Here’s a little bit of Conservative Party election propaganda ... lavishly done, as one would expect when they don’t have to put a penny into fighting the marginals.  But it demonstrates how little Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition can actually say in its mock arraignment of the Prime Minister.  Or how little are the things it has to say in comparison to the real political crimes taking place in our age.  So there is:

1. No charge of treason relating to the “social objectives” which animated Tony Blair, who is not a Jew, Jack Straw, Barbara Roche and Jonathan Portes to maximise race-replacement immigration in 2000 (mind you, there was no mention of these objectives in the 2001 election manifesto, which merely logged a need for immigration rules to reflect skills shortages).

2. No charge of criminal deception for the 2005 election manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution.

3. No charge of conspiracy to commit treason for taking the country into a war in Iraq on falsehoods.

4. No charge of criminal deception for Dr John Reid’s “hope” that British forces would be in and out of Helmand within three years without a shot being fired.

5. No charge of criminal deception for the Home office estimate prior to May 2004 that between 5,000 and 13,000 migrant workers would arrive per annum from the new accession countries.

6. No charge of treason for political loyalty to the money power (just a mention of “doubling the national debt”) and to organised Jewry (no mention at all, naturally).

7. No charge of being in breach of the Race Relations Act for considering the white working class “bigoted” - for confirmation of which the Conservatives can hardly have needed Gordon Brown’s gaffe in Rochdale.

And so on.

Well, it’s all part of the Inevitable.  Domestic politics conducted between three parties of neoliberalism + neo-Marxism, equally for the raising up of the international class and, therefore, equally for the dissolution of old Europe, cannot have much to say beyond the dramatisation of tax and spend.  We have reached the stage where political substance automatically implies nationalism.  I wonder, though, if the miniaturisation of people’s political lives might pressage a neo-fascist solution in the same way that Weimar + Versailles pressaged the well-known precedent.

How to expose the racists for what they are

By I. Bismuth

Introduction

Here is a little collection of all the answers you will ever need to expose the racists for what they are. I’m sure most of us had imagined that by now exposing racists would be as unnecessary as ducking to avoid low-flying pterodactyls, but sadly we have a long way to go before all citizens are fitted with a complete set of acceptable attitudes. Even in our age of dynamic tolerance, unacceptable attitudes can be heard every day of the week. They can come out of the mouths of work colleagues, relatives, passers by, bus passengers, and persons leaning out of heavy goods vehicles.

Unacceptable attitudes can indeed on occasion be heard coming even from those who have dedicated their lives to Anti-Racism as the ultimate calling. Not even they can be sure that in some secret corner of their psyches they are not harbouring a larval vestige of the greatest evil, a swelling enemy within, awaiting its moment to burst messily through their shirts and ruin their careers.

The demands of Anti-Racism are non-negotiable. They are also without limit in time and space. Anti-Racism must guide society’s every syllable, every fear, every friendship, every seating arrangement, every laugh, every blink, every blush, every breath, every birth, every deglutition. And although this is understood by all decent people, there are amazingly still some true racists out there, not merely Anti-Racists who suffer a momentary lapse of sensitivity and need to be sent on a re-education course, but genuine accepters of the unacceptable, and it is these leftovers from an age that should be bygone who must be our priority cases.

READ MORE...

With the Labour-pushing press dragged reluctantly behind, after a fashion, the whole of the British media are feasting on the red-hot certain defining moment of Election 2010.  By the unparticular nature of his conversation in the back of that car, the Prime Minister has let us know that not just him or even those around him but the Labour party and the wider left considers the indigenous British to be bigots.  And it is a settled decision.  Even the mildest criticism of immigration, uttered by a 66-year old lady and lifelong Labour supporter, is morally reprehensible and inadmissable, and exemplifies yet again why diversity is the only solution to racism.  There is no other way.  Apparently.

In its potential to uncover an unpalatable truth about the state of the body politic this affair, already dubbed Bigotgate, is a companion piece to the MP’s expenses scandal.  Now we know out of their own mouths that our elected representatives are established in opposition to us, their electorate, their own people, on two fronts.  Out of sheer cynicism they are exploiting us financially, and out of pure hostility they are warring against us ideologically.  They do not represent us in any way.

That is the message the BNP needs to force ever deeper into the public consciousness.  This morning the party responded to Bigotgate with the announcement of a last-minute newspaper advertising campaign in Barking and Dagenham, Leicestershire, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Barnsley.  At present the focus is woolly. Griffin said:

“For Mr Brown to have then dismissed her as a bigot just because she asked him about immigration shows the utter contempt with which the Labour Party regards even their own voters,” he said.

“The poor woman did not use any epithets and simply asked why he was not doing anything about immigration. There was no justification at all to dismiss her in the derogative way he did. “Furthermore, the admission that all of Mr Brown’s interactions are stage managed explains at last why his previous public appearances are almost always with children and not adults.

“Children cannot ask the sort of pointed questions which adults can, and when Mr Brown was presented with an unscripted questioner, he immediately revealed his true agenda,” Mr Griffin said.

“Furthermore, the fact that Mr Brown used the adjective ‘old’ to describe the voter, shows that there is a clear disregard for people who have spent a lifetime voting Labour,” Mr Griffin continued. “This puts the deaths of an estimated 40,000 pensioners from fuel poverty over the past winter into perspective. Clearly these people do not matter anymore to the Labour Party.

First, Brown did not use the word “old”, and that must not find its way into the forthcoming run of advertisements.  Here is what was said on the street:

READ MORE...

Back in December I put up a post titled Questions for Lee John Barnes.  It’s purpose was to announce an interview for MR Radio.  For one reason and another that did not take place, but it is now re-arranged for Saturday.  In a purely private capacity, of course, Lee will be discussing with me the BNP’s chances of winning one or more seats in the forthcoming Westminster election and the development of the party generally over the next four years of neoliberalism + neo-Marxism.

Last time I invited questions for Lee he promptly arrived on the thread and answered them, which didn’t do a lot for the interview that never was.  This time we’ll focus on another conversation today between Lee and myself at his blog, 21st Century British Nationalism.  The subject is economic policy and, for me, the stale, defeatist and moralistic reliance upon protectionism which pervades party thinking now, and which does not even acknowledge the fact that British industry will suffer a growing labour shortage it will be able to resolve only by competing on employment terms against, principally, the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand economies.  That is where our new workforce will have to come from.  And for that, business profitability is the key.  Wrapping the economy in cotton wool is a fundamental mistake.

Here is the exchange with Lee.  “Defender of Liberty”, by the way, is the handle he uses on his own threads:

Defender of Liberty said…

We will establish an independent body that will ‘audit’ the nations and corporations we trade with - and if nations and corporations that exploit their people, workers and natural environment are discovered then their imports will be banned.

The tariffs would be set by the audit body, and would reflect the harm being done in the nations they are assessing and the damage being caused by the corporations that are causing the problems.

Seeing as our aim is to create a re-vitalised British industrial and manufacturing base - then the imports policy will apply across the board.

Whilst imports will be banned VAT will be lowered, or scrapped, on British produced goods - thereby incentivising people to buy British produced goods.

Of course the worst offenders will be targeted first - nations such as China, India and others that use slave labour and child labour and that destroy their own or the natural environments of others eg China and the rape of Africa for resources.

Our income tax reductions are based on ;

1) leaving the EU = 15 billion per year

2) scrapping the 150 billion pounds per year EU regulatory burdens on British business which will kick start the British economy via improving productivity and competitiveness

3) scrapping the Servile State and political correctness in all its forms = around 5 billion per year I estimate

4) Re-Nationalising the NHS and banning the 1-2 million illegals in the UK accessing all public services, which means we can improve those public services, improve waiting times and deliver better services without spending a penny on them extra - as we are removing the parasites who abuse them at the moment

5) creating a manufacturing industrial base that will export goods to the world - we will develop high energy efficiency and green energy systems for export to the third world for example and develop our own coal mines and create coal fired power plants to produce electricity.

6) We will incentivise our talented British people who have white flighted to foreign nations to come back to the UK with business development grants and loans to set up new businesses to replace the foreign imports - hence producing a new economic boom.

I have one disagreement with the BNP policy on paying immigrants to leave, I believe they should not be paid a penny.

If they are here illegally then they get booted out without a penny.

All the money we have should be spent on paying our people to return - not paying people to leave as that way the money stays in the UK and is used to develop our national economy.

These are just a basic outline.

I would type more but my fingers ache.

READ MORE...

by Grimoire

To Silver, in fact … in response to his contributions to the That Word Again thread:-

Your analyses in terms of irrational whites and aracial whites is accurate, but historically superficial. The Western collective consciousness has been under the sway of a wide array of circumstances and influences that have about played themselves out. The forces that have mounted and steered the circumstances are also at the end of the playbook. It is not yet closing time, but it clearly the last call.

History, in a certain sense, is like a children’s game of musical chairs. The music plays and everyone dances or runs about, and then the music slows and stops, and everyone must find a chair. Inevitably, someone is left out. Not everyone gets a chair, but not everyone is left out - only some, and they disappear from the game. No amount of multicultural brainwashing nor immigration can change this historical cycle. Unlike the children’s game, those who get the chairs are not the aracial, the atomized, the isolated, the apathetic.  Nor are they the self-satisfied bourgeois, happy in his townhouse. It is those - and it has always been those - who are conscious of themselves as a unity, an entity and bloodline to be preserved. It is those who see the chairs that are their own. Those that made each individual chair, know the music and have played and won the game since time immemorial.

READ MORE...

by Potential Frolic

Perhaps morality consists in individual rules or Sententiae stored somewhere in the mind. These would be abstract image-calculation algorithms, where one plugs in the images of other people and things to get the result. Then again perhaps morality consists in matrices containing perspectives of other people with whom one is close. We could imagine a matrix like this:

father, mother, sister, brother, friend1, friend2, teacher, neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 ... etc, etc.

Each item in the matrix represents a perspective that one has acquired or modeled; the word ‘modeling’ reflects accurately the action but implies more consciousness than the matrix-former actually possesses. A more accurate term might be “absorbing other people’s evaluations”. Each perspective contains a list of weighted evaluations of things. Father’s evaluations of doing drugs may be -5, but friend1’s evaluation of doing drugs is +0.5 and friend2’s is 2.5, so friends may prevail with a young person to try drugs. When the young person inhabiting this matrix makes a decision about whether to try drugs, they cross-check each perspective in the matrix for evaluations and arrive at some form of weighted average, which guides their behavior.

READ MORE...

It is good to see Fred’s wee linguistic invention spreading its shocking-fascist tentacles even unto the very heart of European political fishiness.