Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:52 | #

I assumed that Robinson was controlled all along, that the whole thing was a set-up. Maybe Im too cynical?

Ive left comments here:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/tommy-robinson-zionist-puppet-neocon-fraud-and-wahhabist-stooge/#comment-1075928508

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Oct 2013 07:29 | #

I’m still sad at this news, regardless of the truth behind it. The EDL was identified globally as the hard edge of English nationalism. This is a blow, as is the communistic arrest of our Golden Dawn brothers.

I hate to be a downer, but I still think that things will only ever get worse until there is some kind of horrific downturn from which whites will literally be unable to flee - and by then such resistance as will at last arise will be futile.

The white race as a whole has lost its will to endure, and it will never get it back. Times have changed. Who here likes to quote Carl Schmitt? What is right in one epoch is only right then. The past cannot be recreated.

Caring about the white race, even simple national patriotism, is now a mere “lifestyle choice”, one among an ever-proliferating variety. Only whites who actually care about preserving their genomes will see their genomes preserved. The rest will be ‘muddied’. If white civilization is to endure, we can forget about distinct ethnocultures. Only the racially conscious from amongst all ethnic groups will survive, and only if they in-gather into a sovereign, defensible polity.

It’s White Zion or bust, folks.

Posted by lynn on Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:30 | #

It was fun while it lasted. And, despite its ideological and tactical flaws, it showed the liberal establishment, and the MSM, that there are great swathes of effed-off self-identifying ‘white working-class lads’ out there who ain’t going to roll over or disappear soon.

Posted by Morgoth on Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:16 | #

The scale of the betrayal is now sinking in and even Gates of Vienna is sticking the knife in, and deservedly so, as I posted last night the reasons being given by Tommy, Kev and Pammy is that the movement has become a hot bed of of ‘‘Anti Semtism’’ and ‘‘Neo Nazis’’ but the EDL faithful aren’t buying it, here is a selection from their Facebook page:

‘’ But tommy failed us…hes a sellout, he turned his back on us and england…he was the face if the EDL! With him gone i cant see us going anywhere..’‘

‘‘Considering Tommy has been with a TV film crew for the last NINE BLOODY MONTHS, I think that tells us all the full story.. What a complete and utter traitor, fraudulent deceitful liar to all those true patriots in England and the whole UK.. He has bare faced lied, schemed and now has joined the Quilliam foundation? Funded and set up by the British intelligence MI5 secret service??? Dont make me laugh lol.. This stinks, this smells to high heaven.. Tommy has stabbed every peace loving patriot in the back, while standing face to face with his slippery snake smile… The truth is there for all to see.. This has finance involved too.. I`ve listened to his radio and TV interviews and he has made so many mistakes, he just doesnt understand we are all educated enough to see through this evident smoke and mirrors charade. Good honest, hard working British folk ploughed tens of thousands into the coffers and everyone wants the answers, where is it all Tommy the coke addicted thug? Good honest folk sent him money while in jail, writing thousands of letters, and he has slapped them hard right across the chops.. Pure selfish utter disgraceful traitorous actions… There is no room for Tommy now.. He has burnt his bridges, and there is no return, and I hope he enjoys himself with the scumsuckers… NFSE… England will never surrende’‘

‘’ Blokes bottled it ... Started something he couldn’t finish!... And blamed the far right? ... Tut tut Mr Robinson!’‘

‘’ People are tired of the pro Israel, pro multicult propaganda. That’s the truth. I stand up for my people and my country and that’s it. I have no views on Israel and I don’t think multiculturalism is great. Am I welcome?’‘

Tommy Robinson, ‘‘Turncoat Tommy’’ will forever be damned, what an utter prick !

Posted by Bouncing Bean on Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:44 | #

Tommy and partner were not stooges from the word go. You can’t say they were MI5 plants. Maybe they were bought off, but its hard to stomach the 10 o’clock news showing Tommy removing his shoes and walking into a muslims house as part of his conversion away from campaigning against Islam.

He now follows the definition that its muslim extremists hes against not Islam per se. But recent developments in the news show schools where non-muslim teachers must cover their hair, Tescos being sued for wanting to know the times its staff are praying at instead of letting them do as they please, Universities allowing sex segregation. Everyday there is more, Islam is creeping into the mainstream yet he now finds this acceptable?

The government find it easy to quash any nationalist movement, but not so much the above incursions into society. I’m sure they have their work cut out combatting terrorist plots, but after the Rigby beheading a local schools initiative was set up to lecture kids about forming negative opinions of Islam. Where is the same initiative on negative opinions of English culture towards women, equality, our secular state? This should be automatic, but instead they allow Islam to ferment starting off in schools. Can’t they see the trouble down the line? Fish rot from the head down.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:17 | #

Bouncing Bean,

Our interests, as the English, are not served by integrating with the populations colonising our land.  The more problematic they are, the more different their behaviours, the more contemptuous of us and our behaviours they are, the better from our point of view.

Our objective must be to create the moral and intellectual conditions under which a total repatriation is the clear solution to the great crisis we face.  Whenever you encounter someone calling for integration - and most people seem to - remind them that it would be very negative for us.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:53 | #

I’ve long felt the same way about America. As long as we have to take in immigrants, I’d prefer they be ILLEGAL. Illegals keep to the shadows, mostly do NOT integrate, and are easily removed where the will exists. Removing legal immigrants will require a veritable revolution in Western moral consciousness - which is why I argued for decades for keeping them out in the first place.

America will never be white again. England? Possibly, but I wouldn’t count on people choosing “organic communalism” over peace and (illusory) economic stability. Civil war is coming to Britain and most European nations, though it still won’t be started by patriots. The Muslims will launch it. Let’s hope the first thing the patriots do is eliminate the traitors on their own side - the ones knowingly responsible for this sad decline.

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:42 | #

Maybe when he was interned as a political prisoner last year and bum fucked by radical muslim inmates he was turned and now secretly works for the other side as a sleeper agent like Brody in Homeland.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:52 | #

Having trawled through acres of the Tommy Robinson defection saga, it is manifestly clear that most posters seems to be bereft of the reasons why Britain is being subjected to the levels of immigration that it is.

This naivety is evidenced by the fact that throughout the on-line immigration debate there is a back hole as to why a constant trickle of posters advocate that immigrants should integrate among the host nation.

I note GW @ 6 has commented on ‘Bouncing Bean’s @ 5 in this regard - but I would just like to add a couple of comments.

Integration simply seals white’s fate over the longer term, a death by a gazillion cuts.  (We ain’t seen nothing yet.)

Perhaps more importantly. there is no mention (which I find most telling) of the pact, (conspiracy) between Islam and the left.

I can vividly recall viewing a film clip on the BBC where Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was nipping in and out of No.10 Downing Street pumping the flesh of Asian members of the public and almost frog-marching them through the doors of No.10 for a personal guided tour.  (I thought I was seeing things.)

It must be stressed that immigration is the primary tool envisaged by the architects to bring about Western civ’s demise.  They, (Migrants) are not propelled here in huge numbers by accident or by random events, no, they are here to finish us off at the express invitation of the politicians whom we vote for!

So let’s forget this business of integration, that’s not the name of the game. duh!

Whatever the machinations of the EDL duo, I think it’s fair to say that they performed a much needed fillip by presenting an image on our streets, telling our soporific populace that all was not well in the state of Denmark.

The EDL were a force for enlightenment, which (enlightenment) can only continue to grow. 

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:21 | #

I believe Lurker and GW are seeing Tommy Robinson correctly.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:35 | #

Cut Robinson some slack. He and his family have undoubtedly been brutalized. No one here has walked in his shoes and until they have should limit the scorn they heap upon him.

Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:25 | #

I think the great mass of Muslims - and Mexicans - are profoundly mediocre people who’ll drag our white societies down to their dull and disruptive level.

I’m not interested in their anti-secularism and “social conservatism” - their respective presence in Europe (Muslims) and the U.S.A. (Mexicans) is a dreary, draining weapon wielded by the Jews and I want them removed from our countries.

At least the Jews are interesting.

We need to explicitly defend our genetic and territorial interests with no concessions to cultural nationalism.

Regarding the EDL: the mere fact of a street presence and carrying the name of the English Defence League was enough for leftist faggots to get their knickers in a twist.

We have to get to the stage where full repatriation becomes thinkable and then becomes a matter of logistics.

Posted by Morgoth on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:33 | #

@ Desmond

Nope, sorry Desmond but Tommy deserves nothing but hatred and scorn, he didn’t just retire into obscurity with his family, nobody would begrudge the man that, no, he has become a fully fledged Anti Fascist by his own admission and already went on the BBC stabbing HIS OWN MOVEMENT in the back.

The man is scum.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 02:38 | #

Thanks Daniel. However maybe Desmond is right, he was leaned on at some point and sold out? And its not all bad, the EDL made the usual suspects squirm a bit and thats worth something.

Posted by Ratboy on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:25 | #

This opened my eyes to Tommy boy and the Leftist leadership of the EDL. Watch and learn:
Exposing the EDL…

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:51 | #

Posted by Lurker on October 10, 2013, 09:38 PM | #

Thanks Daniel. However maybe Desmond is right, he was leaned on at some point and sold out? And its not all bad, the EDL made the usual suspects squirm a bit and thats worth something.

I don’t want to present myself as a martyr or a hero, and I do not know his circumstances or the “deal” he’s been offered that well, but just to say that I do not have a great deal of sympathy for him: I have come away from altercations on behalf of the cause way more beat-up than that. I have also endured profound economic and lifestyle consequences.

Still, given what we are up against, mine was the normal response.

His duty was to England if he was the head of an “English defense league,” not to going along with Jewish political correctness and acquiescence to non-native presence.

He was working with Pam Geller? That practically says enough, by itself.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 05:18 | #

Posted by Ratboy on October 10, 2013, 10:25 PM | #

Exposing the EDL…

Thanks Ratboy.

That was a nice presentation by Nick Griffin.

Not a surprise and nothing new in the parameters, but a great deal of useful detail.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:31 | #

And with that statement by Griffin, it is good to re-emphasize that White National interests are at the same time being betrayed by the neo-cons, comprised largely of White corporations such as Dick Cheney’s Haliburton.

Thus, I should refrain from using the term “White elites”, when referring to our traitors. Of course I meant elite in the sense of capability. For the sake of vigilance in not losing sight of race and to not letting Jewish interests somehow weasel their way in disguise of being on the side of White nationalists, I can sometimes under focus on the betrayal by White, internationalist oligarchs.

However, it is in service of never losing complete site of that for which I maintain the moniker, White Left.

It worked sufficiently to weed-out Paul Weston from serious consideration after being entertained by his first video.

..............................................................

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:01 | #

However, there is a correction to make in Griffin’s characterization of the neo-cons as not primarily Jewish. They and the corporations behind them are not primarily Jewish in number, but in conceptual and organizational motive beyond money their purpose and agenda is primarily Zionist and Jewish.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:14 | #

The only real requirement for a European nationalist is this: no one who is not at least 31/32 pure European indigenous white can be allowed either to become a citizen of or even permanently reside in any European country. This is the Nuremberg standard, which should perhaps be made harsher in cases of greater genetic distance from Europoids: 1/32 Negroid can still be quite noticeable.

Therefore, all nonwhites must be re- or expatriated from Europe.

That is the fundament of nationalism. Everything else, like religion, economy, voting procedures, environment, etc, can be subject to debate, negotiation and electoral compromise.

Of course, there may be laws in different European countries making the outspoken expression of this baseline either illegal or imprudent. So there should be some slack accorded to those who refrain from expressing the baseline ... provided they never advocate anything that actually violates it. So, eg, a nationalist can advocate deporting all illegal aliens, without mentioning repatriation (even if doing so would not violate a statute), and still be a solid nationalist. But he must never say anything to suggest that legal nonwhite immigration is in any way acceptable.

Refraining from criticizing something should not be seen as assenting to it.

Posted by Dude on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:12 | #

Tommy Robinson and the EDL were never ‘us’ to be fair and the recent announcement encourages further cynicism, but let’s step back and see whether his new found perspective will allow more media coverage of the dangers of an alien ideology on our nation or less (and whether this will allow British people to feel more culturally or ethnically threatened because of it) . That really depends on who is allowed to voice criticism and what they say. UKIP are degrading into a tired political husk for concerned old folk, but what is it that TR now believes?

Listen to this between 35 minutes and the hour mark and decide whether SYL is completely defanged or whether he now has more room for manoeuvre to cause upset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdcEakw883M&feature=player_detailpage#t=3515

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:17 | #

Not surprising in the least.

I suppose by this act TR has added himself to a ‘to off list’ somewhere in patriotic England. Let’s hope so.

His—and his organisation’s—usefulness has come to an end.

Time to bury hatchets (in their necks) and move on.

Posted by Dude on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:28 | #

EDIT: here’s the UKIP link missing from the post above http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFDojKPU22Q

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:18 | #

When Euro’s reject God, what else can you expect but their own dispossession?

Word:

White people’s’ rejection of God is resulting in their own extinction.

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:42 | #

On reactionaries

The “Reactionary Movement” has experienced significant growth over the past year or so.  There are now dozens of “reactionary” blogs publishing articles with varying frequency and quality.  There are perhaps 300 self-styled “reactionaries” on twitter alone, not exactly the place one would expect to find them, and an even larger sphere of traditionalists and conservatives are starting to encounter and identify with reactionary ideas.  The West has, as Solzhenitsyn said, reached a critical turning point where the old values of the Enlightenment have stopped working.  Cultures are disintegrating, populations are collapsing, budgets cannot be balanced, wars cannot be won, ethnic tensions are rising, and spiritual anomie is at a height.  Enlightenment thought only offers more liberty, more equality, more rights, more free trade, and more diversity than we already have as solutions to these problems.  As the aforementioned problems continue to get worse, often fueled by the supposed solutions, more and more people from across the political spectrum are looking for a credible alternative.  Reactionary thought provides a credible alternative at this critical turning point, or at least helps people see through the grosser lies of the political and cultural elite class, and has shown the ability to attract a wide variety of people: California techies, Southern tradesmen, Northeastern students & professionals, Latin American Catholics, Continental rationalists, etc.

On the other hand, let’s not kid ourselves.  Among the cultural and political elite, whether “conservative” or “liberal,” concepts like democracy, equality, open borders, and diversity remain sacred, and are relentlessly pushed onto the rootless masses through public schools, legislation, and television.  Some reactionaries regard this elite as a powerful, organized institution (a “Cathedral”).  I prefer to see it like the Cyclops of the Odyssey: big, powerful, somewhat intelligent, and occasionally destroying unfortunate men, yet also blundering, arrogant, and increasingly blind and confused.  Whatever the name it is not something to be trifled with, and now is certainly not the time for infighting and division among reactionaries.

At this moment, however, we are starting to see infighting and division within the reactionary movement.  These divisions seem to involve to questions: 1) what does it mean to be “reactionary?” 2) what does it mean to be a “movement?”  I will attempt to briefly lay out answers to both these questions that will help us avoid confusion and mitigate potential conflicts.

What does it mean to be a “reactionary?”  We have taken very different paths to get here, led by different authors (Evola, Spengler, Aristotle, Confucius, Davila, De Maistre, Sobran, Fleming, Kuehnelt-Leddihn, etc.), different blogs (Mencius Moldbug, the Orthosphere), and with varying degrees of interest in science and technology.  Yet it is fairly easy to establish common intellectual ground:  first, reactionaries agree that the victory of the left’s abstract, universal ideologies over the particular cultural traditions, political institutions, and established religion of the West was generally a bad thing, and seek to explain why liberal political and social forces have consistently triumphed from the French Revolution of 1789 down to the present day.  Second, reactionaries believe that it is natural and moral for a man to be particularly attached to his kin and culture, and that sharing these particular attachments is the foundation of an authentic, resilient society.

Read more>>

http://thereflectivereactionary.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/reactionary-problems/

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:16 | #

White people’s’ rejection of God is resulting in their own extinction. (Thorn)

Yes, but equally, a series of incorrect understandings about the political content of Christianity, esp wrt race.

It really pains me to say this, but these days, organized/institutional Christianity is largely an enemy of Western survival. At best (and who would that be in the US? Missouri Lutheran Synod? Russian orthodox?), it is indifferent to our survival; more usually, actively (ie, functionally, but sometimes even intentionally) hostile to it.

I remain as convinced as ever that the intellectual key to Western survival is a reactionary renaissance within Christianity. Christianity must be theologically reformulated along traditionalist lines, and then that “racially reformed” faith must be widely propagated amongst currently theologically confused but authentic conservatives.

Only when lots of conservative whites come to believe that making racial distinctions, and formulating policy on that basis, is morally allowable will there be any real resistance to the march of multiculturalism.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:10 | #

It really pains me to say this, but these days, organized/institutional Christianity is largely an enemy of Western survival.

The key is that it has become, basically, a spiritual offshoot of secular humanism.  Of course we are told, ad nauseam, that this is the essence of Christianity, but that is nonsense as we can see from modern Orthodox Christianity outside of western Europe and the Middle Ages and even Renaissance versions of Christianity there.  What is not so clear is what caused this change, i.e. some people suggest that it was an innate possibility in the faith.  I’m not a great fan of this line of reasoning as it wasn’t really until post-Enlightenment times that you see the kinds of ideological changes in the faith that have now totally reshaped it.  My view is that the dispirited nature of the Western man in general is the cause of this malaise and degeneracy.

I remain as convinced as ever that the intellectual key to Western survival is a reactionary renaissance within Christianity. Christianity must be theologically reformulated along traditionalist lines, and then that “racially reformed” faith must be widely propagated amongst currently theologically confused but authentic conservatives.

While I am convinced that such a thing would be beneficial for Western man, it isn’t possible unless he believes in it once more.  And that is a remote possibility in the end.  But we’ll see; the situation in the modern West is so dire now that a USSR-like collapse of the Liberal regimes could come within our lifetime and this might have the possibility to rebalance things.  To be frank, though, I don’t see the radtrad option as being likely even in such a situation - look at the pathetic condition of modern whites.  This rebirth of tradition that you talk about will probably be limited to individuals and small communities, if it does come about at all.

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:41 | #

@Leon

Most modern day Christians are, IMHO, schizophrenic, i.e.,  in their conflicted minds, they practice two religions: One being “Liberalism.” The other being traditional Christianity. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, the former overpowers the latter; that, unfortunately, is the direction where Euro-Christians have “evolved.” I believe this mal -evolution is due to today’s overarching technologically advanced environment. Technology that produced a philosophy that embraces the idiotic belief that asserts:  “we don’t need no stinkin’ God!‘, the infalability of science and the power Statism rules!

I say they are fools!

Posted by Jon on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:07 | #

Leon: “Yes, but equally, a series of incorrect understandings about the political content of Christianity, esp wrt race.”

North America would not have a Mestizo problem today were it not for Christian priests sanctifying marraiges between Spainards and Indios. Kindly provide us with a scriptural basis for the “incorrect understanding” such marraiges were based on.

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:14 | #

@Jon

Spiritual basis aside, back then, people of European descent hadn’t an inkling that two hundred years in the future their kith and kin back in their mother country would be under the pressure of extinction.

What happened between the Spaniards and Indios back then, has a very tenuous connection to what’s happening to us now.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:10 | #

Posted by Jon on October 15, 2013, 04:07 AM | #

North America would not have a Mestizo problem today were it not for Christian priests sanctifying marraiges between Spainards and Indios. Kindly provide us with a scriptural basis for the “incorrect understanding” such marraiges were based on.

I agree Jon, and once again appreciate your patience and stance with regard to Christianity.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:12 | #

Gudmund@27

But think - who is our (potential) base? I’ve been talking about this for a long time, in many different contexts. WNs will never appeal to leftist egalitarians, nor to more than a minority of atheists (not sure why most atheists are also leftists, antiracists, etc, but that, too, is shown by sociological data).

The only groups reachable by us who have not already been racially awakened are Christian conservatives and more secular (but not necessarily atheist) conservatives. Given the viscerality of race and its problems (this isn’t the 70s anymore, when realities could be plausibly argued away based on claims of ancient prejudice) the liberal mind is obviously simply incapable of enlightenment, and thus all liberal genomes will eventually be amalgamated out of the white gene pool. It’s just a matter of time.

The only possible recruits we can make are from among those white non-liberals who know Diversity is bad, but think it somehow immoral to do anything coercive (or even just opinionated) to halt its growth. At least in the US, there are millions of such people. I know. They comprise much of my family; some of my colleagues; some of my friends.

It is to make inroads with THIS group, our only possible large pool of recruits, that WPs should be concerned with conforming our doctrines with our people’s ancient faith.

Sorry for the conceit, but I am undeniably correct on this.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:18 | #

Yes, you are conceited, and you are wrong - try a Christian site to make converts to WN rather than this site to make Christian converts of WN’s. At this site people think beyond your FBI/Judeo prescribed Judeo/Christian fatalism.

Posted by Jon on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:52 | #

Thorn: “Spiritual basis aside, back then, people of European descent hadn’t an inkling that two hundred years in the future their kith and kin back in their mother country would be under the pressure of extinction.”

Nor did they find anything wrong in their code book with Europeans miscegenating with people of other races. Can you (or Leon)? It’s a serious (fatal, actually) problem with your religion, as serious as it already is to be concerned with the souls of Bantus and Australoids.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:08 | #

Nice essay by Tobias Langdon on “cultural Marxism is a language-based form of parasitism.”

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/10/verbal-venom-biological-parallels-for-western-pathologies/#more-20999

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:47 | #

I too along with Jon, Danny and I’m sure many others would simply love Mr. Haller to provide a serious account (you know beyond bluster of “well in my axiomatically correct view Christianity says X on subject Y) of why Voodoo frowns upon inter-ethnic or inter-racial marriages.

I think we all might wait until the 12th of never.

I anticipate Mr. Haller will say “well it’s all very complex I’ll get back to you after my graduate studies etc.”

OK Leon not a full account but maybe just a paragraph or two outlining one or two major reasons why you think Christianity - in the form of serious and educated Christians (not some KKK-style redneck that does a little lay preaching on the side) - would or should theologically adhere to your view on the topic.

Isn’t there an axiomatic equality at the heart of the Christian message? Read Badiou on Paul if you want chapter and verse.

This axiomatic moral equality - or in more formal terms the moral plateau - is expressed in the most banal and the highest forms of theological “thought”.

Basically thus:

We are all abject sinners in need of God’s gift of grace - it is open to all - no favourites etc., or in the more modern version we are all lovely beams of sunshine loved equally by God - well so long as we say sorry for being naughty. In some theological thought the possibility of receiving grace, forgiveness etc., goes on even beyond death!

Look be a Christian, if that’s your thing, but one cannot be a semi-serious one and a “hard-core racist” at the same time without some massive cognitive dissonance going on.

Not that being a vulgar racist is anything to boast about or aim for - most people that identify as such overwhelmingly tend to be deeply unpleasant people often with some type of personality ‘issue’, and on top of that, politically and intellectually, unsophisticated morons.

Apropos of nothing a big shout out to Mr. Richards and Mr. Bowery - do you guys still read the blog?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:04 | #

Oh and on the antics of the half-wit known as Tommy Robinson and his collection of aging football hooligans I can only quote Ultravox and their great 1980s hit ‘Vienna’ - “this means nothing to me”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9WdUgn0XkU

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:24 | #

OMG!

Graham Lister links to another hideously awful song.

I really should have known better to click on the link; but curiosity got the best of me so I did so anyway. As soon as I seen the piece was utter crap, I quickly clicked it off.

Why?

I can remember the first time I foolishly click on one of Graham’s fave youtube selections, I was stricken with earworm for the better part of two days hence I say to you: DAMN YOU LISTER! /

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:43 | #

Oh, in case there might be some misinterpretation of my last comment, that / denotes sarcasm.

Posted by Jon on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:44 | #

There is a problem between Christians and atheists/Pagans that doesn’t exist between atheists and Pagans. It has to do with loyalty. Christians necessarily put religion before race.  This problem doesn’t exist between WN Pagans and atheists because race is implicitly intertwined with their religion.

OTOH, Christians very often for some reason don’t trust anyone who has rejected Christianity.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:25 | #

Are there serious reading comprehension problems around here [not on my end, anyway: I got a perfect score on the Verbal section of the GRE (which does involve more than reading comprehension, to be sure - one needs a decent English vocabulary to perform well) when I took it several years ago]?

My comment @32 is political, not theological. Surely it is obvious that I am not there arguing that one cannot be both a Christian and a race-liberal or miscegenationist (as I myself would be should I end up marrying my half-Asian girlfriend). My argument, stated baldly, was that “the only possible recruits we can make are from among those white non-liberals who know Diversity is bad, but think it somehow immoral to do anything coercive (or even just opinionated) to halt its growth”. How is this any sort of theological claim? And in what way is it controversial?

I have NEVER stated that Christianity REQUIRES one to be a racist or even a white preservationist (though I have hinted that I do think miscegenation is an act of disrespect towards one’s parents, and, for Westerners, our broader civilization, and thus a form of impiety; I have never provided any sort of deep theology for this intuition, however). All I have ever stated is that Christianity does not REQUIRE one to be racially indifferent, let alone an active race traitor. How the hell is this statement confusing?!

Wishing to preserve the white race does not make one into a conventionally-thought-of-as-objectionable “hardcore racist”. And simply because Christianity does not require one to be a racial preservationist does not mean that one is violating the faith’s tenets in being a race (or any other kind of) patriot.

Most of you people have a caricatured vision of Christianity in your heads, one which conflates the historic faith with modern liberalism. Just because one ought to behave decently towards all persons doesn’t mean one must import millions of unassimilable (and frequently ill-behaved) aliens into one’s territory, or provide them with welfare benefits, or erase your historic culture simply to be more ‘inclusive’ of them, etc. Bit of a logical leap there, no? How stupid are we all?

Of course, one could imagine a scenario where that might not be true: a hidden supervolcano on Papua New Guinea erupts and forces the evacuation of the entire population from the island. One could make a Christian case that at least some of those displaced refugees (though by no means all) ought to be resettled in white lands. They cannot live on their traditional territory, and perhaps the resettlement problems should be equally apportioned across the world (though it would be equally morally acceptable in Christian terms for a Western leader to point out that such Negroid peoples might be better situated in Africa, and thus move to keep them out of our homelands, provided the Western powers make some sort of payment to the African nations determined to be the Papuans’ final new homelands).

The Very Bottom Line is that Christianity is not a utopian creed, requiring its adherents to ignore ‘facts on the ground’, whether about race or anything else. It is in fact supremely realistic.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:29 | #

Posted by Leon Haller on October 17, 2013, 06:25 AM | #

“Are there serious reading comprehension problems around here [not on my end, anyway: I got a perfect score on the Verbal section of the GRE (which does involve more than reading comprehension, to be sure - one needs a decent English vocabulary to perform well) when I took it several years ago]?”

That is a criteria that the F.B.I. would look for when recruiting assets.

Whether or not it is the case that you are such an asset, it looks like a duck, it talks like a duck..

in otherwords, your value at MR is largely in providing a tab on those angles that are being pursued by our upscale White adversaries.

They want us to be Christian. Why? because it is a paralytic neurotoxin which disables our ability to defend ourselves. It keeps us at odds with llogic, self sacrificing, placing faith in the hereafter, it is intertwined with reverence for Jews, their perspective and it easily manipulable by them to at very least include, if not serve, their interests altogether.

“The Very Bottom Line is that Christianity is not a utopian creed, requiring its adherents to ignore ‘facts on the ground’, whether about race or anything else. It is in fact supremely realistic.”

Not true

“All I have ever stated is that Christianity does not REQUIRE one to be racially indifferent, let alone an active race traitor. How the hell is this statement confusing?!”

Yes, it does require us to be racially indifferent.

On top of that you continually propose Austrian school economics, in service of the whores and sell-outs, Jewish, White, etc. at the top.  No accountability.

Next, you propose supremacist ideas that make Whites look bad; or you propose passive theories as to our inherent defect, which leaves nothing to do but accept our fate and resign to White/Jewish Zion.

Leon, if it is any consolation, I believe there can be some White nations which accept some 1/4 orientals - (which a child of yours might be). I think you should marry your girlfriend - she has the patience of a saint.

Posted by Jon on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:56 | #

Leon: The Very Bottom Line is that Christianity is not a utopian creed, requiring its adherents to ignore ‘facts on the ground’, whether about race or anything else. It is in fact supremely realistic.

There are sundry good reasons for anyone of any race to reject Christianity. But the fact that mass importation of unassimilable (read: racially alien) immigrants, missions to save the souls of and charity to Bantus and miscegenation is not inconsistent with Christianity is sufficient reason for anyone who cares about the continued existence of Euro Peoples not merely to reject but to consider banning it from WNistan.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 20 Oct 2013 13:25 | #

Leon’s response is pretty much what everyone would guess it would be.

Deeply unserious.

I have no problem, as such, with people that want to be serious Christians (the 1-2% that are) – by that I mean they take their faith seriously – intellectually, morally etc. In short they ‘pay the price’ in those terms of their position and reflect in a mature way upon that position and price that comes with it. Deeply unserious people – of whatever ideology – get their world-view on ‘the cheap’. Well yes this bit (I like) but oh no not this bit (I don’t like) without rhyme or reason seemingly – or at best very self-serving pseudo-rationalisations.

Of course 99.9% of human beings have such tendencies – beliefs on the cheap – but the only way to deal with this bad habit is to recognise it in oneself and attempt to be more self-critical and rigorous in one’s own thoughts – what objections can be made to my position?; what evidence runs contrary to my views?

Leon’s Voodoo is, as far as I can discern, very much ‘on the cheap’.

Recall Mr. Haller’s more outrageous bon mots – blacks are ‘rodents’ and would anyone care if they were ‘wiped out’?, with more of a hint it would be a jolly good idea to at least try. Hang people that default on a credit card bill etc.

Can such views ever be those of a genuinely and authentically serious Christian? Really? One that ‘pays the price’ for their position – morally and intellectually? In my view not really.

Look we are about 5000 levels below Heidegger but towards the end of his life Heidegger said something along the lines this – that God (the Christian God) had always been with him.

As a friend of mine – a Christian that is also an academic philosopher (and is somewhat familiar with Heidegger) – responded with “Yes God might have always been with Heidegger but Heidegger was rarely with God.”

Quite.

Now is Mr. Haller espousing the highly controversial doctrine of the ‘Anonymous Christian’ as developed by Karl Rahner?

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

Which basically claims everyone is, in some odd way, secretly a Christian - that God keeps asking us to receive him/his grace (or whatever) and ultimately no-one, finally says “no” - even if the “yes” is a very obscure yes?

Given that I guess one could engage in unimaginable barbarity, extremely cruelty and radical evil as yet somehow be an authentic Christian! But I have my doubts as do, I would guess, any remotely serious Christian on that one.

I start from the premise that the question of God – any God - is beyond our capabilities to adequately approach let alone answer. I hold this view for what I think are sound philosophical and scientific reasons (see Anthony Kenny’s “The Unknown God” for a start). I also try to take ontology seriously – given what we seemingly know about the world what does this imply about its underlying ontology? Well it’s not reductionist in any genuinely serious sense of the term. Ontological stratification – what is it and how might it be manifest in the world? What does science and the implicit ontology of science tell us about this subject etc.,?

I might be very much an amateur in tackling such issues but hopefully not one doing so “on the cheap”. 

What account can we give of morality within a naturalistic context? Can one be a moral realist, or at least quasi-realists (a la Simon Blackburn) – are ethics mere subjectivities and so on? All serious questions – and not ones so easily got around by simply saying “God innit”. But I digress.

Look the fact that at various times and in various places official Christianity – institutional Christianity – endorsed some highly questionable views (does anyone really think slavery should be brought back?) hardly implies that these are genuine Christian doctrines. Ideologically Christianity has been acculturated with all sorts of nonsense – the Divine Right of Kings – no-one now would claim this as a core Christian belief but it was defended as such back in the day. Choose whatever your favourite ideological vice/virtue is and you will probably find someone somewhere in history claiming it as the essence of Christianity. Pacifism and Quakers through to the Crusaders – all sorts of secondary ideological grab are worn by, and have been worn, by Christians.

What the serious Christian – whom I guess thinks of themselves as some sort of moral realist with that morality being God given - is to find what the genuine principles of Christianity are. I doubt there is a single consistent story to be told as the Bible is morally heterogeneous. Think children should be stoned to death for bad behaviour well it’s right there in the Holy book. However, I think most serious Christians would focus upon the gospels – the sermon on the mount etc., as being their starting point.

Mass murder etc., isn’t really mentioned much. That ideological lability of Christianity – its ability to be acculturated - isn’t quite infinite is scope. So yes Mr. Haller’s mix of vulgar racism and Austrian economics might be sensu stricto, as secondary ideological garb, ‘compatible’ with institutional Voodoo. But let’s be honest that assertion looks astonishingly incongruous as a proposition in and of itself, let along as the likely direction of travel within serious Christian circles.

I guess at some point people have to agree to disagree.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:54 | #

Lister@44

If one only knew Dr. Lister from this comment, one would assume he was a flaming leftist (as perhaps he is, or will eventually become).

Note how Lister takes a comment of mine

I have NEVER stated that Christianity REQUIRES one to be a racist or even a white preservationist (though I have hinted that I do think miscegenation is an act of disrespect towards one’s parents, and, for Westerners, our broader civilization, and thus a form of impiety; I have never provided any sort of deep theology for this intuition, however). All I have ever stated is that Christianity does not REQUIRE one to be racially indifferent, let alone an active race traitor. How the hell is this statement confusing?! (LH)

and twists it into some kind of advocacy of “unimaginable barbarity, extremely cruelty and radical evil”. Is this not the standard tactic of the Racial Left? Advocate closing off immigration, and suddenly you’re accused of being a Nazi.

This is silly. Lister is essentially trying to foist off his belief about Christianity as the Faith proper; to wit, that the ‘true’ Christian is some kind of One-Worlder, as perhaps the unfortunate Pope Francis is, and thus any racial conservative (or, one suspects, in Lister’s deranged reading, any type of conservative) must ipso facto be simply substituting his own personal prejudices for the actual doctrine.

What nonsense! I have taken innumerable pains to point out that the fundamental issue wrt race and Christianity is not whether the faith is morally compatible with racial liberalism, but rather, whether such liberalism is necessitated by it. In other words, the genius of the Left is that it has forced the Right onto the moral defensive, instead of the other way around. So instead of immigrationists having to find Christian justification for wanting to destroy their home cultures by imposing innumerable and unassimilable aliens upon them, it becomes the duty of conservatives to have to justify their desires not to be so flooded with foreigners. It seems to me a basic point of moral discussion that it is the aggressor who must defend his proposed change, not the ‘inertialist’ who merely wishes to maintain the status quo - at least when that status quo does not obviously (textually) violate any element of Christian doctrine. That doctrine does not state that it is wrong to leave one’s homeland, nor does it state that other homelands have obligations to receive newcomers.

The deeper point here is that Christianity is indeed a morally elastic doctrine, though of course not infinitely so. Intentional killing of innocent persons, for example, cannot be justified. Thus, Nazism is incompatible with Christianity.

But what about racial segregationism? Is that incompatible? In what way? Where in the Gospels does it say that Christ requires different races to live cheek by jowl with one another? Where in the Church Fathers? What theological principle states that non-aggressive people should not be allowed to live amongst themselves alone? Hint: you won’t find one, because the modern doctrine of integration is not Christian, but liberal. That this or that Christian, or even a majority of such, proclaim this view is meaningless wrt its doctrinal truth.

But what is even more ridiculous about Lister’s comment is that my comments above are not even making theological claims, but rather political ones, specifically,

The only possible recruits we [WPs] can make are from among those white non-liberals who know Diversity is bad, but think it somehow immoral to do anything coercive (or even just opinionated) to halt its growth.

I keep making this argument, but people here aren’t listening. Who is our WP base?

Posted by wobbly on Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:51 | #

The state has been stepping on TR from a great height for years. Everyone cracks in the end and most would have cracked sooner.

North America would not have a Mestizo problem today were it not for Christian priests sanctifying marraiges between Spainards and Indios.

When Jews (nb Sepphardic) were expelled from Spain into Portugal by the reconquista they set up sugar plantations on the Portuguese islands along the west coast of Africa using black slaves as labor. The mulatto population they created on those plantations later became one of the biggest contributors to the populations of Brazil, Central America and the Caribbean. It’s all there in the genetics.

Jews created and ran the atlantic slave trade after the Reconquista demolished the white slave trade they’d been running from Moorish Spain for centuries.