Majorityrights Central > Category: Thread Wars

So the political threads of the Daily Telegraph are to be available on a restricted basis to non-subscribers to the print or on-line edition.  Whether that basis will be generous enough to preserve the site’s utility for us (that is, as a site where we can offer nationalist analyses without the deadening influence of pre-moderation) remains to be seen.  Regular readers of the DT on-line will be well aware that the journalistic output suffers from Red Bus Syndrome.  Whenever some event of interest occurs, half-a-dozen articles appear about it within an hour.  A restriction to twenty articles a month will considerably hamper selection, and have a scattering effect on our collective presence.

A schwerpunkt is as virtuous in a war of discourse as it is in a war with guns and grenades.  The huge progress that has been made over the last couple of years in liberalising speech on the DT threads is largely a product of the weight of nationalist sentiment, not of individual argumentation - excellent though much of that has been.  Individuals are easily dealt with moderation-wise.  It is when everybody is freed to speak inconvenient truths that the moderators’ battle is lost, and this has been the story at the DT.

One can always subscribe, of course, and then there are no restrictions to access.  But what would be the point if the general readership plummets as it did at The Times:

Since July 2010, News International has required readers who do not subscribe to the print edition to pay £2 per week to read The Times and The Sunday Times online.

Visits to the websites have decreased by 87% since the paywall was introduced, from 21 million unique users per month to 2.7 million. In April 2009, the timesonline site had a readership of 750,000 readers per day. As of October 2011, there were around 111,000 subscribers to the Times’ digital products.

Whether we can remain at the DT or we look for new journalistic soil to till, it is surely worthwhile maintaining the collective presence we have built up.  I think that is possible.  It may need a site secure from prying eyes as an organisational base.  MR is a public medium.  But at least we can have a discussion here and now about that and the other options that we have in our war for the freedom to state unambiguously that our people must live.

The Runnymede Trials are possible. The state is not an island above the law.
It is important to hold the architects of the unrestrained approach towards immigration in the Labour government to account for the sake of posterity, in the same way it was important to hold the leaders of the Nazi party responsible to account for war crimes at Nuremberg. The law is open to all not just the state.

This comment appeared today on the thread to a Daily Telegraph leader pushing the usual Tory line on immigration.  It was posted by theft_act1968.  It is one of three comments this poster has fashioned touching on the same subject.  He appears to be posting these comments serially.

I have no idea if he is alone in using the terms “The Runnymede Trials” and “The Runnymede Tribunal”, but I like them.  They are good word-tools full of stout optimism and moral certainty.  I think they could prove useful in roping in anti-Blair types to racial thinking.  One of the other two comments is this, incidentally:

The Runnymede Trials

The architects of the unrestrained approach towards immigration in the Labour government:

Tony Blair - Prime Minister May 1997-June 2007
Gordon Brown - Prime Minister June 2007-May 2010
Jack Straw - Home Secretary May 1997-June 2001
David Blunkett - Home Secretary June 2001-December 2004
Charles Clarke - Home Secretary December 2004-May 2006
John Reid - Home Secretary May 2006-June 2007
Jacqui Smith - Home Secretary June 2007-June 2009
Alan Johnson - Home Secretary June 2009-May 2010
Barbara Roche - Minister for Immigration July 1999-June 2001
Jeff Rooker - Minister for Immigration June 2001-May 2002
Beverley Hughes - Minister for Immigration May 2002- April 2004
Des Browne - Minister for Immigration April 2004-May 2005
Tony McNulty - Minister for Immigration May 2005-May 2006
Liam Byrne - Minister for Immigration May 2006-October 2008
Phil Woolas - Minister for Immigration October 2008-May 2010

“Theft_act1968” is averaging ten recommends a comment, which is pretty good.  I am going to start using the Runnymede references too.  We’ll see how far this meme can be spread.

As the victims of the very successful Jewish/leftist seizure of the terms of racial debate all across the West, it behoves us to have some respect for this form of warfare.  Rhetorical tools come in two forms: those that condition the moral tenor (“racist”, “anti-Semite”, etc) and those that stipulate how to understand the world (“diversity is our strength”, “British-Asians”).  Nullifying this toxic language requires more than a selective dismissal of the most commonly used terms.  We have to put something in their place that speaks of our worldview, and we have to keep hammering it home.  Speaking of which ... Bob Whittaker’s mantra, “Anti-racism is anti-white racism”, has been around long-enough for us to assess its effectiveness.  The term “anti-white racist” was used prior to it, of course.  But the left on both sides of the pond has heard it.  As one would expect, it is dismissive.  But its capacity to apply the “racist” term does seem to have been restricted.  There has been a blow struck.

The left has also caught on that we are speaking increasingly of a white genocide, and again it is dismissive (for reasons we all understand).  The term “race-replacement”, however, is more difficult to reject because of the clear statistical evidence in the public domain.  As far as I am concerned, the author of this rhetorical tool was our friend Fred Scrooby.  I am only aware of Frank Salter using the term before Fred did, and then not in a rhetorical sense.  If MR achieves nothing else, at least we have, through Fred, launched into the world one valuable word-tool.

I think we are missing several tricks in fashioning such word-tools, principally through our intellectually incoherent and casual approach.  We need to think much more systematically about how we were out-manoeuvred in the past and about the positives of our worldview.  We need to return to the two forms of moral and perceptual tools and work out more precisely what we need to effect a mechanical shift in the way our people think - if we possibly can, given the very tenuous hold we have on public discourse.

Of course, tenuous hold notwithstanding, we are working with the grain.  It is easier for us to achieve results than it was for our foes.

Just a quick note to offer my compliments to a Whittaker Task Force that went into action over the last three days at The Washington Post.

Jonathan Capeheart, a black journalist writing for the WP, said he “couldn’t resist clicking” on a link to the Whittaker group’s White House petition to “stop white genocide”.  The petition - one of three on this subject, apparently - is posted at the We The People site.

The petition has twenty more days to achieve its supposed goal of 25,000 signatories.  The present number of signatories is 630.  So, plainly, this is a publicity effort, and Capeheart’s unwitting help is no doubt greatly appreciated.  The interesting thing for me, though, is to see in an American setting the exact same moral and intellectual ownership of the discourse that one observes routinely at the DT.  Since political correctness and anti-racism are so dominant in the Establishment, and have been so ruthlessly and effectively applied to bludgeon the white instinct for racial survival, one would expect a generality of the non-activist public to express shock and distaste at the sight of white people fighting back.  But there is none of that on the WP thread.  Two or three anti-racist activists made attempts to belittle the pro-white advocates, but the quality of their argument was quite wretched.  One even complained of bullying, which is exactly what these creatures have done for the last two decades or more.

Good job, guys.

Since the BNP demise thread transmogrified into a thread warfare thread, I thought it might be helpful to augment previous advice on comment style and content with a few practical tips on staying alive in the thread war.

Choosing your battleground

Different media have widely differing accessibilities for nationalists and tolerances for nationalist opinion.  We are, though, engaged in a war for control of the discourse, and that means finding the level of truth-speaking at which it is possible to participate.

Pre-moderated media, such as the Daily Mail and the BBC, tend not only to exclude the possibility of an exchange of opinion, but weed out radically pro-white comment.  These media have, in my view, to be addressed later, if and when the general discourse has been liberalised.  The place to start is post-moderated sites on the political right, where the tenor of comment provides more cover.  Post-moderated sites on the left, like CiF, New Statesman, and The Independent are good places to conduct raids but are not relevant to the campaign as such (though they have utility when the left is in power).

The Daily Telegraph is clear favourite among the dailies in Britain.  It has the advantage of separate DISQUS systems for the general comment and news system and for the blog system, so a user-name ban in one does not imply a user-name ban in the other (a full IP ban does, though).

READ MORE...

In the ongoing war of words on the website of the only national daily where some semblance of free speech exists, the poor, benighted anti-racist fraternity, that blight on light of humanity and hope of all who desire a world without white people injustice, has devised a new response to the foul, horrid, nasty, articulate, winning, emotionally-whole racists and haters who have dominated everyone are abominated by everyone.  They’ve discovered the Public Order Act, 1986.

Here’s a few, rather disembodied samples of the fine use to which they are threatening to put it, all from the same DT thread titled Hispanics: the rising power in the United States

simon21
Yesterday 11:39 AM

 Hispanics are white
And as a holocaust denier and advocate of ethnic cleansing you don’t really have any credibility to comment
you may feel you are being satirical, sorry the courts don’t recognise satiical advocates of racial violence.

simon21
Yesterday 10:46 AM

 To advocate ethnic cleansing is against the law full stop.
So is genocide.
You may think this is wit, the courts have decided otherwise
You will end up being reported and arrested.
I urge you to stop posting, the moderators may be compelled to hand over your details such as they are.

simon21
Yesterday 11:11 AM

 I strongly advise youto stop posting.  Blog posts can be used as evidence.
You have advocated ethnic cleansing of Europe’s jewish people.
This is beyond incitement.  May I remind you what happened to David Irving?

zedeyejoe
Yesterday 12:35 PM

 Sorry no, anti-racist is what it says, an equal acceptance of people regardless of their skin colour. To say otherwise is a lie.
Of course you can decry a murderer or thief regardless of their race and should do so.
I feel that you are rapidly approaching the point where you can be prosecuted under section 18 of the Public Order act 1986.

TimMiddleton
Yesterday 02:03 PM

I have repeatedly expressed concern on this site that the Telegraph does an unacceptably poor job of enforcing its own moderation policy. There is material posted on this thread which is truly sickening. Repeatedly, we have been subjected to crude and hysterical racism - including holocaust denial - which would debase the reputation of the back of a toilet door, never mind a supposedly credible national newspaper.
Apart from anything else, much of what has been spewed out below is very probably illegal, and it is to be expected that the Telegraph would be anxious to take such steps required to prevent its own prosecution.
If this newspaper really wishes to be taken seriously by anyone other than a rabble of adolescent hooligans it desperately needs to get a grip.

diatomkid
1 day ago

I have made the same point myself Tim many times.  Sometimes my comments have then been deleted whilst comments quite openly advocating genocide, discrimination and general levels of violence and thuggery have been allowed to stand unchallenged by moderators.  I do wonder just what sort of editorial policy the DT secretly has and just why this contemptible, reprehensible filth is permitted

zedeyejoe
1 day ago

Reading the posts would do it.

Of course we could turn it over to the police and let them sort it out if you prefer?

zedeyejoe
1 day ago

Silence you, rubbish. Just making people aware of the trouble their ranting could get them into if they break the law. The law has been around for over 25 years now of course.

The Act, by the way, sets a reasonably high bar to prosecution.  The Crown must be able to demonstrate not only the presence of language that might be threatening, abusive or insulting, but that racial hatred has been stirred up by same.  There has to be a linkage.  Further, Section 18 states:

A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

It is not easy to manufacture an intention to stir up racial hatred from an articulate presentation of the morality of survival.

Now Dan can come along and tell me that it is!

Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies.  “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.

I might not contribute much to the thread myself.  The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens.  However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...

It appears from Mary’s description of Marc Stears’ influence and thoughts in respect to the English genocide by race-replacement, the euphemism for which is “immigration”, that the guiding political principle on the left is “the common good”.  So let us brefly examine the meaning of the words “common” and “good”.

Universalism, as one of the four principles of classical liberalism, is derived from the Paulian dispensation.  Paul simply reprocessed and re-focussed the Judaic notion of a chosen tribe distinct from, and superior to, the mass of humanity - a humanity fit only, indeed living only, for service to Jews.  This is the anti-universalism of Judaism, and in it the Jewish supremacy is delivered not through an evolutionary process of Jewish goodness, since Jews already have perfect souls, but through the “perfection” of the gentiles.

Perfection means pacification, which in turn means the destruction of all borders, boundaries, difference ... all cause of conflict with Jewry.  Gentile ethnicity is one such difference, and anything that leads towards its loss is “good” and anything that leads away from its loss is “bad”.

The Christian ethic of love never escaped this paradigm, and today we Europeans still suffer from the obviously false idea that “good” and “virtue” are somehow wrapped up in self-sacrifice, ie, the loss of ethnicity, which, in truth, is the loss of existence ... genocide.

Of course, this argument is compressed ... just skin and bones.  But you should be able to see that the loss of European ethnicity - our genocide - is not at all a good, not virtuous, and the whole of humanity, gentile and Jewish, has no claim on us in that regard.  We are not morally obligated to submerge ourselves in the bottomless seas of the Third World.  It is, equally obviously, also a lie that this is “good” for the greater number.  No genocide is ever good for humanity.  “Good” in respect to ethnicity is always the polar opposite - self-preservation.

In sum, the moral truth is that our good, in respect to immigration, resides in our self-preservation.  The very idea that we do good by admitting racial aliens who, in a matter of decades, will minoritise us and very rapidly marginalise us thereafter, is an evil contrivance from which our forefathers would have instinctually recoiled.  All those who moralise to the contrary today, whether as liberals or Christians or Jews, are doing evil.

The most predictable consequence of proposing the survival of the white race in public places like the DT threads is that those who consider such argument to be “racism”, “prejudice”, et al will pour their bile upon one’s head from the greatest possible height.  For many of them, that’s the gutter.  But occasionally one who affects to know better will come along, and offer the fruits of a superior education.

Over the last two or three days I’ve been assaulted, for want of a better word, by quite an educated fruit, an Irish homosexual with a bookshelf full of worthy analytical empiricism.  His mission was not simply to put the argument for our race’s survival beyond use, but to fatally wound the arguer.  The news that race-loyal white men are actually thinking about our existential crisis, and not just reacting conveniently as carriers of the mental disease of “racism ‘n hate”, required an immediate relegation of said thinkers back to the lumpen category.

So our anti-racist hero - his handle is 90Lew90 - set about deriding my arguments as “derivative”, “strawman”, “bullshit”, etc, while informing me that, contrary to my understanding of race and genetics, there is no race but the human race, and anyway “when you breed for pedigree, you have to get sperm from all over the world”.

He put his philosophical pedigree on the line twice, rather tragically.  He confused method with methodology, and then wrongly appealed to the Naturalistic Fallacy.  A few times he picked at terms I employed in the hope of demonstrating his superior understanding.  But mostly, of course, he just stamped his feet and shouted abuse, like the worst anti-racist.

The conversation sprawled over a large part of a very long thread and involved interventions from various friends and foes.  I am not entirely sure what lessons to draw from it.  Obviously, there is a lot of fear out there among anti-racists.  I recall reading an exchange between a couple of Guardianistas two or three years ago in which our oft-made and somewhat triumphal but true claim that they cannot win debates with us was airily dismissed.  I thought at the time that their confidence sounded very hollow, and they probably knew that there is something horribly strong and insurmountable in pro-white discourse.  Lew offers an extended insight into that hollowness.  At no time did he offer a positive argument for the dissolution of the white world, and each time his attacks on specifics were rebuffed he retreated.  In the end all that was left was the ad hominem.  In the end, all that will be left of anti-racism is a wholly visible white-hatred.

Lew had anticipated an entirely different outcome when he sallied forth, as his opening remarks in one of our exchanges (which I reproduce below) show.  I imagine that today he is, somewhere in his head, trying to rationalise his failure to himself, putting a spin on it, sharpening his axe for the next time.  But we are developing our ideas all the time.  The result for Lew will only ever be worse.  Morally and intellectually, it is already too late for anti-racism.

READ MORE...

by Leon Haller

A purpose of sites like MR is, or ought to be, the sharing of practical strategies to advance white EGI. Methods of dispute resolution in a White Republic, the ‘unencumbered self’ and its relation to race-liberalism or postmodernity, the existence of God, etc, are all interesting matters. But discussing them hardly directly aids our cause.

Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again ...

Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change.

Rather than having to bother with thinking up a new comment for each article we might read online, wouldn’t it be smarter to have something pro-white already prepared, and then simply paste it into the comments sections of literally as many race-relevant (or even just political) articles as we encounter? Copy/paste, login, hit ‘Post’ - et voila! It is certainly easier than laboriously writing or spraying pro-white graffiti (not that that isn’t important, too).

I started writing a comment on a Yahoo board earlier today (I have posted thousands of pro-white comments in mainstream places over the past dozen years), and ended up producing something longer than I had anticipated. My comment, which responded to an article on current political divisiveness, is hardly ideal (esp insofar as it was written quickly and ‘straight’, with no reflection), but re-reading it it seemed adequate for Americans to use to further the awakening process. Of course, I welcome the suggestions of others (perhaps MR could eventually have a file of repeatable comments for mass distribution depending on the article types at issue - American, UK, continental Europe, crime, general race, race science, immigration, etc). The point is for people to be ‘proselytizing’ to the very maximum extent. I don’t wish to belittle the discussions at MR or similar sites, but isn’t the ultimate purpose of those discussions to change the real world?

Herewith a comment from me:

READ MORE...