|
|
|
The unfolding hostility at the DT There is a common perception among participants in the thread wars at the Daily Telegraph that an era of some fairly rich pickings is at an end. The editorial line is moving inexorably leftward. The moderation is becoming obsessive and has nothing whatsoever to do with house rules any more. Genuinely right of centre bloggers are leaving. Absurdly leftist academics and outright anti-racists are being provided with platforms. To add insult to injury, the blogs editor himself has vented his scorn at his own readers not once, but twice in the space of 24 hours. A number of things could be going on. For one, there is a new American boss who is expected to deliver some exciting and hitherto undreamt of digital future to the Telegraph Media Group. And that is notwithstanding the fact that the Telegraph, probably alone among nationals in Britain, delivers a healthy £60 million profit, mainly from its print titles. Apparently, Jason Seiken is very keen on bottom-up revolutions – meaning it’s the troops who have to come up with creative suggestions for their own areas of activity. Whether the collective stampede to the left is a nervy reaction to that one cannot say. I guess it is more likely than a top-down directive to take the paper to the left, given Seiken’s dislike for that kind of management. On that basis, Damian Thompson’s truly pathetic mimicry of the lower end of UKIPer commentary does not bode well for his understanding of what the word “creative” might mean. It was Thompson who invited the Hope Not Hate sympathiser Matthew Goodwin and his pal from Manchester, Robert Ford, to begin a blog titled UkipWatch. Two more petty academics have now joined Ford in a polling blog, evidently for the run-in to the May elections. These creatures aside, the rest of the writing slate is looking markedly unTelegraph-like. Liberal leftists and outright socialists now jostle with goody two-shoes Tory boys. Readers are expected to regard Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan as anti-Establishment figures. It’s all a long way from the promise exhibited by Ed West a couple of years ago, and by Delingpole til the present, of course Added to this, the switch to the full DISQUS format has entailed more intrusive word-blocking. The moderation has become very tetchy (with some hyper-sensitive protection of the Chosen by, I think, one moderator – a single frank sentence will earn you a ban). I have the feeling that a fair number of nationalists working the DT threads have given up already, and repaired to less problematic sites. There is quite a bit of talk among anti-AGW types today on the final Delingpole thread of giving up on the DT and leaving it to its two AGW fanatics, Geoffrey Lean and Jenny Jones. It may be that we are victims of our own success, and the shift leftward represents an angry turn against discourse the liberal mind simply cannot deal with. I guess we must have seriously pissed off a lot of people who thought they had control of the ideology, and would never be challenged. How much we have changed reader perceptions I cannot begin to say. Probably very little. There is an argument that newspaper threads are not as useful as propaganda tools as we might like to think. At the same time, we don’t have anything else. So what to do? Well, carry on for the present. But keep a watching brief on the unfolding hostility of the DT editors and mods. The story might change after the elections, if UKIP don’t do well as expected. If they do, of course, we can expect the panic at Central Office to reach down into the house magazine, and life to remain difficult for the foreseeable future. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:02 | # “Yet somehow rightists, especially the nationalist variety, are never able to do so. I wonder why that is.” Because The Right is an illusion, it serves as an ever elusive smoke and mirror show put on by “self made men” (traitorous elites) to avoid accountability. While the journalistas continue to define us as such, we go down the drain, wondering why we cannot organize in critique of liberals and international Marxists, whom they insist the White Class refer to as “The” Left. 3
Posted by Bill on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:42 | # The forces of relativism are in retreat on all fronts, no moreso than in Europe. The forces of relativism have at last clashed head on with reality big time. as we knew it would all along. Cognisant dissonance is finely balanced and is at the tipping point, can the BBC hold the line? By the look of this morning’s Wythenshawe and Sale by-election in Machester, the BBC are pulling out all the stops - the clear winner in this election is the welfare state. Perhaps this struggle continues to be played out along the lines of nationalism versus the forces of the welfare state. In which case, nature will decide the outcome. (Perhaps as it always would) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/14/wythenshawe-byelection-labour-win-reduced-turnout With regard to the DT threads I too noticed long ago the top line nationalists were voting with their feet, they were wasting their efforts, you could search all day for comment on the NWO or World Government without nary a glimpse - which told me censorship was all pervasive. Future historians will have a hard time deciding what effect the blogosphere has had on public opinion, on balance, as seen at this moment in time it has failed in its valiant efforts. From the beginning, this war has been dictated on the MSM ‘s own terms, notwithstanding the the decades of deceit, subterfuge and downright lying which held the word’s populace in ignorance of what was going on. The advantage of our opponent’s flying start has been whittled away and the outcome is finely balanced - there’s all to play for yet. I commented somewhere that the end of 2014 would look much different than from the beginning. Aside. I Notice this passed by without comment. Stuart Hall Godfather of multiculturalism dies 82. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/10/godfather-multiculturalism-stuart-hall-dies NB. No comment on UKIP!. 4
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:00 | # “The forces of relativism are in retreat on all fronts, no moreso than in Europe. The forces of relativism have at last clashed head on with reality big time. as we knew it would all along.” Yes, the forces of hyper-relativism are on the run, Bill. And hopefully the largest beneficiaries of welfare, the banksters, and their undermining, surplus “workforce” of non-White welfare, contract and grant recipients, will be thwarted sooner and not later. 5
Posted by Bill on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:25 | # DT Threads. I neglected to note @3 the value of the comment threads to the online media’s analysis teams, always assuming there is such a thing. What finer bellwether could they have as to which way the wind is blowing on topics such as the EU or even a signifier as to the strength of nationalist sentiment. In light of the recent whistle blowing revelations on the trillions of emails being monitored by such comments as here, who knows what they’re doing with such information? 6
Posted by Bill on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:33 | # We all know only too well why the nationalist blogger’s viewpoint is failing to connect with the general public and that is he operates in a bubble in which the general public has little or no interest. The nationalist viewpoint is simply barred from access to any public audience, be it blog censorship or a cracked skull. So what to do? In my earlier comments @ 3 & 4 I refrained from commenting on UKIP simply because I have no coherent thoughts on how they will impact on events, in both near term and long term. This is what makes it such a fascinating debate here in the UK. IMO, It goes without saying Farage’s UKIP is a controlled punchbag on which to vent one’s spleen. The situation as it is, vis a vis lack of means of effective communication as laid out above, the ball is firmly at the feet of Nigel Farage, he is the only hope (some hope!) to tell it like it is. From now on in, my attention will be strictly focussed on Farage himself, but what I’ve seen so far, ‘Don’t Impress Me Much.’ (Shades of Shania Twain?) 7
Posted by Morgoth on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:16 | # You can see the increase in hostility towards Nationalist commentary by comparing the shelf life of my avatars. Morgoth=9 Months It’s quite plain, they want us gone ! The Fabian Solutions Troll who may well be a DT employee has been posting for a while that we are going to be ‘‘purged’‘. What I find most frustrating about the whole DT threads issue is the cowardice of the ardent UKIPers, because they rely on the ‘‘cultural’’ argument and not the racial one the Anti Racists are still able to give them a hard time, this is despite the fact that White Nationalists have come to their defence time and time again. You will notice that these passionate but ultimately impotent ‘‘Kippers’’ are not being banned, Cassandra and Frank are still sitting at the top of every comments board, and why not? unlike the WN posters they are toothless. What I tried to do at the DT was to get tactics out into the public sphere that would arm our people against the Liberal onslaught, to give them weapons, mentally, that could be used whether at work or sitting in a pub. One idea I’ve been pushing is an outright rejection of the ‘‘Racist’’ WMD, ‘‘The word Racist is a Liberal weapon, since I reject Liberalism I’m obviously going to reject the weapons and tactics it uses, similarly I’m not a Hindu so I don’t have to be concerned about Hindu rules regarding the eating of steak’‘ Needless to say this is now being censored on the spot, but the long and angry rants from the Kippers just keep on swarming in. If the DT continues on its present trend the UKIPers are going to be relentlessly hounded, when the Nationalists leave the Anti Racists will pour in and tear the Kippers apart with ‘‘Define YOUR culture!’’ and ‘‘You’re just racists in blazers’‘. What we are witnessing at the DT is a text book take over by Cultural Marxists 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:19 | # Morgoth, Think back a few months to that very brief period when that little rash of monsters who threatening prosecutions for hate speech appeared on the DT threads - these people operate as a swarm. When you challenged Robert Ford to explain himself the other day, and he could not respond, it suddenly dawned on me that these guys have calculated that not responding is their only remaining strategy. Compare that to the Jews who argue, argue, argue, throwing out smear after smear, answering questions with insults and lies, even outright race-hate, and reporting everything until the moderator jumps to attention. That is their strategy. The Jews encourage our speech in the confident expectation that they can label us and have us banned. Because their smear-tactics don’t have the same effect, the white liberals and anti-racists are forced to shut up themselves in order to deny us outright victory. As one moves rightward, the ability to smell the nationalist coffee decreases. Conservatives who are infected by anti-racism are yet to understand that they have to shut up to shut us up. They argue to the point of their own evisceration. But, actually, it’s worse for them than that. Click on this live ConHome thread: ... which is about the Wythenshawe result. Scroll down to where “Comments” appears in red, and then just below that click on “Rating”. You will see that the lead comment recommend-wise is by one PeterWeatherall. It is a nationalist comment, not a conservative comment, not a culturist or civicist comment. It is the only comment PeterWeatherall has ever made at ConHome. Now have a look at the “users reputation score”, shown in green beside the name. Scroll down and look at the other commenters rep scores. You get the message. These people are ordinary party members and supporters, for pete’s sake. They are voting up a shocking racist nationalist! We can still achieve something. We must not give up. 9
Posted by Bill on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:14 | # Did all those people who voted in the Whythenshawe by election expect to get what they wanted by placing an X on the ballot paper? I suspect they did or else why bother? I suspect that since the year dot our election system has not reflected the will of the people, certainly not in my time and I’ve seen a few. I’m not particularly au fait with the history of voting but I’d bet my last penny it was rigged from the word go. What better scam could you devise to deceive the people into believing that they had a genuine choice, when all the time the decisions would be made by those outside of politics, those whose names you had never heard of let alone offered themselves for election. Even Quigley admitted the idea was to vote the scoundrels out and let the old gang have their turn in the belief they would be different. Whenever more than two people appear on the BBC they, (BBC) divide them into factions of red team-blue team. The everlasting mid-day re-runs run of ‘Bargain Hunt’ points out the BBC no longer have winners and losers- they have runners up. Divide and conquer is the name of the game since the dawn of time, why change a winning formula when you know it works every time. Every last one who voted in the Whithenshawe election had no idea that irrespective of what colour they chose there was ever only going to be one result - Postmodern liberalism of the economic and cultural variety. Why do we accept this state of affairs where at set intervals of years we are privileged to place our illiterate feudal X on a piece of paper, knowing full well it is only a ritual scam and nothing will ever change. Time for direct democracy. 10
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:43 | # I managed a whole year as Dalek_1963 til I was zapped in the great purge. Dalek101 lasted no more than a few days. I’m lying low for now, commenting elsewhere but not the DT. From a tactical pov, how do they target us, anyone know. I assumed it was technical - IP address or something - but Im wondering if its more simple. Based on our comments directly or even who follows whom. By following someone I’m making them a target and vice versa? We can fix that but following is one way we make an impact, we are far more co-operative than the disjointed conservatives & liberals. 11
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:56 | #
Absolutely mate, the fate of ‘conservatives’ everywhere. They try to distance themselves from us and the enemy drag them off to face a firing squad anyway. 12
Posted by Morgoth on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:28 | # Guessedworker, The ‘‘Guests’’ are always on my mind when posting, as can be seen by your trip into conservative home the public is on our side, even in a match between White Nationalists and Ukipers. My Arganath account had a recommend to post ratio of around 24-1 ! When I saw that Thompson had invited the Far Left in to write UKIP articles I had assumed that this was to increase ‘‘clicks’’ what is becoming known as ‘‘clickBait’‘. You will see that a Tebbit piece has just gone up which mentions the BNP, that’s because they KNOW that such an article will increase commentary, they know what the big subjects are. So because the DT writers don’t do weekends Tebbits blog can sit there all weekend racking up the ‘‘clicks’‘. They do this every Friday without fail. This is the fine line the DT has trod for some years now, the problem of course comes when Nationalists start pounding not just Anti Racists, but the whole of the non Nationalist political spectrum and, finally, organized Jewry. We have reached the point when the editors have decided enough is enough. It didn’t take much to turn the readership into Anti Semites, even the UKIP Queen Cassandra was recommending my posts on the Zionist string pullers, this was crucial to the new clamp down. It’s one thing to mention Jews and then be pulled apart, it’s another to mention Jews and then win the debate, the carnage and eventual comment closure at the Hollywood thread yesterday is now typical, and like you say, the Jews themselves and their vicious and hatefilled approach must seem truly astonishing to the readership, ‘‘aren’t they just meek victims?’‘. Lurker We were just starting to use the DISQUS system fully when the ax came down so I assumed they were onto us acting as a team, perhaps they were but as I’m discovering, a New Account is a killer, if you have been reported and your account has just been made then its likely to be Game Over. Ossettian at the DT regularly goes after the JQ but because he has a very old and used account he seems to get away with it. The Jimmy Marr thread is testament to what we can achieve through team work, the relentless bannings from the DT are making this impossible for me so either one or the other will have to go. Stick it out at the DT and fight for the hearts and minds of Middle England, or get banned and then simply move off into the wider Nationalist circle ‘‘swarming’’ all over the net. That is the question. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 00:02 | # Morgoth, There have been days when I have been banned three times in an hour. But never give in. Clear cookies ... command prompt ... ipconfig /release ... depress reset button on router until lights go out ... wait for router to re-acquire ... ipconfig /renew ... hotmail, DISQUS, DT, and back on the attack. Time taken: about five minutes. I see Ossettian is back on the case here: 14
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 02:48 | # Morgoth -
Maybe try a few mild comments for a while before getting really stuck in? I’ll avoid replicating such an obvious avatar and name, that was probably a mistake. Although having a clear brand image is a liability in that sense its also easier for the good guys to keep track of too.
Both I suppose! Thats what Ive been doing as you know. My commenting ‘home’ is at the DT but I’ll try to help our guys all over the place, just as some of them follow us back to the DT in turn.
15
Posted by wobbly on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 04:38 | # Meme warfare is what they do - so we know it works in theory. Now obviously they have a major advantage in that their Pearl Harbor attack on the media before the main war began gave them a monopoly of all the heavy artillery but on the other hand they *need* that major advantage just to balance out their major disadvantage which is that all their memes are poisonous lies. So, meme warfare ftw however and whenever and wherever. # If they didn’t lie to themselves about their history they’d know that trying to destroy the ethnic and cultural cohestion of the host always ends badly one way or the other and now, as reality is starting to turn against them again they’ll try and double down but it’s too late really as they’ve already done too much damage. In other words if the DT doesn’t act as a steam valve other places will. 16
Posted by Dude on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 22:04 | # “as I’m discovering, a New Account is a killer” Maybe start five accounts. Post small numbers of inane comments in four of them on a daily basis. Every week add some more in the ratio to those lost? http://www.10minutemail.com 17
Posted by Dude on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 22:08 | # Not used it before but this ap seems to be able to quickly recognise the user name / password combo for multiple log-ins on one site and it’s free: https://helpdesk.lastpass.com/password-manager-basics/adding-a-site/multiple-logins/ 18
Posted by Dude on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 22:10 | # Guessedworker - you don’t need Hotmail, use a temporary email site such as 10MinuteMail.com 19
Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:37 | # James Delingpole is apparently moving to the UK wing of ‘‘Breitbart’’ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/02/delingpole-quites-telegraph-ahead-of-uk-launch-of-brietbart-com/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/9136061/the-martyrdom-of-mark-steyn/ @Dude I have long since got the rapid re-entry protocol down, even before the DT I burned through 40 Facebook accounts. I find it best to avoid the big name Email providers as they usually need phone numbers and want to know everything about you including what colour knickers your woman wears, before you know it you have another social network thing going on. ‘‘HushMail’’ is as basic an Email account as I’ve come across, it requires the name and then a pass phrase, you are then zoomed straight to your mails and can copy and paste the Email address into the DISQUS system. Time required to create a new profile= 7 Minutes. @Guessedworker Yes, just after I posted that the DT put up ‘‘clickBait’’ on a Friday evening Thompson chucks up a piece which includes Muslims, Multiculturalism, immigration, Islamic expansion, Jews, Jew Flight, racism, and the French no go areas !!! The comments actually stayed open longer than I thought, and there’s still some decent stuff left up. A move to the Left or not, the DT simply can’t shy away from passing all those clicks over to the sponsors. 20
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:03 | # I wonder how long Toby Young has ,until banishment? 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:58 | # Young is one of the goody two shoes Tory boys. When Miliband is in Downing Street, however, his free school fetish will become an embarrassment to the DT. By way of explanation, I well remember reading the hard copy in the days after 1997, when Blair came to power, and observed with astonishment how craven and unprincipled the new editorial line was. I had expected opposition to the new regime, but it was quite the reverse - the Labour variant of the permanent party of power was nil problemo for the supposed official organ of the Tory Party. Meanwhile, Damian Thompson is back with another anti-UKIP article: 22
Posted by National Reactionary Front on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:20 | # P/
Yes. I imagine it is both algorithmic and organic, just as you suppose. Use VPN’s to your advantage. Also, use “HideMyAss”. They claim they will report illegal activity to the government(s), but “trolling” is a legal activity, for now at least. The formula I follow is to never “follow” anyone in disqus comment threads. If possible, you don’t want anyone following you either. I once conducted a non-stop commenting spree for a very,very long period of time. The fact that I did not “follow” anyone and was completely unknown to all the other posters created hysterical confusion in the ranks of the little Trotskyites. They started accusing each other of being “the troll” almost immediately,any comrade who seemed not to “waver with the party line” was suspect. This is a great aid to any would-be disqruptor (to coin a phrase). They all have the power to report you, but if you can convince them voluntarily not to report you and maybe even instead report someone else, what good does it do them?
No question at all. You have to fight for what is yours, or it won’t be yours anymore. If you love it, crack some skulls over it.
Good idea about posting a few inoffensive comments before you jump in. I recommend it highly. You have to delay the reports. Someone might decline to persecute you for one “offensive act” if they look into your background and imagine you are similar to them,if you are humanized to them somehow. Comedy works well here. Try to be funny,rather than insightful or agreeable, in your first few posts.
And other actions,besides online commenting, one hopes. The days of nationalism taking this nonsense lying down are over.
Try also, being progressive in your nationalism. By which I mean, progressively letting slip nationalist ideas in fragments,each piece of which would not be deemed offensive to the liberal orthodoxy but when added together form a great blasphemy and heresy against their precious socialist twaddle.Once the majority have accepted one idea, begin to introduce another until at last it is impossible for them to dissent.
One final piece of advice. It is a testament to the purity of our souls that our people never learned deceit.I am struck with a bittersweet feeling at the Cindy Lou Who-like essential goodness of my own racial group while feeling simultaneously fearful and vexed contentiously with the inmost knowledge of just how good our enemies are at this particular game. Gentlemen! If your new audience is leftist,present yourselves as leftists! I don’t mean to conform to their attitudes or beliefs, but to use a decoy to approach them without arousing their suspicions, just as one would when hunting ducks. If you want to mention the Chosen, think of the leftist “minority” which gets to speak ill of the Chosen- and who would that be? Well, that’d be the Muslims they’re eager to shove up your ass there in the U.K. They can’t do anything to make the poor Mohommedan savages feel unwelcome, and that includes banning their comments. Even if it isn’t 100% certain that the comments originate from a Mohommedan! These are bureaucratic simpletons we’re talking about. They don’t do individual thinking, they just pound the square peg into the round hole and wait for the next one to come down the assembly line. If I wanted to criticize a certain tribe from Judea in a heavily-leftist stronghold, I might choose a fairly tribal-sounding name for myself,complete with the requisite leftist tag detailing where you wish to be pigeonholed in the victim rack,something like Safir Al Eswabarr of Palestine. Then you can call Israelis “murderers”, “thieves”, “rapists”,“colonizers”, anything you choose. No one will do anything to you. These kinds of incidents flare up among the left all the time anyway, no nationalist provocateur needed. They don’t intervene when they do, they just let the freaks sort out the rules of the Progressive Stack amongst themselves as there is no clear hierarchy,because it’s all made-up bullshit to facilitate sanctimoniousness on the part of freakish wretches anyway. I know that this type of subterfuge strikes most of you as odious, but we are dealing with an odious enemy.Try out some of my suggestions and see if they work. What do you have to lose? P/ Hail,Europa!
23
Posted by Morgoth on Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:02 | # Here’s a taste of what the DT are now employing, their ‘‘UKIPWATCH’’ Blogger Matthew Goodwin is also deeply involved with Anti White extremists ‘‘Hope not Hate’‘. In a recent blog Nick Lowles lamented that a Roma activist had to cancel a meeting in the UK because she was ‘‘attacked by racists and injured’‘ ‘’ Ivanka Concova meeting cancelled posted by: Nick Lowles | on: Friday, 14 February 2014, 11:11 We are sorry to inform HOPE not hate supporters that the lecture that Czech Roma organiser and activist Ivanka Concova was scheduled to deliver at the Wiener Library on 18 February has had to be cancelled because of injuries sustained when Ivanka was attacked by racists.’‘ http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/nick/article/3431/ivanka-concova-meeting-cancelled Note that one of the comments asks: ‘‘A few extreme right-wing sites and racist Facebook pages claim Ivanka Concova doesn’t exist. Can you expand on this for us, please?’‘ She doesn’t exist, they made the whole thing up ! There was no attack, no activist, no racist and no Ivanka. This woman simply doesn’t exist, try a Google and see, she only exists as attached to Hope Not Hate. Being the kind of bringer of truth I am I posted this on the DT UKIPWATCH blog and asked Matthew why Hope Not Hate were lying and inventing not just stories of people but the people as well. After gaining a rash of reccies my post was taken down without trace. 24
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:31 | # National Reactionary Front - a great comment - thank you! I’m sorry I didnt see it sooner. I’m still skulking out of sight, almost dormant on Disqus for now. Your suggestions are noted.
Yes! I find that sort of thing very hard to do, I want to tell it like it is. It seems to come naturally to YKW. The false flag, the double standard. I feel there has to be some way of continuing to ‘follow’ though? By doing that we leverage our numbers better then ‘they’ do. I’ll continue to use my old Dalek IDs elsewhere but will need to start a new one for the DT soon. 25
Posted by Morgoth on Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:10 | # Somebody has set up a counter site to Hope not Hate, I’ve only had the chance for a glance it but it seems very good on the money side of things, very welcome to see these shits getting a dose of their own medicine. http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/ About a year ago I read a blog at Hope not Hate which was them weighing up the pros and cons of going all out against UKIP, they seemed to be a little nervous about the prospect. UKIP members have access to greater funds and contacts than the BNP and it could well bode very bad for them, hopefully. ‘’ Lowles has long faced a problem within Hope not Hate. Huge numbers of his own supporters were decidedly lukewarm about HnH turning its guns on UKIP, as we discussed about this time last year when he was doing a speaking tour in an attempt to drum up anti-UKIP feeling. Speaking mostly to empty chairs or hand-selected audiences of UAF and SWP activists who thought Lenin was a bit right wing and Mao was a fascist, he still lacked anything approaching a mandate to fight a battle with UKIP. And now, out of the woodwork, crawls Hodges with his thoroughly dishonest diatribe. Hodges and Lowles are hardly unknown to each other - in the 2010 General Election campaign, HnH paid Hodges over £4,500 for a raft of services ranging from fundraising to writing press releases - the invoices are attached below. Hodges himself is a defender of Peter Mandelson, on the pages of Labour Uncut and even in the Progress Online website, while Mandelson’s group are suspected of funding Hope not Hate. And yet, as Left Futures says, “Dan Hodges is not the most reliable of soothsayers.” No-one however has ever accused him of not knowing which side of the bread the butter is on. His latest column will inevitably raise the question about whether he is being paid by two masters for the same article: in 2010 he was already hard at work for Hope not Hate by this time of the year, although we’ll have to wait for HnH’s Electoral Commission returns later in the year to find out for sure. It’s nice work if you can get it though - being paid to promote the views of one organisation in the columns of a national newspaper which is also paying you for the same thing. And with Hodges mother - Labour MP Glenda Jackson - standing down at the next General Election, having Peter Mandelson’s influence on your side shouldn’t hurt when the selection battle starts. It just goes to show, it’s never too early to get your nose in the trough. So, what’s in it for Lowles? He can trumpet a national newspaper - albeit one he is hardly likely to read - labelling UKIP as racist, and flaunt the article before his dwindling band of supporters. It helps drag out the death throes of Hope not Hate - an organisation which since UKIP saw off the remnants of the BNP has no purpose - for another election campaign, and all the money that involves. The bleaker long-term reality for Lowles is that Hope not Hate is becoming an increasingly unwieldy alliance of hard left and Blairite Labour funding, with the trades unions on one side, and Mandelson’s Progress on the other. The public meetings mentioned earlier showed that HnH has no true grass roots support - this is why in 2010 it was reduced to paying private companies to carry out its leafleting as it simply no longer has the ability to put feet on the ground. How long can he continue to pull off this balancing act? The smart money is that his organisation will be gone by the end of the year. ‘’ 26
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:45 | # I changed my username on Disqus to something more rough-and-ready, and added a bit of crypsis, and I think I’ll escape a ban for a while, though comments on the YKWs are being deleted. Some tempting bait on the DT right now: the immigration stuff, the threads about Kosher, and even the sports threads (was going to protest mildly at the duskification of the England football and cricket teams). There are brainwashed “true believers” out there but a lot of people’s liberalism and anti-racism is micron thin in my experience. Still worth doing, imho. 27
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:28 | # Tried new Disqus ID at the DT. Banned from the off! Switched on that Hotspot shield thingy and bingo, that ID was allowed to post. So in this case the ban is purely based on IP address, not comments, followers, followed. (Ive already emailed that ID to you Morgoth) but perhaps better not to post it here. 28
Posted by wobbly on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 00:01 | # @Lurker
What I’d suggest if you’re that way - and it’s a good way to be under normal circumstances but this is survival - is to treat it as the modern equivalent of the Great Game. The game has different rules to normal life. 29
Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 11:30 | # @Luker There’s fun for all at Pamela Geller’s Blog ‘‘Atlas Shrugged’’ So far there seems to be no moderation at all, which is only right when we consider that Pammy is a Free Speech Warrior Legend. What is it with the Counter Jihad and the weirdo Christian nuts : ‘’ Honestly I will pray for you tonight that you see the error of your ways. You have no idea of the folly of your belief. That one World War was not enough to teach you is amazing to me. Nevertheless God loves you unconditionally. Remember that.’‘ And doesn’t Pamela look strange? I mean I’m not one for insulting women but Pamela Geller just looks weird, like she’s melting or something. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 18:53 | # I did visit that thread. The usual abusive Jews helping to persuade whites as to the true nature of anti-jihadism. Meanwhile, the latest Lawrence thread didn’t stay open for long, did it? 31
Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 21:51 | # I’ve been back on that thread and the hatred by the Jews of European interests is totally obvious, I just posted this : ‘‘To my European brothers and sisters who read this blog. Yes, I understand that we need to get Islam out of Europe, but we also need to get rid of the rest of the Third World too. And you all know it. The so called Counter Jihad is using you, it is taking your legitimate anger, the betrayal we have suffered and redirecting it towards the enemies of the Jews. If you scroll down through these comments you will see that we Nationalists have entered polite debate with the regulars, if we suggest we want our lands back from ALL colonizers we are called Nazis, indeed, we are called Nazis for just about anything we say that the Jews do not like. As a main post, if Pammy lets this stand I’m going to carry on, exposing the nature of the Jews before Whites who are already partially awake and anti establishment should be some very rich pickings indeed. I’d say the way forward is to go heavy on the links so they know where to go. I much prefer threads such as the Lawrence threads because it gives the chance to inject a bit of humour into the general misery, the whole Lawrence affair is really quite ludicrous, as Oscar Wilde said of Little Dorrit ‘’ You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh’‘ 32
Posted by uKn_Leo/oddball1776 on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 22:16 | # I haven’t really got much to say. Just checking in. I had 22 comments deleted from a DT Lawrence thread the other day. My comments in a Ukraine/Twitter thread got a thorough going over by the mods and were rendered incoherent and meaningless (doubt anyone would have noticed any difference !!). Posting now - get lost spambot 33
Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 22:37 | # @Oddball 22 comments and no ban is quite a feat! We could be onto something at Gellers blog and I might bring back some of my old DT accounts if this one is banned. I know that taking on the Counter Jihad gang was tried before, I remember a particularly good thread between Chechar and Fjordman, which led to a Mass banning of Nationalists after Fjordman and Baron Bodissey were left in ruins. So far the Pamster doesn’t seem to mind our presence but watch out for some of those pics you’re posting, we need to let the Jews and the weird Christians be seen as the bad guys, posting pics of Jews being punched in the face is not the best way to win recruits. That said, you have a lot of scope for string pulling type pics, they always go down a storm. 34
Posted by oddball on Sun, 09 Mar 2014 23:20 | # I am a little surprised oddball hasn’t been banned yet - there have been a couple of posts in particular that I was sure would have got me there. I even got away with a post including a fake quote from the Talmud by Rabbi Goyim Shekelstein ffs. Yours and others posts all around it got deleted straight away. I shall try harder. Yeah, I’ll be more careful with any pics I post - they’re a bit silly on the whole, maybe better for a younger audience. I’ve got hundreds stored in my arsenal ready to launch. http://imgur.com/FhHVQjq I’ve got loads of Muslim/black ones too, you know, for equality. http://imgur.com/RQ0RJhl
35
Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:51 | # I think it’s realistic to acknowledge that England is lost. France, Ireland, and Sweden are also lost. Rather than defeatist it can be rousing to say that these nations are lost and that we have to take them back! Turn realism into resolve. 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:15 | # Very busy at the moment, checked in, must respond… “taking on the Counter-Jihad”? WTF? That’s very productive, you fucking wankheads. Try to get this through your low-IQ skulls: The great menace of the day (wrt Europeans in Europe) is the Muslim demographic colonization. The Muslim is the eternal enemy of European civilization, whether the latter is understood as Christian-white (as it should be) or Pagan/atheist-white. The Muslims have (growing) numbers, within and just outside Europe; they have (angry) youth; they have a comprehensive religio-ethnocivilization (esp wrt the kind of Muzzies who have colonized and are continuing to invade Europe today); they have great self-confidence; they have a fighting ideology; they have Negroid genes; they are criminally aggressive; they are at once jealous of and hateful towards their European racial superiors; and they have no honor or basic human decency, disrespecting and persecuting the very nations which so generously and insanely allowed them entry. The Islamic presence in Christian Europe must be excised or annihilated. THAT is the war, fools. So what does the Idiot Brigade do? “Let’s attack the Jews!” Brilliant! Let’s alienate a highly successful and powerful group, one powerful in both wealth and disproportionate presence in opinion-moulding professions in the West, not to mention its military and espionage strength in Israel, and, moreover, one hated by our common Muslim enemies, and in existentially permanent conflict with them. Hello? The Idiot Brigade sees no possibility of putting aside differences and building an ALLIANCE with this powerful group on the basis of resistance to our common foe? How geostrategically stupid you people are! The sound approach is precisely for WPs to encourage “counter-jihadist” sentiment among the Jews, to inculcate in them a sense (which is after all objectively correct) that they themselves cannot survive the Fall of the West, and that therefore they should readjust their own narrow-minded ethnocentric behavior to favor securing white perpetuity. Jews are intelligent. Many have already come round to this position. Many more could, if only the patriotic Far Right were not (apparently correctly) so filled with Jew haters. This conciliatory approach is the proper one - even for neo-Nazis. The West is as racially weak as it’s ever been. We will never recover except through a time-consuming process of racial mass-reeducation and awakening. Simultaneously, however, we must recognize the dimensions of the coming armed struggle, and do all we can to STOP THE DEMOGRAPHIC COLONIZATION NOW! That is, stop augmenting the numbers of future enemy soldiers by stopping nonwhite immigration. THAT is THE issue. Next to ending the immigration invasion, everything else pales into insignificance. Is there not a tactical opening here? Repudiate antisemitism in exchange for Jewish support for ending immigration. Persuading Jews to be against immigration won’t happen overnight, but it will never happen as long as nationalists depict the JQ as more significant than other nationalist objectives. And guess what? This approach will, in the longer term, even redound to the benefit of the neo-Nazis themselves (provided they are serious in their Nazism, and not mere poseurs and ‘rebels’, which is what I think most in fact are). The first step in building a racially-useful antisemitism (which, note, I oppose - but I’m thinking strategically and analytically) must be rebuilding white racial pride and fellowship. This can be accomplished both positively, through renewed emphasis on white cultural heritage, and its transmittal to the younger generation, and negatively, by explaining the disaster of integration and ‘diversity’ in purely self-interested, ‘quality of life’ terms (nonwhites aggress against whites, rob our businesses, pollute our impressionable females, abuse our welfare/benefits systems, bring terrorism into peaceful societies, demand indigenous cultural adjustments, increase socialism through Left voting, etc). The further whites travel on the road back to sound racial thinking, the more open-minded they will be to antisemitic arguments. If majorities of European whites can be made to demand the repatriation of Third Worlders, they can eventually be brought to looking at the JQ objectively, and wondering if life wouldn’t be better if the Jews, likewise, were restored to their Zionist homeland (I speak of European Jewry; American Jews are here to stay, whatever Nazi fantasists might imagine). The racial salvation of the West is a sequential process, one which requires far subtler minds to direct than are in evidence in most of contemporary nationalism. 38
Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:28 | # @ Leon. Thanks for the lecture and the insults Leon, have you actually visited that site? have you actually done anything ever except post a bunch of boring rants at this site? Have you seen how those whites are so well trained by the Jews they accept their future oblivion? how they are terrified of being called racist. The Muslim issue leads to a blind alley of Civic ideals and cultural squabbling, it’s bullshit. You arrogant prick don’t you ever tell me what I should and should not be doing. Get back to your bitch fest with Daniel and keep the fuck away from people who are actually doing something of use. 39
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:34 | # I came here to leave a message for Morgs, but I guess this is now for Leon too (hey Leon, I hope you are keeping well. Are you still studying?). Leon, not one of the Jews (there are many) @ Atlas Shrugged would acknowledge the right of Europeans to majority existence within their historic homelands. Not one, despite repeated polite questioning from Morgoth. Even the suggestion of such caused the flurry of insults and attacks that he mentioned above. This is not a one off. It happens everywhere. The JIDF assault on European patriotism of any form in certain hidden corners of the internet is so hideous and brutal that those of a religious disposition would struggle to cope with the content spewed forth. We know that many Jews are reconsidering their support for mass immigration and have been for some time. We also know that they are more concerned by any rise in Euro/Christian anti-Semitism than the Muslim variant. They would appear to be entirely incapable of looking at any given situation in any way other than that which is in their own best interest, even at this stage in proceedings when they claim to be (and would appear to be) regularly under assault from Muslims within Europe itself. This is known. We are not quite as dumb as you would like to think (your insulting tone has been duly noted. Not cool pal, not cool). Our raid on Atlas Shrugged has been small, and possibly brief. No need to get your panties in a bunch. We have built a squad and we are engaging in some small skirmishes to determine what we may be able to achieve. We are testing ourselves, with the more experienced guys mentoring the noobies and showing the way. At least that is my take on our recent activities. We appear to be living on borrowed time at our main battlefield of choice. Having a recce around to ascertain where we may be most effective if we are chased from the Telegraph is a wise move. Nobody from England needs to be told about the threat Islam poses. We just take it as a given and rarely discuss it. To the outsider it may appear that we are ignoring the problem but that is not the case. And anyway, numbers wise we have just as much of a problem with African, Chinese, Indian and Slav invaders. We have no allies, Jewish or otherwise. We have enemies, everywhere. The hatred towards us online is palpable (in fact I think we may have gained some degree of support, or at least curiosity from the Telegraph Jews by ferociously standing up to them and beating them at their own game). However, any attempt to reach out in friendship, to extend the olive branch, is rebuffed or ignored. No amount of charm. No persuasive argument. Nothing seems to work (at least at present). The moment we back down or display weakness, we will be overrun. It is against that backdrop and within that furnace that our approach has been forged. We are all ourselves online. Even under these most trying of circumstances there is still no real hate from any of us and we give no reason to be hated. There are no calls for violence or extreme action. If I was a Zionist Jew I would like to think that I would want Europeans like us as my allies. So where the fuck are they ??
40
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:43 | # Morgoth, But that’s the whole point. The counter-jihadists are doing something useful. What begins as counter-jihadism can evolve into racial awakening. The ball has to start rolling somewhere (“so let’s start with debating the Holocaust” (ie, let’s start rolling the ball up the very highest hill), bleat the Nazi morons). I’ve heard Pamela Gellar speak. While I don’t care for her relentless Israelism, I deeply admire the way she is willing to stand up against the vicious Muslim apologists, how she will willing to put her public ass on the line (not just online) to fight for the West. I wish there were ten million other Jews who thought just like her. No, I wish there were ten million WHITES willing to denounce Islamic aggression against the West, and Western appeasement of such. What have you Nazis ever accomplished - other than, of course, a European civil war which left tens of millions of dead whites, and half the continent in the hands of Soviet monsters? Not to mention totally alienating not just the Jews, but of obviously greater importance, hundreds of millions of normal whites from the cause of their own national and biological survival? Serious white preservationists recognized this problem long ago. The late, brilliant Samuel Francis inveighed against those morally sub-standard (and yes, “fascist”) types whose presence on the Racial Right never did a damn thing to advance white EGI except repulse normal whites from taking serious looks at their own nations, civilization, and racial perpetuity. I’ve said it before: there really does need to be a Responsible Racial Right, one which focuses on the perfectly legitimate aspects of white survival, like stopping Third World immigration and affirmative action, advocating legislation to increase white fecundity, etc, while rigorously eschewing fascism (although, speaking analytically not normatively, I happen to think that precisely because of past inaction - itself caused in part by neo-Nazi usurpation of the racial issue - only a fascist resurgence will now actually save the West), Holocaust denial, anti-clericalism and similar nonsense. I think a similar view was what inspired Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance. Oh, and my “rants” contain more sheer racial insight than virtually anything else published on this site, especially these days. Try to learn something. 41
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:44 | # The EDL trusted the Counter Jihad. Look where that got them. And you want us to follow the same path? We are all individuals and we utilise different tactics and approaches accordingly. Beating leftists in debate doesn’t sway them. Being friendly and charming doesn’t win over the Jews. And we don’t have the numbers or support for any kind of strong armed Fascist/NatSoc approach. Do you have a plan B? (Not White Zion - it sucks). .
42
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:02 | # @ Atlas Shrugged they think we are Mi5 agents. FFS. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:08 | # ukn-leo, I’m surviving, and yes, still in my program. Thanks for asking. I’m soon to be finished with classes, then it’s on to the dissertation. My topic will be rigorously non-political (I was warned by a fellow-student further along the program to be careful, even with a seemingly innocuous subject like “Catholicism and The European Natural Rights Tradition” - something I’d been considering). I’ve written before at MR variations of Where I Stand. I ought to have a file, for re-copying and pasting past comments as necessary. Oh well. In brief, I stand for the following : 1. The continued existence of the white race, understood biologically and not merely culturally. I believe in white racial existence for both subjective (I’d personally like our people to continue through time) and objective reasons. I think our race is morally superior to others, though whether this feature is innate, or a function of our genes combined with our Christian heritage, I don’t know. I think the civilization we created has been unquestionably the most advanced, not just technically, intellectually and artistically, but morally. Furthermore, given the ever-increasing scale of man’s industrial assault on the biosphere; that environmentalism is an almost exclusively white phenomenon; and the general self-centeredness of nonwhites, I’m not convinced that the living planet itself will last for very many centuries after our disappearance. 2. For the race to survive, it needs at least some genetically-exclusive territory. This is so for at least three reasons: a. The white race appears to be genetically recessive. I’ve seen many white/non-white racial hybrids, and they always have both appeared to be nonwhite, and self-identified as such. 3. The natural home of whites is Europe. Whites have not only existed in Europe since time immemorial, we built Europe. Everything that exists of civilization on the European continent is the technical, economic and cultural product of whites (OK, there are a few cultural treasures - the Alhambra, perhaps some old synagogues - that were built by aliens and ought to be preserved). 4. Whites have a moral right to expel nonwhites from our traditional homelands (Europe), and we must do so if we are to survive, especially as peoples and ethnocultures and a civilization. The presence of nonwhites on European soils is the result of prior acts of elite-class blood treason (and the traitors who facilitated this presence should be tried for that treason, and, if duly convicted, executed in the same way and with the same logic as nations execute those who steal and give or sell military secrets). Nonwhites have no moral claim to European residency. Those who are immigrants have no moral claim to resist immediate repatriation (thoughI do feel they should be allowed to repatriate justly accumulated monies and personalty, and to keep ownership of property, at least for some specified period of time). The children of immigrants, those nonwhites born on European soils, present a morally graver problem (this is an area I very much intend to write about once I have obtained my doctorate). That they should be expelled is undeniable, as the survival of our race and civilization are perpetually threatened by their legitimized presence, and our survival is a higher moral good than the aliens’ mere preference to remain in Europe. However, their repatriation must be handled humanely (at least, for the ones who do not violently resist their deportations, and are without criminal records - criminal nonwhites should be expelled forthwith, without further concern), and perhaps some “repatriation dividend” would be in order (to be parceled out to the extent possible from monies and property confiscated from the original traitors, or their heirs). Moral condemnation and thus punishment depends on culpability, and the children of immigrants can hardly be blamed for being there. 5. The Gypsies, or Roma, must be expelled as well. They, too, are an alien, nonwhite people, albeit of long (and annoying) standing. Despite the thousand years of their European presence, they have contributed very, very little to Western civilization (a few popular musicians, a very few writers of significance), and yet their venality and pathological criminality has cost an immeasurable amount. Moreover, their entire culture seems to revolve around aggressive parasitism towards their host societies. If ever an entire culture has earned the right to be morally disliked and discriminated against, it is the Gypsies. 6. I think it best that the Jews be gradually removed from Europe as well. Jews are highly intelligent and productive people, but their presence in Western lands is invariably racially and culturally enervating. I want both whites as a race, and as sub-racial ethnies, to endure through time (indeed, I think the race is more likely to survive if its foundation is composed of strong, historic ethnonational communities). I personally would like to see the restoration not only of the Racial West, but of the Christian Occident, as well. The presence of non-indigenous, non-Christian religions is yet another agent of communal division, and the Jews have played a hugely disproportionate role in the racial breakdown of the West. Again, as with other groups, justly acquired Jewish property should be remain in its owners’ hands throughout the repatriation process, and for some agreed upon period thereafter. 7. Once the nonwhite cancer has been removed from Europe, my political and ideological concern wrt Europe will cease. I would strongly recommend that a traditionalist conservatism guide future, post-diversitarian European development - Christian morality, private property, punitive crime policies, free enterprise, gold-backed currencies, strong militaries, perhaps with periods of compulsory national service, governments with strictly defined and limited powers, an ethic of racial and environmental stewardship, social-welfare benefits reserved narrowly for the truly handicapped or helpless (and preferably administered through revitalized churches), patriotic holidays to commemorate national heroes and martyrs and to renew ethnonational awareness. Personally, I would also favor some type of eugenics (at the very least, criminal psychopaths could be sterilized), seen to be an adjunct of national power. My racial views wrt my homeland - America - and the rest of the white nations beyond Europe proper are more complicated. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:29 | # ukn-leo, I never said WPs should ever relinquish our longterm goals of a resurrected Racial Europe. I have merely advocated always keeping the eyes on the prize of RACIAL survival, and what is most important to that goal, which is ending immigration - NOT ranting about Jews, which I, after decades of race realist observation, have concluded is overwhelmingly counter-productive (and is likely to remain so for a long time). Based on what I just posted immediately above, I don’t think anyone would call me a race liberal, at least wrt Europe. I’m less hardcore when it comes to America, given our very different situation, morally and historically. White Zion, btw, is not really for Europeans, but for whites beyond Europe. We outside the Old Countries will never retake the entirety of our homelands, nor is it clear that we have a moral right to do so. We had a right to keep out nonwhite immigrants, but now that they have lawfully arrived, it is not clear that we have any right to expel them (illegal aliens are a totally different matter, obviously). We do have a right to secede from tyranny, very much including the racial socialism we suffer from today, and my chief intellectual concern wrt the New World is to theorize that right of secession (ie, ground it in Christian ethics). This is not an easy task (once you really start reflecting on it). WZ wrt Europe is not a recommendation, but a bloodless analysis. I hope Europeans rise up, drive out the aliens, and reclaim your ancestral lands. But I don’t think you will. I think the best the nationalists will ever be able to do is stop additional immigration. I just don’t think whites as a race have much fighting spirit anymore (may I be proven wrong, O Gods of Strength and Honour!!). Therefore, I do think WZ - the ingathering of racially patriotic whites from across the planet into one single, sovereign polity - may be the ONLY hope for white survival. But that eventuality is not optimal, and I hope we can avoid it. 45
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:06 | # After I commented, “Yes, let’s do it”, indicating my sheer practical willingness to serve our interests: Morgoth commented: You would sick Leon, with his Pam Geller advocacy and White Zion stuff after me? I wouldn’t do that to anybody Morgoth. Ok, it wasn’t a heavy barb, but disappointing considering that I strongly support what you have to say here (and in other places): Posted by Morgoth on March 09, 2014, 04:51 PM | # I’ve been back on that thread and the hatred by the Jews of European interests is totally obvious, I just posted this : ‘‘To my European brothers and sisters who read this blog. Yes, I understand that we need to get Islam out of Europe, but we also need to get rid of the rest of the Third World too. And you all know it. The so called Counter Jihad is using you, it is taking your legitimate anger, the betrayal we have suffered and redirecting it towards the enemies of the Jews. If you scroll down through these comments you will see that we Nationalists have entered polite debate with the regulars, if we suggest we want our lands back from ALL colonizers we are called Nazis, indeed, we are called Nazis for just about anything we say that the Jews do not like. This is not the way, this is a scam and the people running it are using you. Join us in White Nationalism, leave the Jews to do their own dirty work, we have to secure a safe and European future for our children. White Nationalism, a movement for us.’‘ As a main post, if Pammy lets this stand I’m going to carry on, exposing the nature of the Jews before Whites who are already partially awake and anti establishment should be some very rich pickings indeed. I’d say the way forward is to go heavy on the links so they know where to go.” 46
Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:27 | # @Daniel, that’s fair enough I take your point, I should not have included you. Whenever I visit this site or others on our side I’m always amazed at the amount of stupid snide comments being made, it angers me because I think that the posters could be better spent using their time doing something else. Unfortunately and despite never becoming involved with such scenes Leon has now dragged me into such a ‘‘bitch fest’‘. I find it very frustrating and this will be my last post on the issue. @ Leon, you write ‘‘But that’s the whole point. The counter-jihadists are doing something useful. What begins as counter-jihadism can evolve into racial awakening. The ball has to start rolling somewhere (“so let’s start with debating the Holocaust” (ie, let’s start rolling the ball up the very highest hill), bleat the Nazi morons).’‘ But that is precisely what I’m doing but at every step the Jews are standing in the way, it is precisely because the Counter Jihad are partially awake and take to the streets that they have such potential. But why have them take to the streets protesting about Palestinian Terrorists and the Burka and Coptic Christians in Egypt when they could take to the streets in their own interests? why? how can you not see the blatantly obvious advantage to our people?. Because, according to you, at some unspecified future date the Jews will say ‘’ Oh shit, we are really in a bad way, lets unleash White Nationalism to save Israel’’ really? you really believe this utter pig swill? The Counter Jihad is already moving in that direction, that is why the EDL was beheaded, because as Pamela Geller said ‘’ It had become overrun with Fascists and Neo Nazis’’ meaning it had become more pro White and the members were openly questioning the amount of Pro Jew, Pro Israeli propaganda, which they found totally baffling. It is interesting and depressing that you use the same terminology as Jews in this regard. You, like the Jews, are also reduced to straw man arguments such as the Holocaust and Nazis. So I take it you still did not read what said on thread, you did not see me asking, politely, if the Jews supported Europeans to have a homeland as they have in Israel. I’m amazed, literally amazed at how out of touch you are, honestly, you don’t seem to have a clue as to what is happening. Oddball and I and our small ragbag group will carry on wrenching our people away from the Counter Jihad. And that is my last word on the matter. 47
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:38 | # There are many issues in which race-realist whites and jews can agree upon but immigration—the most important one—is not one of them. 99.999993785% of jews are 100% for flooding every white nation with non-white immigrantes. Recent history demonstrates jews will go to the extremes (e.g. Serbia) to accomplish their multi-cult/multi-racial agenda. The truth is, the jews’ main perceived enemy are Euro-Christians. Euro-Christians are the target of their destruction. Period.
Category Archives: Jewish support for multiculturalism http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/category/jewish-support-for-multiculturalism/ 48
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:56 | # Morgoth@46 Perhaps we are speaking at cross purposes. I understood “counter-jihad” in a general sense: resisting the normalization of Islam in Europe. “Gates of Vienna” is c-j, no? I wasn’t referring to any particular Zionist front-group calling itself “Counter-Jihad”. The link from Pamela Gellar you criticized precisely makes my point. She wasn’t criticizing white EGI patriots as “fascists”, she was referring to the antifa mob that attacked her group:
That doesn’t mean that Gellar isn’t offensive with her Zionism, only that Zionist sympathies do not preclude race-realism. I have many Jewish friends who fit that bill. They are all generically pro-Israel - exactly as I am generically pro-English/German/Russian etc - why shouldn’t they be? They have no Israeli background, but they are American rightists who happen to be Jewish, so they support the fatherland. I have no European connections (beyond a few immigrant acquaintances), but I am white, so I support my race brothers overseas. I don’t think being pro-Israel, either logically or psychologically, for either Jews or whites, is incompatible with also being pro-Western and pro-white. To denounce Gellar’s bona fides as a friend of the West simply because she is strongly Zionist is unfair and strategically unwise. Of course, if some allegedly conservative Jews seek to corral whites for purposes of resisting jihad and supporting Israel, but then turn around and deny to white nations the same ethnocultural rights as the Israelis exercise, then they are hypocrites acting in bad faith, and must be outed and rejected as allies. My larger criticism is directed against those WPs who criticize Jews even when the latter are conservative supporters of policies which aid white EGI; seek to shift the focus of racialists to the JQ, instead of to the immigration invasion, and the criminality associated with nonwhites; and sometimes even go so far as wanting to ally with Muslims against Jewry.
49
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:19 | # Thorn@47 I strongly disagree with your characterizations. Historically, Jews have been the most pro-immigration group in the US (though I’m ashamed to say us Catholics haven’t been great, either - right up to the present). But that is changing. There are many prominent paleoconservative Jews like the late Auster himself who oppose immigration. Mark Levin and Michael Savage are opposed to immigration; Hannity and O’Reilly are weak on the subject. Immigration is not a huge issue for (American) Jews anymore, either. Look at polling data. Jews are much more concerned with combatting perceived antisemitism (and keeping abortion legal) than with keeping record high levels of nonwhite immigration. I have spent almost my entire life in LA/OC (where I did my first grad school), NYC (where I worked for a few years after college), or an East Coast Ivy League university for undergrad. Each of these places is heavily Jewish (my university class was over 35% Jewish!). I have known and continue to know a LOT of Jews. Do I like Jews? Not really, not as a people, though I confess I do have many Jewish friends, partly due to my geographic + socioeconomic + educational + professional background, partly due to “assortative friendships” (Jews are high-IQ, and I prefer the company of the intelligent to that of the mediocre). Given my extreme conservatism, most of my friends are also rightist, but I do have some who aren’t (including Gentiles), and few are quite as far to the Right as I am. Anyway, all the Jews I know but one are opposed to illegal immigration and Amnesty. Many are firmly opposed to all immigration; some others oppose low-skill but support high-skill immigration. My mother knows elderly Jews who are similarly generally opposed to immigration (they’ve lived through what it’s done to SoCal). If I had to generalize from my own extensive experience, I would say Jews are far more uniformly feminist than immigrationist.
50
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:52 | # Posted by Thorn on March 11, 2014, 05:38 AM | # “The truth is, the jews’ main perceived enemy are Euro-Christians. Euro-Christians are the target of their destruction. Period.” 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:17 | # What the English ought to be worrying about:
52
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:30 | # Yes, it is. If you construct a building (over the course of 14,000 years, or whatever), is it an illusion? 53
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:03 | #
Leon, You misinterpreted my comment. We agree 100%. =========== Danny, Jews MAIN target for destruction is traditional Euro-Christians. Non-Christian whites are much less of a threat to jews simply because non-Christian whites are MUCH more vulnerable to, and readily accepting of, the Bolshevik jews’ nation destroying secular ideologies. That’s the intent and purpose of cultural-Marxism, i.e. first destroy the most potent bulwark against Marxism (Christianity) then the rest of the epically evil crime is made relatively easy to achieve. 54
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:15 | # Wrong, Thornblossom, they are most afraid of aware, organized, non-Christian Whites. Those they wish to kill, they first convert to Christianity - as they did in slaughtering millions in Russia - because Christianity assures that them that enemy will not fight back with sufficient orientation. And that is why they encourage you and Haller to be here, to do their bidding to try to impose the haplessness which is Christianity (and to diminish and subvert authentic European orientation). 55
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:06 | #
Of which no such organizations of that type exist. None other than a few very tiny fringe groups, which, of course, have been thoroughly infiltrated by law enforcement. The only people that benefit from such fringe groups are those that work for the SPLC, the ADL, and other such fraudulent orgs. Moreover, those ineffective fringe groups provide the necessary ingredient for the SPLC and ADL’s raison d’etre; they especially work wonders during donation drives. But keep on dreamin’ on, Danny…. 56
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:06 | # There has been one salient group among others, of course, the Nazis. And there will be others, Thornblossom, founded on more comprehensively European and better moral grounds than the Nazis. You and Haller are here to obstruct that organization as much as you can and divert toward Christianity as much as you can. That is, you are an immoral obstruction to Whites who wish to organize in other terms than Christianity, when you two could easily go to one of the many Christian sites. We would leave you alone if you would leave us alone. But you have already stated your goal with regard to myself here - to agitate as much as possible; as your will to disrupt non-Christian organization is more than clear. 57
Posted by Nick Dean on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:57 | #
Brimelow’s been reading and writing about this stuff seriously for well over a decade. And then this? Recently at Vdare Sailer wrote about ‘white people’ like Michael Bloomberg—‘harassing Blacks and Latinos’ no less! We should always keep in mind that Brimelow and Sailer and Derbyshire are not ethnonationalists, that race and nation don’t matter as much for them as that we’re nice to our neighbours (especially the Jewish ones) and pay our taxes on time, so being correct on race and nation issues is not very important at all.
58
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:04 | # I hate to break the bad news, but Dr. David Yeagley passed away today. May you remember him in your prayers. He defiantly touched the lives of many, mine most certainly included. 60
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:13 | # Let’s try this again, one last time. Definitely —not definably or defiantly 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:11 | # Thorn, Where did you read about Yeagley dying? I can’t find any mention of it. Also, did you read my entire comment #49? I think we are in disagreement. 62
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:34 | # Leon, I was made aware of David Yeagley’s passing via the comments section of his website. http://www.badeagle.com/2014/02/09/are-american-indians-boycotting-israel/ —— And you are right, we do disagree. I made my comment after reading the first two sentences of your comment. After going back and picking up where I left off, I realized I was too quick in my response. (It would be a great help if MR had an edit feature.) At any rate, even though you can provide anecdotal evidence that Jews are opposed to current and proposed immigration policy, it doesn’t negate the fact that the vast majority of Jews are pro immigration fanatics; especially pro-immigration from non-white countries. Generally speaking, pro-immigration of non-whites on a massive scale has become ingrained in the Jewish psyche—and that condition isn’t going away any time soon. Of course there are exceptions to that rule, but they are few and far between. Here’s an extremely insightful entry by Lawrence Auster delves into the subject at hand. It’s well worth the read. Jews—The Archetypal Multiculturalists http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html
63
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:42 | # Brimelow undoubtedly embraced the concept of an ancient British people because it runs against the mounting multi-culti myth that Britain is a nation of immigrants. A more recent study outlines that the people of Northwest Europe, unlike other European populations show no significant admixture.
64
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:32 | # @Morgoth
A lot of White people get genuinely enraged by hypocrisy. It’s interesting as a phenomenon but there’s a problem with it. Deep down a lot of Jews genuinely don’t see non-Jews as fully human or even human at all and what this means is they don’t notice when they’re being hypocritical. This leads to situations where the Eurowhite half of an argument is getting angry and emotional while the Jewish half is perfectly calm. Once you realize that most of the people you’ll be arguing with most of the time only see hypocrisy from the outside i.e. as something that could make them look bad to an audience, then it’s easier to not get angry and simply step back and point out their hypocrisy to the audience. You know this already but worth reminding oneself from time to time.
65
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:39 | # @wobbly, From your comment at #15:
We could be crafting counter-memes to deadly memes such as “Africa is good”/Africanization. *We all come from Africa ultimately - if you go back far enough - so what does it matter if Africans come into Europe?* It’s maddening: even my own dear mother has accepted that we’ll be race-replaced in Europe and that there’ll “still be people in Europe, but they’ll be different”
66
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:41 | # Mick, previous generations took for granted growing up in the relative decency of a White world, but not all of those who come into planet of the apes will take its hell for granted, they will realize that we came from Africa and they will appreciate why we do not want to go back. 67
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 23:50 | # Re my comment @ 62 Jews—The Archetypal Multiculturalists http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html KMac’s review of the aforementioned entry by LA: Via the Occidental Observer.
68
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:12 | # The important question as always for Thorn: “Is it good for Jews?”
69
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:25 | #
David Yeagley and his great- great-grandfaht, Bad Eagle David Yeagley was born in 1951 and grew up in Oklahoma City. Even as a young child, he was vividly aware of threats to the Comanche people and their culture. When his grade school teacher asked the otherwise all-white class to draw pictures to encourage fire prevention, he drew teepees engulfed in flames, with the words, “Stop this.” Yeagley showed great promise as a student and went on to earn so many degrees it is hard to keep track of them. He had a bachelor’s degree from Oberlin Conservatory, a Master of Arts from Emory University, an Artist Diploma from the University of Hartford (Hartt School of Music), and a Doctorate from the University of Arizona. He was the first American Indian ever admitted to Yale Divinity School, where he earned a Master of Divinity degree. He did graduate work at Harvard but did not earn a degree. He was a Ford Fellow and a Kellogg Fellow. Yeagley taught at Oklahoma State University, the University of Central Oklahoma, and the University of Oklahoma. His off-the-reservation views caused a stir, and led to collaboration in 2000 with Governor Frank Keating to establish a curriculum on American patriotism for Oklahoma’s public schools. However, it was his columns for FrontPageMagazine.com in the early 2000s that brought him to national attention. He appeared on programs such as Hannity & Colmes and Bill O’Reilly, and made a number of C-Span appearances. He also made a History Channel episode on “Comanche Warriors,” did a history documentary for Danish Public Television, and was a popular speaker at universities. He was often sponsored by Young America’s Foundation, and electrified audiences with talks on gun rights, Comanche pride, the mind of the warrior, and the importance of protecting the United States from Third-World invasion. However, Yeagley’s fair-weather friends could not stomach his increasingly outspoken criticism of mass immigration. FrontPageMagazine dropped him, and speaking engagements dried up. But Yeagley never trimmed his sails. Like his great-great-grandfather, he stuck to his guns and never lost his vision. It was under Bad Eagle’s leadership that the Comanche finally put down arms after years of war with the United States and reconciled to becoming Americans—proud Comanches, still, but Americans. Yeagley, too, had a vision of Comanche accommodation with an America he had grown to love, but it must never be a Third-World America of white-guilt and multi-culturalism. Read more>> http://www.amren.com/news/2014/03/good-bye-older-brother/
70
Posted by Nick Dean on Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:59 | # Desmond, if Brimelow really is mounting a mono-cultural myth to challenge the multi-cult myth it’s not helpful. Just the facts please. 71
Posted by wobbly on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:27 | # @Mick Lately
Yes, that is one of the things we should be doing.
The line to take with most women is to focus on harm being done to children. 72
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:07 | # Facts of rape and other violence work well with women too. Minus the blacks, I’ve heard that America would be about the same as Switzerland. Inasmuch as that’s true, it’s a powerful fact. 73
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:59 | #
74
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:02 | # Cold front Oppponents often describe the social-issues protesters as being on the “extreme right” or even a “French equivalent of the Tea Party,” both of them labels that get applied to whatever force the political class is most eager to exclude. These epithets were not ones that the broad, pious, native-French upper-middle class would have chosen as descriptions of itself. In fact, these people seem to have no political allies at all—either in the center of French politics or on the extremes. The Gaullist UMP, the closest French equivalent to the U.S. Republican party, is no place for “values voters.” Sarkozy talked a good game to them but left them no less disappointed than the rest of his coalition of followers. His housing minister, Christine Boutin, the only outspoken pro-life politician in the party, has now left the party, gravitating to Christian Democracy and the world of Farida Belghoul. The party’s candidate for mayor of Paris, the yuppie ex-Sarkozy spokesperson Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, not only distrusts the Manif pour Tous but has demanded recantation from any candidate in her party who ever expressed the slightest sympathy for it. This included Hélène Delsol, whom Kosciusko-Morizet dropped from her list of candidates, allegedly for her links to a centrist candidate. Conservatives often speak of the political establishment as the “UMPS”—a jamming-together of the party acronyms of the Gaullists and the Socialists. There is nothing to drive a population rightward like the softening of its putatively conservative party. Most people in any society would like to be considered easy-going and accommodating. They will say the proper, tolerant things as long as they are confident someone else is willing to endure the social stigma of being the humorless keeper of order. When people lose confidence there is anyone more conservative hiding in the woodwork, they reluctantly take on the embarrassing job of expressing conservative thoughts themselves. That is what happened with the Tea Party. And it is part of the explanation for why the rightist National Front (FN)—which, while democratic in its conduct, has for decades spoken with fascist overtones—has gained popularity in recent years, and why 40 percent of the UMP are ready to form alliances with it, according to an IFOP poll. Purged of its anti-Semitic and some of its anti-immigrant elements by its new leader, Marine Le Pen, it is leading the polls for the upcoming European elections. But the FN never rallied to the Manif pour Tous. Some attribute this coldness to Le Pen’s excess of caution, others to a reluctance to offend the Front’s gay supporters and members [Haller: “tres stupide!”]. Whatever the reason, these were not the Manif’s people. The National Front’s rank and file opposed gay adoption, but only by 56 percent to 37, not far from the views of the French public at large. About a year ago, though, the Manif pour Tous movement began to harden. Cast adrift from the French political system with no weapon but their numbers and their good intentions, by turns ignored and calumniated by an unpopular but steely government, certain marchers began to see the beautiful soul of Frigide Barjot as more of a liability than an asset. She was frozen out of her leadership position, replaced by Ludovine de la Rochère, an officer of the Jérôme-Lejeune Foundation. At the March 2013 demonstration of the Manif pour Tous, the one that drew 1.4 million people and ran for miles down the Avenue de la Grande Armée, police blocked the route. A group of marchers tried to end-run a police blockade and enter the Champs-Élysées, a nonauthorized parade route, to the chagrin of Barjot and some of the movement’s more orderly leaders. A businesswoman named Béatrice Bourges backed the marchers. That was the beginning of Bourges’s explicitly political movement Printemps Français. The name, which means “French spring,” betrays an assumption, perhaps, that France is not much freer than the countries of the Arab world, where Bourges was born. Bourges wants to remove Hollande from office under the little-known Article 68 of the constitution for extreme dereliction of duty. She has not been specific about whether he most deserves ousting for his economic, his immigration, or his gender rights policies, nor has she been particular about whose company she travels in. In late January she organized a Day of Rage. The 17,000 people who gathered in the Place de la Bastille were not Frigide Barjot’s live-and-let-live types. There was a bit of humor. One held a sign reading “We want a state that is transparent, not a state of ‘trans’ parents.” But there was other stuff as well. “Jews!” read one placard. “France does not belong to you!” M’Bad news There have been incidents like this for at least 15 years in France, but they have tended to look like mere dérapages, moments when somebody loses his head and does something stupid. No longer. What seemed even two or three years ago to be only a serious potential problem has emerged as a present danger. There now exists an identifiable constituency for anti-Semitism in France [Haller: the real neocon concern, the concern behind all other alleged concerns.]. It is not necessarily broad, but it is not just a few fringe individuals, either. It is what you could call a “market.” Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a gifted and sometimes riotously funny comic of Cameroonian descent and pronounced left-wing views, began to attack Israel and Zionism at the turn of the century, just after the second intifada and the September 11 attacks. Since then his ideology has evolved in a Farrakhanite direction and beyond. The literary scholar Robert Faurisson, France’s highest-profile denier of the Shoah, as the Holocaust is known, participated in one of Dieu-donné’s onstage routines in a striped Auschwitz-style suit. Dieudonné sings a bouncy song called “Shoah-nanas” (a homonym for “Hot Pineapple”), complete with a dance. In December he said of one of his journalistic critics, “When I hear him talk, Patrick Cohen, I think . . . you know . . . the gas chambers . . . too bad . . .” Dieudonné’s defenders often say he is not anti-Semitic, only “anti-system.” But at times like now, when France’s “system” seems bent on dismantling its old institutions and adapting its culture to the cyber-economy, the system has suited Dieudonné fairly well. He churns out homemade videos that get millions of hits on his theater’s website, on YouTube, and on EgalitéetReconciliation.fr. This last is the brainchild of Alain Soral, a bestselling underground author, the brother of a famous Swiss actress, and an inspired provocateur. In one sense he resembles the television commentator Glenn Beck, an apostle of autodidacticism who offers his presumably angry viewers long reading lists with which to arm themselves intellectually—in Soral’s case, an interesting mix of left and right that includes Kropotkin, Ezra Pound, the contemporary economist Satyajit Das, the Dréyfusard Bernard Lazare, and the Marxist philosopher Pierre Clouscard. But whereas Beck’s books are mostly attacks on Woodrow Wilson or New Deal statism, many of Soral’s favorites question the whole modern order, and would have been found congenial by French fascists in the 1930s. He, too, spends a good deal of his energy thinking about Zionism. He has moved from Communism to the National Front to what he calls a “national socialism à la française.” At the turn of the year, word spread that Dieudonné was about to take a particularly rebarbative show on tour. Interior minister Manuel Valls—the Socialist party’s only public figure with a reputation for being tough on crime—decided to come down on him like a ton of bricks. Valls sought to have the show banned before it even opened. When the city of Nantes, the first stop on the tour, refused to ban it, on the grounds that this would constitute prior restraint, the Conseil d’État—a sort of supreme court that operates out of the country’s executive branch—overruled it. Tax authorities raided Dieudonné’s house. The public’s response was nothing like what the government might have anticipated. Valls, who had started the week as the most popular politician in France, saw his approval ratings plummet. The French pollster BVA showed his approval among young people, who are disproportionately of immigrant background, falling from 61 percent to 37 percent. It may be that they were unnerved by the government’s weakness—the realization that it required the entire disciplinary apparatus of the state to constrain one Afro-French vaudevillian. On the other hand, they may have been unnerved by the government’s presumption. France’s tools for disciplining opinion have been so wantonly overused that many who sincerely deplored Dieudonné’s views may have felt they had less to lose from his opinions than from giving the state more means of control. In such a context, though, the Day of Rage alarmed even the government’s most vocal opponents. They saw it as a pointless squandering of the Manif movement’s hard-earned reputation for constructive engagement, and a foolish opening, intentional or not, to extremists. The Figaro columnist Ivan Rioufol, usually a slashing opponent of political correctness and conformism, called the demonstration “the example not to follow” and faulted Bourges for failing to distance herself from the wackos a protest movement inevitably draws. Bourges said afterwards that she hadn’t seen the worst offending placards during the march. Rioufol had been used by the mainstream media, she said, adding: “The people are almost pre-revolutionary.” She insisted that channeling people’s rage was not the same thing as violence. What she didn’t do was apologize. In this she sounded a bit like the Ukrainian boxer and political activist (and now presidential candidate) Wladimir Klitschko, who, when asked by the Guardian in January whether it bothered him to protest alongside the occasionally anti-Semitic extremist Oleh Tyahnybok, replied: “In order to land a punch, you need to bring your fingers together into a fist. We need to join all of our forces together. That is the only way that we can win.” In other words, no, it didn’t bother him. There are suddenly a lot of people talking and thinking this way in France. In forming political alliances, the extremism of one’s allies is becoming a second-order consideration. A week after the Day of Rage, the Manif pour Tous held a much larger, much milder demonstration, amid threats from Valls that there would be a massive police reaction to any excesses. The following day, the Hollande government withdrew a law on the family that would have eased adoption rules and given new rights to stepparents. This occasioned another “day of rage” against Hollande, this one coming from his own party’s left wing. Was it the quiet, decent side or the unsavory side of French conservatism that had brought about this reversal? Was it the gentle Christians or the fuming radicals? Both sides claimed the credit.
75
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:05 | # Everybody’s naked The French government has been speaking about sexual matters almost nonstop for two years now without ever giving a satisfactory explanation of its philosophy. So incoherent has Hollande been that many commentators assume he has chosen sex and gender arbitrarily, as a means of diverting attention from his economic-policy failures [Haller: the typical result of leftist/socialist policies], or, more ambitiously, following a Leninist strategy of sowing confusion in the public. Compare him with Barack Obama. The president has backed gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is such a noble institution that it ought to be opened to everybody—a grounds that, while debatable, is also perfectly straightforward. Hollande appears bizarre by contrast. He married neither Ségolène Royal, the mother of his four children, nor Valérie Trierweiler, the journalist whom he publicly acknowledged as his companion in 2010. Nor has he announced any plans to marry Julie Gayet, the actress for whom he evicted Trierweiler from the Elysée Palace. He has shown himself willing to risk civil strife over an institution he does not believe in in the first place. (A question that has interested French observers somewhat more is how the chubby 59-year-old has had such success as a . . . a . . . you could almost call him a sexagenarian. French women tend to explain it with reference to Hollande’s sense of humor, which is legendary in political circles. Une femme qui rit, runs the French proverb, est à moitié dans ton lit. If you can make a woman laugh, you’ve got her halfway into bed.) On the eve of Hollande’s visit to the Vatican in January, which came just days after his household reshuffle, 120,000 Catholics wrote an online petition to Pope Francis, asking him to raise a long list of grievances with their president: a 1993 law against “hindering an abortion,” which has been used against antiabortion protesters and carries a prison sentence of up to two years; the desecration of churches by the Pussy Riot-style Ukrainian feminist group Femen; and the stated wish of the minister of education, Vincent Peillon, to “free the student of all determinisms.” This last bit of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo may not sound like much. But it is what drew those enraged Catholics and Muslims to the room over the Café du Pont Neuf in February. Political correctness came late to France, but the country has made up for lost time. France is now at the nadir of politically correct Zhdanovism, the stage America reached in about 1991, when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of harassment at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Antioch College required lovers making passes at one another to obtain verbal or written consent at each “base,” people said things such as “differently abled,” and elementary schools raised the consciousness of children by forcing them to read Heather Has Two Mommies. Yet PC has acquired institutional redoubts in France that it never did in the United States, and it now appears almost invincible. This may have to do with France’s Jacobin tradition, which centralizes everything governmental and discourages wiggle room. Right now the Ministry of Education is conducting a monomaniacal campaign to persuade schoolchildren that there is no difference whatsoever between boys and girls, other than the ones they have been taught by a sexist culture. The ministry aims to fight centuries of sexism and bigotry through a kind of counter-brainwashing: giving girls trucks and balls, boys bottles and dolls, and turning Little Red Riding Hood into a boy. So much for Vive la différence. Opponents call such teachings la théorie du genre, or gender theory. In February, conservative UMP leader Jean-François Copé publicly criticized a list of books that were either required or suggested for use in schools. It was a bold move, a real coup, and might have had more effect on French voters had not the UMP already introduced a certain amount of gender theory to the schools under Sarkozy. The books Copé publicized included Does Miss Zazie Have a Peepee?, Daddy Wears a Dress, and Everybody’s Naked!, which contained vivid pictures of children and adults (“The babysitter is naked,” “The policeman is naked,” “The teacher is naked”) and promptly rose to number one on Amazon’s French website. Two things turned the controversy over théorie du genre into a scandal. The first is that education minister Peillon and his associates claimed there was no such thing. Peillon professed himself “absolutely against” gender theory; he was just for teaching children about the interchangeability of the sexes at ever-younger ages. “You mustn’t confuse it with gender studies,” said women’s rights minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem. “What they’re teaching [kids] is the values of the republic,” said finance minister Pierre Moscovici, “those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” They were, it turns out, taking their voters for dummies. The conservative television gadfly Éric Zemmour claimed that what was being taught came not from child psychology but from gay political activism. The new school materials were “carbon copies” of activist documents, he said, and he began to produce them: a plan to have the national railways “educate against homophobia,” memos from the Socialist party group Homosexuality and Socialism, last year’s government “Teychenné Report” on “LGBT-phobic Discrimination in Schools.” The théorie du genre was the principle on which the government had been legislating in practice for the past two years—why on earth wouldn’t they avow it? If you accept that sexuality is chosen, not given, then there’s no shame in taking steps to broaden the options on a child’s sexual menu. It was obvious to everyone except the government that this new vision of the Rights of Man was precisely what parents did not accept. Normally in such circumstances, confronted with dug-in resistance, the government would adopt a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone and explain that the country was changing. It was getting more diverse. Our schoolbooks had to be opened to a greater variety of people. . . . But apparently there was a limit to diversity. In the weekly Marianne, the journalist Éric Conan noted a striking omission in this dynamic, multicultural time. “The Ministry of Education and the editors,” he wrote, “have carefully avoided Mohammed Has Two Daddies or Fadela Has Two Mommies.” That is where Farida Belghoul came in. Path of Middle East resistance Belghoul is a heroine of French antiracism. It is an odd-sounding role. One of the mysteries of contemporary French political life is that the government has institutions for combating race prejudice patterned on American ones—but without having perpetrated slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, or any of the historic misdeeds that made the corresponding American remedies necessary [Haller: F—- off, you liberal!]. The political action group SOS Racisme was founded in the mid-1980s at the urging of President Mitterrand, just after his root-and-branch reforms had led the country into an economic collapse. It was what we would call an “Astroturf” group, a top-down movement designed by leaders to be passed off as grassroots. The first leader of SOS Racisme, Harlem Désir, is now the chairman of the Socialist party. A few people at the time, most forcefully the sociologist Paul Yonnet, suggested that the campaign against racism was a bizarre priority for France, having more to do with Mitterrand’s political needs than with France’s historic responsibility. More people think this now, and Belghoul is one of them. As communism once did, the French antiracism movement is producing renegades. Ex-Communists often took the menace of communism more seriously than they had taken the promise in their more credulous days; their exposure to both sides of certain arguments often gave them a more profound sense of ideological battles than their contemporaries on either side. On a Sunday afternoon in February, Belghoul explained her beliefs over sugar cookies in the sunny living room of her house a train ride into the modest banlieues (or suburbs) northwest of Paris. Fighting for the rights of second-generation North Africans in France made up a big part of her early life. Belghoul herself spent three uneventful years in the Communist party starting at age 17. She considers it a passing enthusiasm of little importance, but she retains from somewhere a gift for dialectics and wounding political invective. Taking the government literally in its insistence that there is no difference between a man and a woman, she calls the beautiful Najat Vallaud-Belkacem “Monsieur” and Vincent Peillon “Madame”—when she is not calling him the “minister of re-education.” Belghoul studied at the Sorbonne and read a lot of history, philosophy, and literature. She marched with the groups that would eventually be swallowed up in SOS Racisme and spent the early 1990s working for Radio Beur. She now believes the antiracist movement was about securing the votes of the heavily Arab banlieues, not about solving their problems—particularly illiteracy, an obsession for her. On a personal level, too, she felt used and discarded. After leaving Radio Beur she disappeared off the Socialist party’s radar screen. Belghoul sees a common thread between the anti-racism movements of the 1980s and gender theory: Both are means, in her view, of “destroying the basis of people’s identity.” Confusing children about their sexuality is just another way to break them of their ability to think clearly (déstructurer la pensée is her phrase), to make them more pliant before the state. Belghoul homeschooled her children, something that is easier to do in France than one might assume. Her response to the government’s gender theory has been to organize a movement of journées de retrait de l’école (JRE), when large numbers of parents keep their children home from school. To keep the government from organizing against the parents, she does not announce these days in advance. By February, the movement had spread to a hundred schools. Obviously, antiracism aims explicitly to make native French people feel ashamed of their prejudices. For Belghoul it threatened the identity of minorities, too, including her own. In the 1980s, SOS Racisme and the Union of Jewish Students of France promoted a Jewish-Arab dialogue. This was an “illegitimate debate” in Belghoul’s view. “It was as if we were living in the Middle East,” she says. Many conservative Jews have made the same complaint—that the requirements of left-wing identity politics turned French Jews from citizens like anyone else into something they had not been in generations: a “minority.” The focus of Muslims’ attention on Israel is similarly the result of politicians’ need to blame someone other than France for the difficulties of French Muslims. There is a lot of truth in this. But Belghoul has made many of these points on Soral’s EgalitéetReconciliation.fr—a website that few people visit for its sensitivity to the plight of the Jews. You don’t have to press her to get her views on why she has consented to be interviewed there—enough people have raised it with her that she anticipates the question. “You’ll see me alongside anyone who speaks out for the banning of gender theory in school,” she says, “even if I am in total disagreement with the rest of their opinions. We need to set priorities. Today’s attacks on the family put the future of our society at risk. When that goes, I don’t see what’s left. So we need to set aside—and maybe this is an instance of grace—all our quarrels, even those that seem most important to us, in order that the sacred priority of defending childhood may win out.” It is a very good answer. Whether it is a satisfactory one depends on whether you share Belghoul’s view of the seriousness of the threat to France’s children. Belghoul is always talking about grace. She shouted a doggerel version of Romans 5:20 (La grâce est toujours là / Là où le péché sera / Là où le péché abonde / La grâce surabonde) at a television interviewer named Saïd on the network OummaTV in February. Anyone who thinks this way is bound to see Catholics and Muslims as involved in the same struggle—“même combat,” as French political activists are fond of saying. Almost all of the Christians who stood up at her press conference at the Café du Pont Neuf, from Christine Boutin to Béatrice Bourges to Alain Escada (of the Catholic fundamentalist Civitas movement), described themselves as converts of a sort—to the view that those who want to make France more Muslim and those who want to make it more Christian are not necessarily at odds [Haller: PC nonsense of the pseudo-Right]. One thing Belghoul says again and again is: “France is a Christian country.” It is a description that would have made sense any time between St. Irenaeus’ tenure as bishop of Lyon, less than a century after the death of Jesus, and a generation ago. But today Christianity has eroded in France in two ways. First, people have stopped going to Mass. Second, immigration has brought France its large and fast-growing Muslim minority. Two dozen young Frenchmen [Haller: “Frenchmen”] have been killed fighting with the Islamist rebels in Syria, and hundreds more are there now, according to the Ministry of the Interior.
76
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:06 | # In a way that no one seems willing to acknowledge, Muslim politics is a key to Belghoul’s power. Although the JRE is small, it is one of those small things with the potential to bring an entire political coalition crashing down—in a U.S. context, imagine the Democratic party if its hold on the black vote were threatened. Hollande’s government was able to ignore the mostly Catholic Manif pour Tous, no matter how large its marches got, because he had never had and did not need the votes of devout Catholics. Muslims are a different story: In the first round of the last presidential election, 57 percent voted for Hollande, versus only 7 percent for Sarkozy. What is more, their power is magnified (and that of Catholics reduced) by a system meant to respect the rights of “minorities.” Should a silent majority of Catholics, by making common cause with Muslims, gain access to the same right to be heard, they will have picked the lock that has kept them out of politics since the 1990s. Peillon has called the JRE “an insult to the Ministry of Education and to teachers” and threatened to summon any parents who keep their children out of school. “There is a certain number of extremists who have decided to lie and to scare parents,” he told the press recently. “All we are trying to do in school is teach the values of the Republic and, thus, respect between men and women. I call on all the manipulators, all the sowers of trouble and strife, to stop.” And that does not exhaust the government’s means of imposing its plans on schools. Defending the sexbox Alll Western countries are becoming less politically free, but France is doing so at a faster rate than most. The government has many tools for enforcing conformity. Twitter is capable of suppressing tweets at the request of governments in certain extreme cases, the website Atlantico reported in February, and last year, of 352 such requests worldwide, 306 came from France. Valls, the justice minister, has looked into banning Bourges’s French Spring group. The activist group Collectifdom sued the director Nicolas Bedos for opinions expressed in a magazine column that it considered an assault on “the honor of the Antilles.” These are tip-of-the-iceberg cases. And consider what happened when Valls lectured the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut on the TV talk show Des paroles et des actes in February about France’s sterling record of welcoming the uprooted—Valls’s own family from Catalonia under Franco, Finkielkraut’s from Poland and Auschwitz. Finkielkraut agreed, but said that that didn’t entitle France to ignore those of French stock—the so-called français de souche. For having used that [removed]and for having expressed the worry that France was turning into “the Soviet Union of antiracism”), Finkielkraut found himself in legal trouble—two high-ranking members of the Socialist party called for a sitting of the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel, a rough French equivalent of the FCC. It is a bad sign that, when the ruling party clashes with freedom of expression in this way, the media tend to take the side of the ruling party. Le Monde’s newly active blog section has covered the popular movement against théorie du genre not as a clash of political opinions but as an epidemic of intox, or collective insanity. In column after column, the paper of the ruling class mocks people who are utterly shut out of decision-making for their attempts, necessarily based on partial information, to make sense of the mandates imposed on them. There is little attempt to address the large kernel of truth in what they say, no attempt to address directly the question of whether teachers indeed are imposing on their children an ideology about sexual matters. And there is no acknowledgment whatsoever that parents could ever have a legitimate interest in what their children are taught about sex in school. There are only restatements of the government viewpoint and worries about the mental health of its opponents. Le Monde, for instance, notes that there is a rumor about children having to play with toy sex organs. False! “It’s probable that this rumor comes from Switzerland, where in the canton of Basel, sex-education teachers actually have at their disposal a ‘sexbox’ containing fabric stuffed sexual organs.” Le Monde’s blog linked to the left-wing site rue89 (recently bought by Le Monde), where a Swiss sexologist described the anti-gender-theory parents as groupuscules, or “splinter groups.” Parents, of course, are always groupuscules, usually consisting of two people, sometimes of one. The assumption here seems to be that parents are entitled to speak on their children’s behalf only as part of some nationwide patriotic front. Probably the most interesting magazine in France now is the monthly Causeur, edited by Élisabeth Lévy, who has opened its columns to the best journalists, historians, and philosophers of left and right. Last month Lévy and her colleague Gil Mihaely interviewed Dieudonné. It was a hostile and highly enlightening conversation, Causeur having been more relentless than most French publications in attacking his (and others’) anti-Semitism over the past several years. But Bruno Roger-Petit of the Nouvel Observateur (also owned by Le Monde) saw interviewing Dieudonné as tantamount to endorsing him. He wrote of Lévy: “When you share the same goals—fighting ‘political correctness’—you wind up understanding one another.” So “fighting political correctness” (a fairly good synonym for “freedom of speech”) and Dieudonné’s kind of anti-Semitism are cast as virtual synonyms. Roger-Petit may well be interested in constraining Dieudonné. But he sounds less interested in constraining Dieudonné than in making sure that orthodox intellectuals not give up an iota of the professional advantage that political correctness affords them over independent thinkers like Lévy. A country whose intellectual and political leaders do not distinguish between Dieudonné and Élisabeth Lévy will have a hard time either disciplining extremists or accepting constructive criticism from any quarter. France has, through political correctness, maneuvered itself into a bad position. In rough times, people fall back on what they have—savings, family, faith, various things that no decent government feels entitled to violate. What France is doing in the name of equal citizenship is ripping up every last refuge and source of identity people have. Its political leaders have met legitimate popular opposition to their plans not just with punishment but with ridicule, ostracism, and exclusion. Many of its intellectual leaders have fallen into line behind the politicians. For now, France’s leaders have managed to insulate some of their wilder schemes from popular complaint. It would be a mistake to consider that a triumph in any but the very short term. Christopher Caldwell is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West.
77
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 22:06 | # Nick, How do you know Sykes work isn’t factual? http://www.vdare.com/articles/its-official-british-aka-americas-founders-not-diverse-at-all 78
Posted by Nick Dean on Sun, 16 Mar 2014 00:38 | # Desmond, since when were the Irish and English identified (or not) by our mutual distinguishability in that one study? And in any case Sykes surely cannot believe we are genetically indistinguishable? In the Sailer article linked to from Brimelow’s neither Sailer or Sykes make any claim to that effect. Sailer wrote, “Interestingly, this means that the Irish and the English are largely the same.” [My emphasis. My comment ... no shit!] It’s a fact, is it not, that the Irish and English are NOT the same - ethnically or genetically? So why defend from mere correction someone who says there is no ethnic difference between the Irish and the English? 79
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:58 | # Nick, Where does Sykes say that there is no difference between the Irish and the English? Celtic is not a race designation. Sykes suggests that the majority “of the genes of the peoples of the British Isles are descended from the oldest of the modern inhabitants: Mesolithic hunter-gatherers,” these people are Celtic only in the sense that they adopted a Celtic language and customs. Not that they had a genetic connection to the “Celts” of central Europe. In fact he distinguishes between the English populations that are more genetically of “Anglo-Saxon descent”. Yes he is politically correct and the link he made between the ancient hunter-gathers in England and the Basques is disputed, however they continue to gather data for the “Peopling of Britain” project that will hopefully lay the question to rest. 80
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:54 | # Sykes doesn’t matter any more. The Iberian theory doesn’t matter any more. We now have some real work reported from the Oxford/Wellcome study, drawn from 4,000 samples in which all four grandparents were born in the same area as the subject: http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/ This shows major Anglo-Saxon admixture, contrary to Sykes. We even get gene maps: 81
Posted by Nick Dean on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 02:12 | #
Yes, Desmond, where does Sykes say that? Brimelow says there’s no difference, Vdare links Brimelow’s speech to Sailer’s article on Sykes and you link it here, associating it with your defence of Brimelow. My own view, already stated: Sykes surely cannot believe we are ethnically or genetically indistinguishable. Brimelow is wrong when he claims we are. Vdare and you are wrong to link Sykes’s work with Brimelow’s obviously daft claim.
Admixture with what, GW, if Sykes’s Celts/ancient Britons and Iberians don’t matter? Thin air? 82
Posted by wobbly on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:13 | # @Nick Dean
Syke’s line was the Anglo-Saxons only came in small numbers and didn’t have much of a genetic impact therefore *implying* the English would be the same as the people who were there before i.e. the same as the Irish.
It was the English Sykes was saying had no real genetic identity, not the Irish - as you’d expect from someone being PC in England.
However what is true is that high level admixture analysis doesn’t detect the difference - because the Atlantic-Iberian base population and the Atlantic-Germanic border regions around Denmark were genetically very close to begin with. So low-level analysis does detect the difference, higher level doesn’t. I think the best and most accurate answer are the same: Irish are descended from the neolithic population. English from a mixture of the neolithic population and the A-S and the two are closely enough related to not show up as distinct populations on a high level admixture plot but distinct enough to show up as separate populations on a low level plot.
83
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:43 | # Nick, Sykes, like Oppenheimer, does not matter now because we have an authoritative picture of genetic specificity in England, mapping as a tri-lobal structure roughly consonant with the borders, excepting Cornwall and parts of Devon. The first study is detailed here: 84
Posted by Bill on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:58 | # An interesting post by Kevin MacDonald over at Occidental Observer. ‘Racialization of Politics in the UK’ strongly features an article in the Guardian entitled http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/ ‘White face, blue collar, grey hair: the ‘left behind’ voters only Ukip understands’ Racialisation of politics has arrived in Britain and Farage is savvy enough to exploit the fact. Mainstream is missing the bus as usual, it’s no longer the economy it’s immigration stupid! John Fonte was telling us years ago what was coming. Interesting times. 85
Posted by Bill on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:21 | # Whilst I’m here on the DT thread, is there something going down at the DT? It’s hardly worth visiting these days, immigration seems to have been dropped as a hot button issue, true the DT blogger only has to include the name UKIP in the title of his piece to garner a half decent tally of comments. As for the rest, very average. It’s all red team/blue team stuff, acres and acres of it. I wonder if the MSM can pull it off again in 2015 as they did in 2010? Are our people so stupid…? No don’t answer that. 86
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:42 | # Bill, There doesn’t seem to be anything on the DT to entice the likes of us to comment, though someone could shoehorn some immigration-themed material into some of the threads relating to the Budget. Just how much pseudo-magnanimity towards Miliband, homophilia, Jeremy Warner allaying readers’ fears, articles on sugar, and “selfies”, can one stomach?
88
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:05 | # Morgoth, bestmarble, Irishwelder, Dandelo disintegrates And I’ll keep changing if necessary, regardless of what the rules are on Disqus or the DT. Are you still doing the counter-Jihad thing? 89
Posted by Morgoth on Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:40 | # Mick, I’m not commenting much anywhere at the moment because my PC is on its last legs and freezes in mid discussion, and it crashes if I try to open other tabs for links. I should have a new one within a week or so and yeah, Pamela’s blog and Breibart look promising, along with the DT of course. In the mean time I’m reading all those heavy weight articles and essays I never got round to. 90
Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:35 | # So, we do realise that we could be running the largest, most successful news aggregation site in the Western world, right? One with real freedom of speech - moderators under our control. Also… My Grandfather just told us we are descended from the fucking Huguenots !! What do? 91
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:30 | #
Lol! I know we’ve talked about a news aggregation site, would be a good idea, whether MR is the place for that ...? 92
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:37 | # The Huguenots were white. Whites from one ethnic group can assimilate into other ethnic groups. Some here might be amazed at the number of blonde Italo-Americans I know, given stereotypes about Italians. What matters most is RACE - as in, keeping the races separate, genetically and geographically. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:00 | # What matters most in Europe is ethnicity, as in keeping the ethnicities separate. And the other races out completely. 94
Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:29 | #
~ GW Oui, je suis d’accord. :( 95
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:04 | # There are no pure European ethnicities anymore. And soon, no pure race, either. 96
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:13 | # Posted by Leon Haller on April 04, 2014, 04:04 AM | # “There are no pure European ethnicities anymore. And soon, no pure race, either.” Luckily any honest person who has been to Europe and merely has eyes to look around, let alone to take a look at the genetic map, knows what Leon says here is not true. 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:24 | # Anyone who knows anything about the wanderings of the European peoples - ie, European history - knows Daniel is an ignoramus. 98
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:45 | # Look at the genetic map, look around, look at physical manifestations of people on your TV screen - that’s enough to know that there are differences discreet enough.
Leon, you’ve got your mail-order bride, nobody is stopping you from mongrelizing: take her and get lost. 99
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:30 | # We don’t need to define ourselves. Our enemies will do that for us. Or…faire d’une pierre deux coups, as we French like to say. 100
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:55 | # Maybe we don’t need to identify ourselves since we are identified by our genetics as native European, irrespective. However, it seems as if we’d better define ourselves rather than allow our enemies to define us. That there is overlapping among our kinds is not highly problematic for levelheaded persons of any goodwill, nor is it problematic that there are genetic center points of more distinct kinds which need to be maintained: viva la difference. Post a comment:
Next entry: Steam Punk - Part 1
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:58 | #
Is there some reason why rightists can’t start a “LabourWatch”, detailing its treasonous or anti-indigenous ejaculations, or a “ToryWatch” to keep tabs on Conservative sellout?
Maybe there just aren’t that many rightists, or more likely, their enthusiasm has never been remotely as high as that of the Leftist traitors. The market, like the broader natural order of which it is a part, abhors a vacuum. In the normal course of things, if there were a huge gap between what the public wants ideologically, and what it’s actually getting, one would expect ambitious men to fill that gap (and to do so in expectation of a profit). Yet somehow rightists, especially the nationalist variety, are never able to do so. I wonder why that is.