Comments posted

Page 1 of 3465 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

uKn_Leo wrote:

@JamesUK

I support Scottish independence (is it good for England).

And I live in South Devon pal, y’all can rip each other to shreds for all we care.

______

‘We will look to restore and increase the number of Indian students at Scottish universities…it’s a result of sheer prejudice, negativity and a backward looking policy from the Westminster Government which we certainly shall reverse’ ~ Alex Salmond in the Milngavie (and Bearsden) Herald

http://www.milngavieherald.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/salmond-vows-immigration-reform-1-3538815

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlE1ZWaZISc


Open door immigration into gay marriage utopia.


“The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,
Gang aft agley.
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”
~ Mel Gibson

 

 

 

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 09:00 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

@uKn_Leo

Throw in a box of Tunnocks Caramel Waffers and it’s a deal.

Deal!!

I don’t know why you are so upset about Scotland possibly leaving the Union you still have Wales, Northern Ireland and Londonistan.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 05:14 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Don’t be too hard on Leon, Daniel.  Overall, that’s a pretty astute assessment of the situation in the (present) British polity.  However it comes, political and constitutional instability and change will benefit the struggle for an English life.  Yes or no, such instability is coming.  We are in for a two-year roller-coaster ride, with sudden new possibilities that could arise no other way.  The Scots will benefit too, especially with a yes; because that, in time, will release Scottish national feeling from its anti-English focus and enable a truly ethnic nationalism to take hold.

The United Kingdom does not represent a value in itself to raise above that of the advantages of its constituent countries and peoples.  The English people will have the first opportunity to assert their identity when the political class offers us English regionalism once again:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/nov/05/regionalgovernment.politics

... because that’s what coming down the turnpike.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 02:38 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Thatcher?

It is as if you went to a WN site in the US and said that Reagan and Austrian school economics were not complicit with immigration and border rupture. You would be looked upon as a giant fool (or the troll that you are) and they would be right.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 06:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Leon Haller wrote:

uknleo,

While not being British, and thus existing in a state of relative ignorance about all this, I nevertheless cannot fathom why you would not WANT the Scots to exit. Lister is right about the ethno-inorganicism of the UK. Why shouldn’t we be encouraging the dismantling of such agglomerations? Anything which relocalizes politics would open up new political ‘spaces’, which cannot be any less hospitable to nationalists than what obtains currently.

Yes, there will be horrendous problems accompanying the breakup if it happens (I predict NO wins by a squeaker, but dearly hope I will be wrong), markets will tank for a bit, etc. But overall, think how wonderful it will be for the cause of ENGLISH nationalism to get rid of these leftist Scots. They remind me (ok, just slightly - the situations are not really comparable) of leftist New Englanders back in the 70s-90s, gleefully supporting leftist Democrats for economic “justice” reasons, with the latter then supporting mass immigration, the brunt of which was felt by us not-so-lefty Americans in the Southwest (today, of course, the immigrant hordes are infiltrating everywhere, so not even Vermonters or Maineites are insulated anymore).

Scots vote Labour because they idiotically blame Thatcherism for hollowing out the old northern industries (as though evolving economic realities had nothing to do with their increasing unprofitability); Labour has gone for full-throated immigration treason; and where do 90% or more of the savages end up? Merrie Olde England!

I strongly suspect that freeing Scotland will have profoundly positive consequences for England, opening up a real space for electoral nationalism (either through UKIP becoming completely anti-immigrant [once immigration has been halted, the promotion of repatriation can commence - but not before], or the rightwing of the Tories growing much stronger politically, and thus ideologically emboldened wrt racial issues). Certainly, with Scots continuing their monomaniacal leftist voting habits, and the immigration invasion (of England) proceeding apace, how will nationalists ever have a chance to take back their country? Everyday, the possibility of reclamation recedes a bit.

OTOH, I suspect independence will be an utter disaster for Scotland, for two reasons. First, economic reality is not a function of political will, and thus is not subject to it, except in the short run. Economic laws inhere in reality itself; violate them, and eventually you will immiserate yourself. Scotland free is going to become a very socialist society very quickly (there is a reason why polling data suggest wealthier Scots are heavily on the NO side). Their entire politics seems to be divided between Marxist/multiculturalist Labour and socialist/multiculturalist SNP. Without the pound (and even with a continuing English military “security blanket”); without all the Westminster subsidies (which will not be replaced by dwindling North Sea oil, which itself will become dramatically less valuable over time as American shale oil and gas resources become fully commoditized, esp once Obama leaves office); and with Salmond’s idiotic shiiite about building a “more equal and fairer” economy, Scotland will become ever poorer over time.

Worse still, the TRAITOR Salmond actively supports the transformation of Scotland into a “vibrant, modern, multicultural society” (his words, not mine). The SNP’s nationalism has NOTHING to do with ethnonationalism. It is more a kind of rancid leftist “civic nationalism” along the lines of “we would be sooo much more progressive/socialist without those nasty Tories south of the Tweed and their horrid Thatcherite economy”.

I hope some blood-and-soil sentiment arises among the Scots post-independence. But whether it does or does not, you English will be much better off without ‘em.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 05:23 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

uKn_Leo wrote:

@16 JamesRabCNesbittUK

Throw in a box of Tunnocks Caramel Waffers and it’s a deal.
______

Aye, surprise surprise five minutes before the referendum a YouGov poll puts the Yes vote ahead and the British Establishment immediately offer DevoMax (yet more largesse for Scotland at the expense of English taxpayers) and federalisation of the UK (the break up of England into its EU regions).

The whole thing stinks and has done right from the start.

The selfishness and greed of the Scots makes my head spin like a Keppochhill glue sniffer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11094489/Scottish-independence-polls-show-its-too-close-to-call.html

‘online poll showed 54 per cent of Scots who have made up their minds planned to vote in favour of independence, with 46 per cent intending to vote against’


Roger Scruton on English Independence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djrYRZe889E

 

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 12:36 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lurker wrote:

I wonder if the ‘No’ campaign, like immigration enforcement, is designed to fail while looking like a well meaning but shambolic attempt to persuade the voters. See also McCain’s attempt to be elected POTUS.

The people who told us that UKIP would gain almost no votes in Scotland in May seem to be the same ones predicting a ‘Yes’ vote now. Yet UKIP got more than 10% then.

And if the ‘Yes’ vote is so big, why did the SNP only get 30% back in May? Surely they should have been knocking on around 50%? Why was the tory/UKIP/BNP/Britain First vote larger in total than the SNP vote? Most of those (not all I know) would be unionist votes. Never mind the Labour and LD vote.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/13/14, 10:22 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

@uKn_Leo

We already have George Galloway JamesUK. Yet another Scottish MP in an English constituency causing untold harm to the English people.

OK I’ll sweeten the deal you can have Niall Ferguson as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN1YDgqBjXk

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/13/14, 12:16 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

wvs wrote:

Thorn (“WVS”) Troll alert

Quoting O’Reilly (can we be surprised?)

This post is usefully looked upon as trolling disinformation

For whom the shoe fits. (Y’all know who you are .... or should know!)

Killing English by Bill O’Reilly

[...]


In its Dec. 12, 2008, issue, the Times Literary Supplement had some fun exposing the incomprehensibility factor in the impenetrable prose of a pompous graduate in the postmodern tradition:

“Once the habit of writing comprehensible English has been unlearned, it can be difficult to reacquire the knack. Here is an example of a sentence which purports to be written in English, but which, we propose, is incomprehensible to all but a few. It is taken from ‘Coincidence and Counterfactuality: Plotting time and space in narrative fiction’ by Hilary P. Dannenberg”:

“Historical counterfactuals in narrative fiction frequently take an ontologically different form in which the counterfactual premise engenders a whole narrative world instead of being limited to hypothetical inserts embedded in the main actual world of the narrative text.”

About Jane Austen’s “Mansfield Park,” the Dannenberg dolt writes that it “undertakes a more concerted form of counterfactualizing, in which both the character and the narrator separately map out counterfactual versions of the concluding phase of the novel’s love plot.”

In studied contempt, the TLS marveled that “Coincidence and Counterfactuality” “is published by the University of Nebraska Press. Just think: someone read the book and endorsed its publication, someone edited it, someone else set it in type, designed a cover, compiled an index, read the proofs – yet hardly anyone can understands what’s in it.” [Nobody reads these books.]

Now that’s pellucid prose everyone gets.

A friend – she’s a successful novelist – related this amusing incident:

“I once got hired by the University of Chicago to edit their academic press. The manuscripts were atrocious. I could not understand what was written, and used a red pen heavily in the margins of the manuscripts. After my corrections arrived, I was fired immediately. They told me I was not ‘intellectually sophisticated’ enough for the job. To which I replied: ‘You’re right: F–k you.’”

[...]

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/killing-english-by-bill-oreilly/#DvMEvapMKm4BuG9j.99

Thorn (“WVS”) Troll alert

Quoting O’Reilly (can we be surprised?)

This post is usefully looked upon as trolling disinformation

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/13/14, 11:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Desmond,

One last prediction.  If it’s a No, the reasoning afterwards might go something like:

The three constituencies where the No camp was always likely to hold a substantial lead were older voters, postal voters, and the English, Welsh and Northern Irish expat contingent - the latter two numbering around 800,000 each.  There was quite a bit of overlap between older voters and postal voters, obviously.  “No” might easily have had a lead of 500,000 votes in these sectors.  Against that, the No campaign was pretty chaotic and panicky over the final three or four weeks, and was characterised throughout almost exclusively by threats to jobs and the economy.  It did not produce a single positive argument.  But it scored one major hit, on the currency question - doubts on which it exploited relentlessly.  In contrast, the Yes campaign was optimistic and professionally executed, and appealed much more to the young.  But it never appeared to have thought through the whole business of independence, which was amazingly negligent given the hard-headed, money-wise reputation of the Scots.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 11:35 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Desmond Jones wrote:

I think Salmond’s instinct that so many would not turn up to vote for stasis and a negative is correct.

And you may be correct, however, the same pattern appeared in the ‘95 Quebec referendum where there was a 94% voter turnout. It also saw a surge in the yes vote, only to abate at the point of casting a ballot.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 03:11 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Wolf wrote:

What seems to have been forgotten here is that the Scottish Nationalist Party is in no way nationalist in the sense that anyone here understands the word.

They are left-wing, pro-EU and pro-immigration.

You think things are rubbish tied to England? Wait until the lunatics get the keys to the asylum!

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 01:56 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

uKn_Leo wrote:

We already have George Galloway JamesUK. Yet another Scottish MP in an English constituency causing untold harm to the English people.

The Scottish reacted with venom to even the merest hint of outside interference from ‘English’ political leaders travelling north of the border to take part in the independence debate.

How do you think it feels for the English to have our entire political and cultural life so dominated by Scots whose main priority is the promotion of Scottish interests at the expense of England?

You don’t know do you? You have no idea. You can’t even consider this as your only concern is for the Scottish and what is best for you (‘is it good for Israel’) whilst gloating about the destruction and devastation of my country.

Absolutely disgusting.

______


Dan, true separation would be a good thing for England and Scotland. No group is more pro-Scottish independence than English patriots.

The overriding concern of the UK’s ruling elite is the continuing enslavement of England and her people. Anything and everything but English self-determination (our own parliament and governance in our own self-interest) is on the agenda.

The debate between all sides has been brutal but very few outside of these isles seem to be aware of what is going on. The UK establishment has to keep hidden their oppression of the English whilst they race to destroy us before we can react.

Note the lack of English response to events such as Muslim mass rape. That should give you an indication of how controlled, voiceless and powerless we are now.

The Scots are on the side of wider white interests in the same manner as are the Jews.

They are allies in the same manner as are the Jews, ie is it good for them? Can they make a shekel out of it?

______


Dr Lister.

The Kraken awakes.

Thank you as ever for the superb links and leads for further study.

grin

______


The will of the English is fairly clear.

As ever it will be ignored in favour of our white, European, British, ‘Celtic’ masters.


http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/2014/08/20/the-english-favour-a-hard-line-with-scotland-whatever-the-result-of-the-independence-referendum/


Given the consistent No lead in all recent opinion polls, there has been surprisingly little scrutiny of what the pro-union parties are promising after a No victory.

Scotland has been promised that it can maintain its current advantageous position in terms of per capita public spending, and that there will be no change in the status of Scottish MPs at Westminster.

But English voters clearly do not support this.

There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the border. There is also overwhelming English support for limiting the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster.

The question for Scottish voters is whether they can rely on pledges about the consequences of a No vote, when such pledges do not seem to be supported in the largest and most politically important part of the union? The truth of the matter is that the English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however the Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum. ~ Professor Richard Wyn Jones of Cardiff University

______

It is striking how tough people in England are on Scotland whatever the referendum outcome. There appears to be little appetite for the Scottish Government’s vision of independence amid continuing partnership with the rest of the UK on the pound, Europe and NATO. If anything the message appears to be: ‘vote Yes by all means, but if you do, you’re on your own.


But if Scots vote No, there’s something similar at play. Here the message is: ‘by all means have more devolution, but you can’t then have the role at Westminster you do now, and don’t expect any funding to flow northwards from England’.

Interestingly UKIP supporters are among the toughest of the lot. They appear to have little time for defending the UK so clearly proclaimed in their party’s title. They are the least opposed to Scottish independence, the most likely to disagree it would reduce the UK’s standing in the world, and the most likely to think England and Scotland will still drift apart if the Scots vote No.

As their party matures, UKIP supporters look less and less like supporters of the UK’s independence and more and more like England’s national party. ~ Professor Charlie Jeffery of the University of Edinburgh

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 11:21 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Desmond,

“97% of Scots sign up to vote in referendum as independence poll is set to be the biggest in country’s history”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752086/Scottish-referendum-97-Scots-sign-vote.html

The total number of people who have registered for next Thursday’s referendum is 4,285,323, more than for any previous election or referendum in Scotland, according to the vote’s ‘chief counting officer’.
Nearly 800,000 of those applied for a postal ballot - meaning they are likely to have already cast their vote.

Official statistics released this year indicated that the total population of Scotland is around 5.33million, with 4.42million of those aged at least 16 - the minimum age to vote in the referendum.

That means that just over 97 per cent of eligible voters have signed up to cast a ballot next week.

By contrast, fewer than 2.5million Scots voted in the 2010 general election, a turnout of 63.8 per cent - and in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election which brought the SNP to power, turnout was just 50.6 per cent.

Nobody knows how that mass of new or irregular voters will behave, what their nominal political preferences are, or even if they have them.  This is a jump into the unknown, psephologically speaking, but I think Salmond’s instinct that so many would not turn up to vote for stasis and a negative is correct.  If that’s wrong, well OK.  We will work out the reasons for it.  But now is prediction time, and mine is that Yes will get it.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 04:11 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

OK, that is an answer to my question.  I like the way that Norman Lowell speaks of the personal individuality and lack of conformity of nationalists (this being an “is”, of course, and not the “should” of individualism).  He is a most particular individual, of course.  But there is a strong sense in which realised or self-expressed human qualities tend to a natural and inevitable differentiation that gives something to the group, some colour and form and specificity.  The group takes its own present character from that.  This is not simply a cultural issue.  Rather, it is a natural one.  Such natural individuality accretes as the character of the group.  Thereby, the latter exists (more) as its simple and true self, which is the optimum condition for clarity of decision in its own interests.  By contrast, it has no existential requirement for an established standard ... a cultural regimentation, even one that exhibits the excessive self-interest of, and competition between, individuals ... because that always takes it away into inauthenticity and confusion.

In nationalism, then, we should understand individualism as the process of revealing or uncovering this individuality.  It is a cohering force.  “Shoulds” which develop a personal life unmindful of group interests, or hostile towards them, will always be disintegrative and negative.  Obviously, a politics of the unfettered will can never cohere.  It must inevitably generate confusion and conflict, even to the extent that its social dispensation operates as a giant system for an exploitative, cannibalistic self-interest.

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/11/14, 11:39 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Individualism is of two kinds but has various roles as drawn or altercast.


The two kinds are


The corporeal, our embodied, biological and genetically delimited characteristics.


The second is the narrative self which has autobiographical aspects appropriated and asserted - accounts by the individual negotiated with biographical accounts attributed and provided by others.


The roles of the individual could be many in terms of a social or self chosen Should, but difference of perspective, sensibility, ability, in providing feedback, stewarding of a more particular genetic inheritance, moral agency responsible for a degree of self management and management of inherited difference IS .

The role that should be made of those inherited differences is somewhat more flexible and must be negotiated, whether it is: Scientist, Artist, Philosopher, Rhetorician, Lawyer, Engineer etc, in terms of vocation, which has more specific episodic requirements that correspond with earning a living (rather than free riding).

It also has more concrete relational requirements…Co-worker/Striker…Union man/ Independent or Scab

Then there are cosmological roles of the individual which relate to the broader cultural pattern and history:

Such as -

Hero/ or Rogue in protest of an irresponsible society

Friend/Adversary

Martyr

Leader organizer / clever functionary

These roles would be beholden to the corporeal self and narrative self in negotiation as well.


I do focus more on the the social because I take the significance of individualism for granted as important to European peoples, and by the same token, the significance of the social as having been neglected – its organization and management as necessary for vocational and cosmological roles to have any significance.


You could say vis a versa – the individual needs to provide feedback on the system. It is our cosmological organon which is really out of whack, the responsibility to our history and legacy which lacks feedback and accounted for structure for our individualist societies.

Anthropologists do not necessarily commend a society where individualism is scarcely known (“arm hurts not ‘my’ arm hurts’), but point to them to illustrate that the appreciation of individualism is not necessary for some societies to function; with that is the implication that there is that arbitrary line, however thin, between individual and social which needs to be negotiated and in some cases, perhaps needs to be re-calibrated more in favor of the social - so is apparently the case with Europeans if we are to survive as a kind, even in our individualism (which grows out of our social, of course).

Particularly as Christianity is an affectation to Europe, insufficient as a moral order for us, it is apparent that European peoples are in need of cosmological, viz., social organization, and that the anthropological suggestion that individualism can be over-drawn, over emphasized, might be heeded – not to do away with the significance of individualism, but to establish the importance of the social for the sake of responsibility to our broader systemic and historical patterns (and borders)

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/11/14, 10:11 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Desmond Jones wrote:

The no campaign cannot reach these new voters.

Salmond may be blowing smoke.

http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_news/news_93837.html

The Scots won’t go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#2014

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 10:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Graham, separatism is not a bad word in my book.

I imagined it could have good effects for both sides - but judging from the reaction, I’d better keep quiet. The last thing we need is internecine fighting. Though this post did manage to bring that problematic topic, which I had otherwise tried to invoke, into discourse. 

Even so, I do wish that you would do a bit more than criticize. You are and have been, free to contribute to the elevation of the discussion and remedies, to comment and to post here. A bag of books and a pedant who assigns them is not enough. The time is nigh and as you may have cultivated opinions of your own from your erudition and experience it is time to bring them to bear on the commons and be accredited as worthy conduit if not a hero.

You have already provided excellent direction to the discourse here: for example, attention to the importance of social capital, the dangers of The US, its Lockeatine individualism and neo liberalism - which call for vigilant guard.

We’ve got a request in for an interview with Salter. He is not below your station. With your background you could be of great help. Addressing these very issues of relative infighting would be of monumental help.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 09:52 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

@uKn_Leo

I tell you what as a peace offering you can keep George Galloway.

http://youtu.be/oeb_J0uHnSk

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 08:47 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Well since GW has given control over the site to others all I can say the idiocy level has reached new depths.

Not that it has ever been that far from the site - always waiting to pounce it seems.

Take it easy on whatever illegal drugs you’re imbibing uKn_Leo.

After you sober up (if that ever happens) you might like to read a history of the British (note not English) Isles by Norman Davies called ‘The Isles’.  Which might, I admit, be a difficult task as it would require an IQ above room temperature.

Davies is also an excellent historian on Poland and Eastern Europe.

But if you think a ‘win’ for the Westminster establishment and the multi-cultural loving elites of London is a good thing (meta-politically) then I can’t really say anything to you.  I cannot believe anyone is that stupid or intellectually dishonest, hence I assume such views arise from ‘epistemic closure’ - no possible conceptual argument or empirical evidence will change your view so why should anyone bother to debate your particular form of nonsense?

As if the Spectator’s blogs represents ‘sophisticated’ political thought. Oh well never mind.

This is our country - let’s take it back.

‘Here Lies Our Land’ by Kathleen Jamie

Here lies our land: every airt
Beneath swift clouds, glad glints of sun,
Belonging to none but itself.

We are mere transients, who sing
Its westlin’ winds and fernie braes,
Northern lights and siller tides,

Small folk playing our part.
‘Come all ye’, the country says,
You win me, who take me most to heart.

How any European nationalist (with a brain and a heart) can think the notion of those that most take their country to heart in order to win it ‘objectionable’ is beyond my ken.

Your country is England - Britain is an awful inorganic construct way beyond its use by date.

P.S. Danny it’s about Scottish independence and statehood - its resumption - we are not some small part of England getting all ‘uppity’ and being ‘separatists’.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 08:37 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

uKn_Leo wrote:

JamesUK and Dr Lister sharing their thoughts on Scotch independence here (beginning @ 40 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

This fight started centuries back Dan, it’s not your fault. The Scotch gained the upper hand by unleashing their inner Jew and England has been torn asunder as a result.

Seeing how we have enough natural resources including fresh water and are not burdened with all the problems England has with overpopulation and large ethnic minority populations I think we will be just fine.

~ James"you can stick your independence up your arse"UK

Oy vey.

The characteristics of the Scotch and the Jew are indistinguishable (see above).

The reason you don’t know anything about this and assume that all is well demonstrates how silenced and suppressed the will of the English is from an international perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttWjoRhYOI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTSfC4ERqw

The ‘settled will’ of the English people demonstrated accurately here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKuNXIgAxBw

The reply to this post from JamesUK will have all the credibility and honesty of an IDF spokesman justifying the bombing of Gaza.

Only the superior character of the English stands in the way of Scotland being reduced to rubble in a horrific bloodbath the likes of which the world has never known.

It is this superiority that engenders such jealousy and hatred from our Scotch ‘brothers’.

The infiltration of Westminster by stealth Scotch assassins (almost half of all Labour MP’s sitting in English seats are Scotch for example) and the ensuing strangulation of English national sentiment has lead to events such as Rotherham (industrial scale sex slavery by Muslims of English girls).

The Scotch response, even from those who claim to be our friends, is to mock and crow whilst safely ensconsed somewhere within their barren, cold, windswept wasteland of a ‘country’.

They are more Jewish than Jews.

______

Case closed.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 06:56 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Daniel, you seem singularly focused on the unity of the folk in nationalist thinking.  What role, if any, does the very European trait of individualism have?

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/11/14, 05:24 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I didn’t mean to start a fight.

I thought we were all ok with the Scots and English and vis a versa.

Hopefully this thread can take a productive direction.

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 01:57 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Ok, let me start the ball rolling:


George Lincoln Rockwell

William Pierce

Don Black

Tom Metzger

George Lincoln Rockwell:

He was a forerunner to Pierce, who Pierce actually joined-up with.

A graduate of Brown University (Ivy league) and US Naval pilot commander; an American patriot, thus it is a startling choice to turn around and champion Hitler and Nazism after being “awakened” by Mein Kampf.

But Rockwell did this in a way that is almost unoffensive even to someone like me. I suspect because his background was in advertising, marketing, graphics - the arts - that it came across as it was: to make a statement but not to be taken literally as the territory of meaning (which cannot be said quite as much for Pierce, a scientist).

In a time before the Internet, Rockwell used Nazism as a way to rise above the din and be heard. Then, when he had an audience, he would don a business suit and wield a thoughtful pipe in clear, unthreatening repose.

Apparently he was planning to put aside the Nazi regalia and moniker at the time of his murder.

It is a shame that he did no live to take that new direction. My impression of him is that he had a better heart than Pierce.

He was a bit rigid but not very.

He was funny too - I love the story, “you want integration, ok we’ll give you integration” ..... he and several clad Nazis make themselves comfortable in a synagogue. LOL.

Rockwell had something that some of the present WN leaders do not have. While being fully aware of the J.Q. he did not take his eye off and dismiss the detriment of blacks and race mixing.

So many WN exponents nowadays seem to believe they are above those concerns. They are not.

That brings me directly to William Pierce.

William Pierce

Pierce was rigid where Rockwell seemed to have had a more fluid and amiable intelligence.

I distinctly remember Pierce saying that he does “not blame a White woman for taking up with a buck” (tactlessly flattering name for a Negro male) when she sees all these sissified White men by comparison.

Well, I blame her and a lot of other things. But that’s objectivism for you, and that’s a bi-product of scientism.

Nevertheless, Pierce was not above addressing popular culture and did render incisive criticisms, including from whence race mixing was pushed.

He did criticize popular culture, the Clinton administration, so many things that many in the struggle are just too cool to criticize (has to be all W. Bush, not Clinton, right? - god how I hated Clinton, and thank you Pierce for skewering that rat).

Pierce was a very intelligent man, of course - a physicist. His analysis of the problems that beset the White race were more clear, deep and comprehensive than most can manage. For the clarity and confidence that he provided amidst modernity’s chaos, it makes sense that his view would be adopted by many as facilitating ready sense making. But there are problems with his being quite so influential. Firstly, what you would expect from a scientist - scientism: this is one of the White race’s vulnerabilities. It is dangerous and instinctively turns people off who have any sort of sensitivity and social sensibility, let alone philosophical sophistication.

Pierce’s understanding of history was insufficient as well. I had a Belarusian colleague listen to some of Pierce with me and he did not even want to finish listening to the pod cast because he felt Pierce’s understanding of some fundamentals were so inaccurate.

His scientism and insufficient historical orientation, coupled with the appeal of the American demographics as I have noted, probably contributed to an overly favorable opinion of Hitler and Nazism on the part of Pierce. It is very unfortunate, because he was in many ways incisive, and he was influential - I have yet to come across a case of a prominent American exponent of WN who has a favorable view of Hitler who did not come through the William Pierce school of thought.

I am satisfied that is a large and unnecessary mistake which he had a significant part in setting in motion; therefore, a more elaborate critique of Pierce is in order.

Don Black

The proprietor of “Stormfront”, the most popular WN site on the Internet.

Don joined up with William Pierce early on, when still in his teens, I believe. Then he went his own way..

..he was a Klan leader for a long time until he saw the ineffectiveness of that, though he actually gleaned much practical knowledge as you would through the school of hard knocks. Knock southerners all you want, they have the experience of racial reality and the shared wisdom of how to deal with it.

I am impressed by his side kick “Truck Roy”, though most of the rest of his associates still seem to be too sympathetic to Hitler; Don strikes me as a reasonable man - as one who sympathizes with all White people and it is probably because he has that motivation that he is reasonable.

Don is also not a Christian. That helps a great deal.

I never go to Stormfront, have not been there for years. It is too much, too large a cacophony of opinions. Still, he has a radio show with a loud influential voice; he, Truck Roy, Don Advo and Paul Fromm

So, indeed, he is worth analysis.

Tom Metzger

If you are looking for the culprit who has me so recalcitrantly defending the concept of “White Leftism” it is Metzger. Before hearing his careful discussions, I was as grossed-out as anybody by any word and concept of “leftism.” You might say that I came through his school of thought, his boot camp, for a while.

I don’t regret it. I like him.

He is a very agile thinker, with a lot of useful experiential knowledge. He is worth listening-to for sure.

Because there is far more good (90 percent?) than negative about him, I will begin with my disagreements, as they are finite:

He harps against “equality” saying there is no such thing and even making it a signature statement. I believe this is an important mistake as I have said many times. And it is a residual bit of right wingishness. Qualitative non-sameness and incommensurability are the differences that makes a difference - these are the distinctions that can allow people to amicably move into symbiotic niches as opposed to engaging in the vanity of false comparisons and the bitter competitions that ensue when invoking a uniform, quantifiable paradigm of equality inequality.

His resistance to out of Africa. I find that frustrating because it is unnecessary to deny in order to defend our difference. In all likelihood it is true and necessary to acknowledge in order to defend ourselves against whatever capacities our predecessors may wield to our detriment.

I don’t think much of might makes right. Some truth to it of course, a measuring rod, but no sense in being reverent about it, as TT can be.

Oh, and with that, “Nature’s Eternal Religion” (Ben Klassen) - I seriously doubt that is sufficient, though TT apparently thinks that it is.


Finally, I appreciate that he advocates all European peoples ...his motivation is excellent in that he does not want them to fight, however, I believe that doing away with European Nationalisms is a seriously mistaken idea, as these are a manageable means of protecting accountability and the human ecologies of European peoples.

Even so, the important point (especially for those who would criticize him for being an “American”) is that his motives are good. He is reasonable. He is a good man.

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/11/14, 01:52 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

@uKn_Leo

You are witnessing the murder in broad daylight of an entire nation and it’s people.

Brits killing off other Brits. Neighbours.

Hyperbole much?

We will probably be the first country to go down completely, as our ‘friends’ from north of the border so gleefully like to remind us.  Watch and learn so that something positive can be gleaned from this experience.

Whites can, and will, merrily sacrifice their own.

The Scots are more Jewish than Jews themselves.

How so? If anything Jewish interests would be interested in keeping Scotland under its rule and City of London/Rothschild dominion.

http://www.moneyteachers.org/Rothschild.connection.html

Nobody will come to your aid when it is your turn.

As the lights go out.

Seeing how we have enough natural resources including fresh water and are not burdened with all the problems England has with overpopulation and large ethnic minority populations I think we will be just fine.

 

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/11/14, 12:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

“most right wing supporters do not support race based ideology as their core political ideology.”

That is an astute abstraction of what “right wing” implies and a part of the problem - they are generally abstract from the people by implication.

“Pierce was the person I was thinking of in the back of my mind when I made the list but I just forgot to add him to it.”

Excellent and its not a problem - forgetting to add the thing we take for granted is a common oversight (for me anyway). Cool.

“William Pierce especially but also Metzger, Rockwell and Don Black are prime example of 3 or more of the 5 points that I listed.”

Definitely worth discussion.

All interesting and influential people as they have contributed largely to making up the streams of European(American)/White advocacy’s direction…by examining them we may find essential characterizations and keys to direct our advocacy (European peoples and their discreet kinds) in a better, more effective way.

Let’s keep the English in there…I will need particular help with discussing them

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/11/14, 09:44 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

@DanielS

Looking over the points you responded to that I will respond to later of the 5 main criticisms I have about WN movement you refer to WN as right wing that although it does have right wing ideological leanings I would not characterise WN as being right wing but as a separate entity as most right wing supporters do not support race based ideology as their core political ideology. 

I was implying that Pierce should be on the list.

Pierce was the person I was thinking of in the back of my mind when I made the list but I just forgot to add him to it.

William Pierce especially but also Metzger, Rockwell and Don Black are prime example of 3 or more of the 5 points that I listed.

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/11/14, 09:18 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Posted by jamesUK on September 10, 2014, 09:43 PM | #

I will look over your article properly tomorrow and comment on it and look up information on Józef Piłsudski and the The Bojówki group.

good

I was not implying that you should not include Pearce on the list I was just commenting on how the term Far Right would apply to him as he was associated with The Order a domestic terrorist organisation.


I was implying that Pierce should be on the list.

  As for your suggestion of a review of “far right” nationalist movements and leaders, I think it is a good one (though calling them “far right” is a decidedly Jewish designation and an even farther-off misnomer in some cases). I would be eager to add William Pierce to the list among others..

That I replied.

  Far Right for a lack of a better term although I would say it does apply to some individuals in the US like William Pearce who was connected to right wing extremists like The Order and wrote inflammatory books most noticeable The Turner Diaries.

Understood - It is not really about taking issue with you, but the Jewish “Journalese” (as Neil so aptly calls it), and taking occasion to clarify and revise it.

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/10/14, 09:54 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

jamesUK wrote:

I will look over your article properly tomorrow and comment on it and look up information on Józef Piłsudski and the The Bojówki group.

I was not implying that you should not include Pearce on the list I was just commenting on how the term Far Right would apply to him as he was associated with The Order a domestic terrorist organisation.

As for your suggestion of a review of “far right” nationalist movements and leaders, I think it is a good one (though calling them “far right” is a decidedly Jewish designation and an even farther-off misnomer in some cases). I would be eager to add William Pierce to the list among others..

That I replied.

Far Right for a lack of a better term although I would say it does apply to some individuals in the US like William Pearce who was connected to right wing extremists like The Order and wrote inflammatory books most noticeable The Turner Diaries.

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/10/14, 09:43 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

The return of JR
Inbox

GW

11:35 PM (4 hours ago)
 
to me
Daniel,

“If you want to take that post (JR on 9/11) down just do it from the edit function.”

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/10/14, 09:19 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

melba peachtoast wrote:

Obviously, duckies, 2013 and 2014 are false interpolated time, hallucinatory calendrical meristem, and the year is actually 2012. The Mayan prophecies are not refuted! Flee from the wrath to come!

O, wait. You can’t.

This comment appeared in entry '9/11 thirteenth anniversary: we are getting there' on 09/10/14, 03:27 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Not forgotten, we were awaiting your reminder..

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/10/14, 01:59 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

fnn wrote:

Why is General Grivas so forgotten?

This comment appeared in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/10/14, 01:53 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

David Lane was explicit about that, describing The Right as full of speculative crazies. ...and to think, I had just explained to FS that MR did not traffic in kooky conspiracy theories…I take no responsibility for this crap.

Susan Lindaur provided one of the more sane discussions of 9 11

easonradionetwork.com/20110215/the-sunic-journal-interview-with-susan-lindauer

....but seriously, the 13th anniversary is a special occasion to discuss this stuff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yraUbBfAGBA

This comment appeared in entry '9/11 thirteenth anniversary: we are getting there' on 09/10/14, 01:47 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Guessedworker and uKnLeo,

I had hoped to kindle this topic - betrayal, fratricide, the unreliability of people closely related here

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/fratrcidal_tendency

But it has surfaced serendipity on this post. Alright, better late than never.

The request is in, hopefully Salter will help us to address these matters among others…

This comment appeared in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/10/14, 01:02 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3465 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›