Majorityrights Central > Category: Thread Wars

One ought to note the fact that three of the poor old Daily Telegraph’s threads have been occupied today by a very race-conscious commentariat.

The first was a news report about an announcement from the Conservative Party that, yes, they are going to “get tough” on immigration.  Again.  The relentless bile directed towards the natural party of government has been something to behold.  My efforts to expand the discourse were rendered redundant by a succession of commenters speaking even more expansively than me.

The second thread concerned another announcement, this time that a garden city is to be built in the Meriden area between Coventry and Birmingham.  There is only one reason why this breaking of the ground is necessary, and it has nothing to do with finding homes for young English couples who are first-time buyers.  There are few causes dearer to the English heart than the banks of green willow, and again the DT commentariat did a stellar job.

The third thread was to a leader supporting that announcement of the “immigration crackdown”, and again the speaking could not get much plainer.  It was my intention to reproduce some of the comments to illustrate what, even a year ago, would have seemed impossible for a national newspaper to let pass.  But there is so much of it, I wouldn’t know where to start.

Of course, one has to put this free-speaking, welcome as it is, into perspective.  The DT is unique in sometimes - not always - allowing pro-white sentiment of this order (followed by The Independent, but not very closely).  The other rags control comments with pre-moderation or, in the case of The Guardian, with really outrageous post-moderation.  Even at the DT, the wider subject matter produces a less nationalist readership, and threads can be hard-going for a racial loyalist.  Recent football threads and one on Friday about the sad F1 driver Lewis Hamilton offered little in the way of reward for statements of our Weltanschauung.  There is a long way to go to exercise any kind of real influence over public discourse.  But since the freeing of the discourse is a precondition for making politics, and the nationals’ threads offer the only way to reach tens of thousands of still pretty sleepy readers, one has to make the effort.

When I see commentary like that on the three aforementioned threads, it does encourage me to believe that the effort is worthwhile.

I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey.  Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science.  But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.

It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history.  Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos).  Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion.  But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel.  One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.

Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance.  It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant.  Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race.  In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.

I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument.  Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know.  But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.

I doubt it somehow.

My reply is reproduced below the fold.

READ MORE...

I had just spent a pleasant ten minutes sampling the anti-white racism of the liberal classes when, on checking the Telegraph opinion page, I found the first “right-wing” article about the Emma West video.  I say “right-wing” but it is written by a white female journalist who, it transpires, has Asian in-laws.

My first comment was also the first on the thread, and the 250+ that have followed demonstrate that, at the Telegraph at least and on threads specifically relating to the race issue, the only opinion that counts is our opinion.  The opinions of anti-racists and foreigners are almost wholly lacking.  But, and this is the significant thing, so too are the opinions of civicists, “respectable” conservatives, or anyone, frankly, close to the kind of view that the Telegraph itself puts forward on race matters.

This represents a real change.  To what extent it is the product of the kind of truth-speaking at which nationalists excel I can’t say.  It would be nice to think so.  But perhaps there is just a general drift towards the polarisation of opinion, which is fine too.

At any rate, I mark that one down as an objective achieved.  The next one is to effect the same kind of shift on threads not directly related to “the question” - on which I shall report later.

As some of our readers will already know, something odd happened at 7.00pm on Saturday evening when an article by Alasdair Palmer was posted at the Telegraph on-line.  I say an article, but in fact all that appeared was a headline reading “For overcrowded England, there is no turning back” and a picture of Oxford Street in all its usual, crowded vibrancy.

The semi-finished nature of the post plainly invited suggestion.  A sense of abandon spread through the right-wing badlands, and some extraordinarily plain-spoken suggestion followed, the great preponderance of it pointing out that, yes, there is a turning back.  It’s called repatriation.

The moderators snipped around the edges a little but they could not deal with the sheer volume of racial loyalty without turning it into a bloodbath.  They withdrew.

On Sunday morning Palmer’s article finally appeared.  It was about the National Office of Statistics report last week, which updated the immigrant numbers and brought home the full horror of the situation.  “Should we be worried by the prospect of 70 million people living in Britain in 2027?” wrote Palmer.  The answer had been there on the page for at least twelve hours.

The comment total at the time of writing this post is 1354, spread over 55 pages of Disqus format.  Too much to read in toto.  But I do recommend a quick browse just to get a feel for a freedom that exists nowhere else in the MSM.  It should now be possible to say anything content-wise at the Telegraph.  This is important.  To change public opinion, to lead public opinion, is going to require a great deal of such freedom.  It has to be worked at, routed out, made serviceable everywhere, eventually.

One of my compatriots and fellow patriots from the Daily Telegraph threads has come up with an interesting idea.  He wants MR to display censored commentary from the thread wars so that (a) it is not entirely lost, which is extremely annoying for those of us who work this angle, (b) we can keep track of what is verboten, and of media behaviour generally, and (c) where applicable, debates can be continued.

It would require only that the principal URL and the date, time and content of deleted posts be entered on a dedicated thread.  We can initiate as many threads as there are media websites at which we wage the war of discourse.  I would have to expand the side-bar to accommodate an entry point to the project, where all the individual media-dedicated threads would be gathered.  And, of course, it would require the forward-thinking on your part to record the requisite information for every even remotely edgy commentary, and to post here when it was taken down.  But that’s not much to ask, I think.

What about it?  Worth doing?  What media would require dedicated threads?

Further to Lurker’s suggestion, I am opening this thread as a permanent resource for MR readers to use when they are active on an MSM or blog thread, and think others might be interested in weighing in.  It would be useful for a little context to accompany the URL, and the odd report of scalps taken would also be very welcome.

In due course, the link to the thread will be placed on the side-bar under “Of note”.

So ... here goes.

Yesterday, in a brief debate with the star of Tory Euroscepticism Daniel Hannan - it had to be brief because he has no time to waste on the BNP, apparently - I was informed that:

I’ve already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?

That was on the subject of whether his own English people (actually, he’s half-Irish) have the same right to life as any other people, and this was on the subject of whether they have, in addition, the same right to land:

Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.

And this creature, in all his anti-English civicism and fatuous libertarianism, is supposed to be an Old Marlburian and an Oxford grad, and high-grade political material.

His problem, of course, is that there is a certain depth and gravity to the argument we bring to the MSM threads which no one, and certainly not he, can match, and with which many are completely unfamiliar.  We talk about existence and genocide, natural rights and interests, power and coercion, political corruption and deception.  We shock.  We break taboos.  We challenge complacency, received wisdom, the habitual way of doing things.  When we go on the threads we do so as revolutionaries.  We are there to change everything.  We are there to fight, and we fight to win.  This is where we validate not just our politics but our racial selves: where we can be useful and contribute to the cause.  This is where we can demonstrate that we are not what our enemies say we are, that the enemy’s ideological position is easily destroyed, and that the path we have taken is true and right for others to follow.  For did we not also benefit from others who have performed this same small service?

It is important, then.  It is important that we do the job well.  So I thought I would pull together some of the rules of thread warfare as I understand them.  Again.  As ever, your own thoughts and experiences of what works in which media would be appreciated.

READ MORE...

On Wednesday night the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze devoted 45 minutes to consideration of whether BNP members should be employed in public services.  7 minutes 40 seconds was given over to the (decidedly) cross-examination of Mr Lee John Barnes, who these days goes under the title of National Coordinator of the British National Party legal department.

His performance was nothing if not combative, and earned him and the party some level-headed and fair praise from one panel-member, Michael Portillo.  For breaking the BNP taboo, he will no doubt receive the due amount of contumely and criticism from former friends and colleagues.

The programme can be heard for the next few days here, with Barnes’ contribution starting at 11 min 56 sec.

Barnes answered (rebuffed, really) the less than neutral questions of panel members Melanie Phillips and Clifford Longley.  The first question, though, came from the programme’s presenter Michael Buerk:-

Michael Buerk: Do you accept that some people want limitation on who should be allowed to be BNP members is because your party is widely regarded as racist?

Lee Barnes: Erm, there’s a lot of people in society who are very ignorant of what our party stands for.  Our party isn’t racist.  Basically our party has a positon which is on immigration ... it’s on ... it’s ... primarily our focus is on space more than race, erm, and if you check most of our literature you will find that’s true. There’s isn’t a real racial issue in there anymore.  If anyone is in this country illegally or unlawfully we’re gonna ‘ave ‘em out regardless of race, colour, creed.

Spacist not racist!  Does anybody really believe that?  Probably not.  But, obviously, the party has not been able to defend itself against the charge of racism.  I’m not constrained by the minefields of the political world.  I’m interested in developing an argument that thoroughly nukes the “r” issue.

Towards the end of last week I spent three or four days picking up not one, not two but three Guardian bans while defending the BNP membership against the deracinated hanging judges of the Comment Is Free website.  That takes my CiF bans to sixteen, assuming I haven’t forgotten any of my earlier dramatis personnea.  Does it get me in the Guinness Book of Records?  Probably.  Shouldn’t I be ashamed of this obsessive desire to force innocent liberal backs to the wall?  Er ... erm ... aaah ... nope.  I’m just shameless like that.

Besides, this really only mildly obsessional effort is devoted to a perfectly noble cause: to test the intellectual quality and rhetorical strength of my current ideas against the best, generally, that the other side has to offer, and to refine them further in the light of that experience.  This, in other words, is a work in progress.

READ MORE...