and punch his lights out.  That would probably be that, except that the “sheep” (the obese tough-guy-lovin’ proto-evangelical who’s never won a fight in his life) would most likely become shielded by the decent tough guy.  Now, you can bet that these decent tough guys were the first to be crucified by the Romans when they came through with their legions, to whom a challenge to single combat from such a decent tough guy would be simply “ludicrous” to use NN’s term.  He might be grist for the Arena but if not, he’d get the cross.  Hence we have the prototype of the Christ figure upon which Paul spread his anti-Christianity among the northern Europeans.

Mix up politics, religion and the relationship between sovereign (decent tough guy) and shielded (thralls), shake and bake for a millennium or so and you get the Evangelical preacher with his sheep.

Alex Zeka writes: “Kind of the personal combat version of what happens with intellectual discourse.

Excellent example as this is exactly the process by which the sheep end up abandoning their own people as they see their Evangelical preacher is a fool.  It takes a long time to completely dismantle the social structure with genetic origins but it can be done.

Alex Zeka asks: “Btw, do you really think dogs can be found willing to accept certain death?

That’s the function of theocracy’s partnership with the military.  Suicide is the ultimate—unforgivable—sin but martyrdom “For God and Country” -> “The Government” is sainthood.

Alex Zeka asks: “Also, why are deliberately weak challenges a problem in the next step, but not afterwards?

It will take a while for people to realize how nauseatingly perverse the theocracy is.  At present, its too obscene to admit to perception.


37

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:26 | #

The “inevitable” is breaking through to the elite who are starting to see cracks of truth in the towering edifice of lies:

“Germany’s attempts to create a multi-cultural society in which people from various cultural backgrounds live together peacefully have failed, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Saturday.

“Multikulti”, the concept that “we are now living side by side and are happy about it,” does not work, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam near Berlin.

“This approach has failed, totally,” she said.

They’re retrenching to head off something happening like a citizen’s dividend or a single tax on net liquidation value of assets which would remove the current “aristocracy” from their rent-seeking perches in the public and private sectors respectively.  The current Hell they’ve created might be vulnerable to both leaving them no niches anywhere to suck the blood of the folk.


38

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:08 | #

We can bypass trying to get into the mind of a military grunt—a mind so twisted by the conflation of desperately seeking some way to afford a family and “voluntary service” to the military—that he will follow suicidal orders from a black general in a foreign land.

Let’s think instead about a gay who had gone “bug seeking” so as to achieve the sainted status of all “victims of AIDS” in the current theocracy’s pantheon. Such a creature may be so twisted that he would go beyond being sodomized by an AIDS infected black, to being killed outright just for the “privilege” of paying his debt to blacks for his “white guilt”.

Like I said, “It will take a while for people to realize how nauseatingly perverse the theocracy is.  At present, its too obscene to admit to perception.”


39

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:26 | #

Let’s get back to reality. This is for my fellow Americans (maybe I re-post this on Nov 1):

Thanks to 45 years of unnecessary, undesirable, and untrammeled Third World immigration, destroying America’s historic and very salutary white racial base, we are now a diverse (and thus increasingly dysfunctional) hellhole. Our future is bleak. Multiracial societies are not a blessing, but a curse, needing constant management to avoid or ameliorate natural tensions, not to mention, for whites, endless interracial wealth transfers and remediation for the benefit of economically underachieving non-whites. We are also an increasingly dysgenic society, as the genetically superior of all races have had the lowest fertility rates for the better part of a century now. The US has long exceeded its ecological carrying capacity (and yet the environmental movement is silent about immigration’s role in generating nearly all contemporary population growth, still more evidence that most environmentalists hate capitalism far more than they care about biospheric preservation). And our darker, dumber and more crowded populace is ever less traditionalist in its outlook and morality, and even whites are more brainwashed into accepting destructive ideological and moral nonsense than ever before.

In this political and cultural environment, when America is no longer a natural nation, but just a giant ‘diverse’ mob, the only hope for the American people rests with a renewal of the rule of impartial law, and the restoration of a full capitalist economy, to replace today’s politicized, “rent-seeking” economic regime. The GOP is mostly weak and stupid, but Obama and his Democrats are uniformly evil. Decent people need to educate themselves, and then rally together to demand a much tougher conservative government, one which focuses on cleaning up the US, “strengthening the core”, to use a gym metaphor, and not such peripheral (or at best long term) concerns as abortion, the gay agenda, foreign policy, Iranian nukes, etc ad infinitum. We must:

1) seal the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and end the legal immigration invasion and conquest of the US;
2) bring back a vigorous and widespread use of the death penalty, preferably in the form of public hanging;
3) restore our lost 2nd Amendment rights;
4) abolish all foreign aid;
5) abolish the Federal Reserve, and replace it with a 100% gold dollar;
6) radically deregulate and re-privatize the economy, to return to real capitalism, and hence growth;
7) substantially slash the Federal budget, especially in ‘entitlements’;
8) after 7), cut taxes, especially those on business and capital gains;
9) modernize our nuclear weapons systems;
10) abolish AT LEAST the Departments of Commerce, Labor, HUD, Transportation, Agriculture, Education;
11) abolish affirmative action, and the whole divisive, “diversity” mentality, recognizing that we require maximum economic productivity for a long time if we are to a) create necessary jobs, b) successfully compete with China, India, Brazil, etc, c) fully fund bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and d) close the deficit; and
12) finally, though this list is hardly exhaustive, we must begin dismantling the financially unsustainable US Empire overseas, which is both a physical as well as international financial entity, and does no good for ordinary Americans.

If we as a nation do not begin following this type of fusionist conservative/libertarian/nationalist agenda, then, mark my words, America as we have known it, indeed, even as a civilized, First World country, will be dead before 2050.


40

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:10 | #

In terms of “the best approach for the moment”, that you properly point out is the relevant question, a “hardly exhaustive list” is a bad idea.  Your own suggestion for the moment is “a single-issue”.

Since we’re now limiting our discourse to Americans, here is The Laboratory of the States Platform:

The 2010 election cycle is rapidly approaching. It’s extremely important that each of us ‘register’ (Rep or Dem) and attend our local precinct caucus.  Register as the party not currently in office with the US House of Representatives from your District.  Contact your county recorder for a precinct map of your county.  Find at least one person in each precinct in your county who supports the Laboratory of the States Platform and who is willing to lead that precinct.

Laboratory of the States Platform:

1) Bring all troops home and make the top priority of the Federal government to protect US territory from trespass.

2) Only one Federal tax:  5%/year on land value.  No filing.  Individuals own first $80,000 of land value tax-free.

3) Turn over all Federal programs to the States, with funds apportioned by number of adult citizens.

The objective is to control the US House of Representatives in the next election cycle.

Send this to everyone you know.

This is the best approach for the moment in the United States.  It opens the door to any of the 50 States to adopt your list by the simple expedient of rebates on Federal Taxes combined with adoption of your other policies.  The pressure would then build from the States to shift tax authority from the Feds to the States.

Once one State had adopted your list, its superiority would have empirical support.



42

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:29 | #

More fun with Jews


43

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:28 | #

More trouble t’at Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8080388/First-secondary-schoolteacher-to-be-banned-for-life-for-incompetence-by-GTC.html

This time it’s the myth of the Third World genuises we desperately need to steal our jobs and fill all our employment vacancies.


44

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:46 | #

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8082531/Mel-Gibson-dropped-from-500m-film-after-protests-from-fellow-actors.html#dsq-content

I’d suggest looking at the comments by DanDaniels. To me at least, he comes across as someone who is honest by nature and with enough natural honor to need moral justification for what jews do. He comes very close to explaining the jewish way of being which is basically:

“We have to be this way as pre-emptive self-defence.”

Obviously, what is pre-emptive self-defence from their point of view is betrayal on an epic scale from our point of view.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

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

Remember me


Next entry: The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 6)
Previous entry: The last of the bandwagons plays on

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

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

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:13. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:09. (View)

affection-tone