This is to provide an example of the educational work we do among the most hardened of white-haters and Christian-haters. We rarely preach to those who understand the need for majority rights. We take our message most often to those who need instruction.

Be warned that this one falls into the XXX category.

Members of Resisting Defamation range near and far in selecting opportunities for educating persons about slurs and negative stereotypes. We heard about one New Yorker web master of specialized sexual proclivities who persisted in spitting and hissing at “European whites” as uniquely responsible for the rise of “scientific racism” in world history. Supposedly all race ideas originated in Europe in the 1700s and 1800s. So we checked him out.

READ MORE...

Notwithstanding my committment to free speech ‘n all, I think the present disagreements about JJR’s posts have exhausted their utility.  I have taken down two recent, let us say, discursive contributions on the matter.

I have also asked JJR to post less frequently and with greater consideration.  As is well known I have no objection to views critical of the majority opinions here appearing on the blog.  What counts is the quality of the argument, and that is also the stated position of JJR’s critics.

I just want to reinforce once more why conventional political analyses are to be welcomed ... why, indeed, the intellectual cross-fertilisation of nationalism and the conventional political right is desirable and central to our goals.

The following argument is bowdlerised from an e-mail I received this morning.  I hope my correspondent will not object to its employment in the present, rather extraordinary circumstances, but it encapsulates my own feelings and, in fact, goes further - into the very interesting and crucial area of the power of art and thought to motivate political beings.

My correspondent wrote of the fringe and the mainstream, stating definitively that the motive drive to get the European people out of their present danger will come from the latter.  He rejected the notion that the movement of fringe personalities such as David Duke, Don Black and the National Alliance towards the mainstream could have telling results.  Our true leadership will emerge from the mainstream, he said, as it emerged in the Polish underground movement that pre-dated Solidarity, for instance.  They weren’t fringe personalities.  They were writers, academics, politicians and patriots seeking to revive the pre-War Polish political dispensation, but they had in common that they were all pushed aside by the totalitarian system.

Only culture, my correspondent wrote, could light the way to the turning point.  But it would have to be a high and new culture - novels, films, poetry, an aesthetic for recovery and renewal that draws fully on the European genius.  By no other means could we imbue ourselves with the energy and vision for the task ahead.  It will, he said, be a long process, slow to start.  Political hotheads need not apply.

Now, that’s a serious prognosis, and it would do no harm for us to attempt the same seriousness in all the work here.  The rest is, or ought to be, tolerance and, when it’s deserved, respect.

Majorityites have long been lax in identifying ourselves. One reason is that those older than 50 were raised in the USA to call ourselves “American” which usually, believe it or not, was not a term viewed as race-based. Somehow in the 1970s, the term “American” became synonymous with bigotry, racism, and oppression in the hands of the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture.

There are “American” holdouts, but public discourse requires a new naming process. It may seem a small matter, but there are very few attributes that more clearly point out who we are, what we want, and our sense of self-respect than our name.

Somehow we have allowed ourselves to be defined by minorityites in media discussions (at least in California) as, for example:

We’re “whites” when the topic is African Americans.

We’re “gentiles” when the topic is Jewish Americans.

We’re “Caucasians” when the topic is Asian Americans.

We’re “Anglos” when the topic is Latin Americans.

And we are never “Americans” or allowed to use the suffix “-Americans.”

Of course we have the right and duty to name ourselves without reference to any other group. That is, our identity does not depend on its relationship with the identity of anyone else.

READ MORE...

Karlmagnus mentioned the Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn in a comment on John’s Polish Problem thread.  Here is the Telegraph article that Rowthorn wrote:-

Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can’t cope

‘We recognise the positive contributions immigration makes to the country and the economy,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said last week. “If we don’t have migration, we don’t have the growth from the economy that we all benefit from.”

He was responding to some concerns about the rate of immigration raised by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead - but Downing Street’s claim that “if we don’t have immigration, we won’t have economic growth” has been stated over and over again since Labour took office in 1997.

If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government’s claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.

There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

READ MORE...

This weekend saw much commemoration of the Battle of the Somme.  It is ninety years since the artillery fell silent, that first whistle blew and, bayonets fixed, the men went over the top.

I can’t deny that military action holds a fascination for me.  I would be surprised if any man of my generation has not wondered whether he had it in him to do what his grandfather and, twenty-five years later, his father did.

Some of our sons are answering that question for us today.  This weekend also saw the latest deaths of British servicemen fighting the War on Terror - in a fire-fight at Sangin in Afghanistan.

Take some time to read this account of an otherwise unreported firefight that took place at the precise same moment.  Forty-eight soldiers of C Company of the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment - with an attachment of airborne troops from the Royal Irish Rangers – fought off a very determined “bunch of Afghans in rubber sandals.”

Excitement aside, the account made me wonder whether the lightly-equipped, friendship-toting British Army has any utility in Helmand.  If it isn’t there to occupy the area in the conventional, lock-down sense, and if it can’t possibly win the goodwill of the people, what is its mission?  The Times’ correspondent, Christina Lamb, doesn’t venture much on the matter, but gives us this:-

I thought about John Reid, the former defence secretary, glibly saying he hoped to complete the three-year British mission to Helmand without a shot being fired.  If this wasn’t a fourth Anglo-Afghan war, it felt very much like it.

Why were we there?  Why had we thought the Afghans wouldn’t fight - they defeated the Russians after all.  And why did everyone in Kabul and London keep insisting that nobody in Helmand really wanted to support the Taliban but were being forced to?

What if they were wrong?  After all, almost everyone in the province now depends on growing poppies.  Whatever the British commanders might say, villagers must see the presence of British troops as threatening the opium trade.

Of course, the operation in Helmand is not at all concerned with poppy cultivation.  It studiously avoids all such inflamatory considerations.  It is a peacekeeping initiative under NATO control (NATO having taken over strategic coordination of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in the summer of 2003).  NATO’s brief is to facilitate the Afghan government’s “ownership of and, eventually, full control and responsibility for” the country.  So, is order imposed from Kabul an objective which the villagers of Helmand would welcome, surviving as they are principally off the narcotics trade?  We would be living in a very strange logical universe if it was.

In a sense wider than just utility, then, I find myself brought back to Christina Lamb’s existential bastardisation, “Why were we there?”  On what basis does NATO, an agent of the elevated and far-distant “international community”, justify its intervention?  And does it lend any real moral legitimacy?

READ MORE...

There are some things that can never be said often enough.  Here’s Desmond Jones on Phil’s Chinese Racists thread, answering a heart-felt plea for peace ‘n lerve from a Chinese commenter:-

... racism (race realism) is good.  It recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others. It recognizes that mass immigration is ethnic competition over territory and that it negatively impacts reproductive fitness.  It realizes that territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants.  The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction - precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today.

It is YOU, who must realize that WE are merely trying to survive, that we want to live in peace with our families in OUR homelands without the threat of diminishment or destruction.

Perhaps one of the denizens of the MultiCult who occasionally drop by to check out the blog would care to offer an explanation as to how this statement is wrong.

The question of Majority Rights is a question about ways and means to regain the rights we have lost. To that extent, instead of allowing Jewish, Arabic, and African Rights & Feelings to hypnotize our higher centers of rational thought, or to find a label for us like Conservatives, Patriots, Whites, Libertarians, Neo-conservatives, Nationalists, Separatists, Supremacists, anti-Semites, and so on, it behooves us to ask what is to be done.

There are many things that majorityites can do. Here are some.

READ MORE...

David Cameron’s first big by-election test was yesterday, in leafy, suburban Bromley & Chislehurst.  He flunked it.

The late, great Eric Forth’s 13,342 General Election majority over Labour was reduced to a pretty desperate 633 over Ming Campbell’s Lib-Dems.  The ground opened up and swallowed Labour, meanwhile - their vote-share dropping from 22.2% at the GE to a paltry 6.6% and 4th place behind UKIP.

Overall, the number of votes cast to the four principal players fell by 40%, which one might expect at a by-election.  On the right of the spectrum the combined Tory/UKIP vote fell by a little more: 44%.  But it was a slightly different story on the left.  Despite Labour’s meltdown the combined Labour/Lib-Dem vote fell by 34%.  The Lib-Dems’ vote actually went-up by 17%.

It is reasonable to conclude that, in this constituency at least, there is widespread disdain for the government but no particular seepage from left to right, and certainly no enthusiasm for the Cameron agenda.  Indeed, there appears to have been an anti-Cameron vote - a case of the centre rejecting itself perhaps!  The killer for him would be if he was actually losing votes to the Lib-Dems for reasons other than the fact that the latter is always the Party of protest.  This, though, is impossible to determine based on numbers alone.

Meanwhile, Cameron’s carefully cultivated line on Europe has done him no good at all.  It came apart in his hands in the days before the poll, utter confusion prevailing over his wish to withdraw his Party from the federalist alliance in the European Parliament and to scrap The Human Rights Act.  It is difficult to see quite where he will go from here on Europe.  It is important to him, being the positive means by which he aims to bind the right of the Party to him (the negative one being that they have nowhere else to go).

They have UKIP, of course.  In Bromley & Chislehurst, Cameron’s Europe debacle surely helped Nigel Farrage to stem the decline evident at May 5th’s local authority elections.  He increased the vote at the last GE by more than half - though at these low numbers small swings can appear more significant than they really are.  UKIP might also have benefitted from the BNP’s reluctant endorsement, though we could only be talking about a hundred or two votes.

Cameron, then, and his little band of ambition modernisers have some thinking to do.  Blair might as well not bother, and chuck it in now.