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.

A recurring subject within nationalism is the possibility of bringing a case for the genocide of peoples of European descent by coercive replacement before the International Criminal Court.  The attractions of doing so are very great.  If it were to be successful even in relation to one of our peoples, governments in the West would be forced to develop demographic policies incorporating protective measures for all, or face legal challenge themselves.  Not only would new immigration without thought for the security of our existence have to come to an end, but the population mechanics of generational replacement would have to be addressed.  And for that, large-scale programmes of repatriation would have to be instituted.

Further, the post-colonial economic model of the West, built on debt payable out of growth in GDP consequent upon population increase, would have to be substantially amended.  The debt model itself would be open to question in a new way, and the lineaments of a new and free life for European men and women might be glimpsed.

Even if European governments contrived to win the judgement, the demographic crisis of the West will have been aired in the most public and intellectually respectable way, challenging the great embargo on speaking racially.  Political correctness, anti-racism, and the legal war on discrimination will, for the first time, have been accurately cast as strategies of coercion.  The nationalist worldview will have slipped its bonds.  The gateway to free speech and participation in public discourse will stand open.

That is the theory, anyway.

READ MORE...

When we speak of what oneself or any particular person or kin-group is in any real or permanent sense, we are speaking of what is of our, his or her, or their being.  To speak of what is in us which is not of our being is to speak of that which is acquired from time and place.  That is a distinction, ontologically speaking, between the content of the present and the absent, and between the conscious in any intentionally holistic sense and the mechanistic, and also between authentic Dasien and false Dasein - all just perspectives on the same truth (and not the only ones).

Now, taking this distinction as the essential field of ontology, preceding and underlying all philosophy and also all esoteric religious practise, we must conclude that it is, therefore, the essential field of a nationalist ontology as well.  Indeed it is clearly so, since nationalist critique of the liberal ontology is very much that “what is acquired” from liberal modernity - from the kind of life we in the West live today - is a reduced and debased condition of the self.  Precisely because of this, nationalists have used political power, when they have had it, to curtail freedom, democracy and egalitarianism, and thereby sweep away as much of liberalism as possible.

READ MORE...

Posted to Ron Paul Forums in response to the urgent crisis in immigration policy facing the Republican Party in the United States, where a “swing” contingent of the Republican Party is represented by its so-called “libertarian wing”:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s critical intellectual failure in his thinking about immigration policy is embodied in the following quote from “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration”:

Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism).

In this he is presuming there is no option for what pre-Austrian-school libertarian philosopher Lysander Spooner called a “mutual insurance company” where a voluntary agreement may be reached between private owners of land that restricts what individual participants in the mutual insurance company may do with their land.

His prescription is therefore ill-founded:

The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses).

In the absence of eliminating government, the best approximation to humane action is for democratic rulers to treat their position as officers or board members in a mutual insurance company formed by contractual agreement among the shareholders who each hold one voting share.

With this correction, other aspects of Hoppe’s analysis are rendered valid since it is true that, for example in the United States treated as a company, there are by-laws that demand free internal migration of shareholders. This means the only protection the shareholders have is at the boundary of their mutually insured land holding and that, therefore, the officers and board members of the company have a fiduciary responsibility to control that boundary.

Now that “race replacement” as an idiom has entered the wider discourse, might it not be time for “sortocracy” to have a similar impact?

In the responses to a recent LA Times article extolling the benefits of immigration on the environment we have comments like this one:

HadleyB at 3:17 PM March 15, 2013
The truly amazing thing is that the LA Times is rooting for the very people who never read their paper, never go to a bookstore, never go to operas, never listen to classical music, never watch ballet, never do mountain climbing, never go bicycling, hiking, camping, nothing. 
They are rooting for people who will oust them and replace their rag with a bunch of flea market shoppers with article after article about the latest keensayanyera party with lots of big ads for 23 inch rims and boombox cars.
Their schools have collapsed under the Mexican/Asian/Africa burden.  Fifty years ago CA schools were third from the top.  Now they are third from the bottom. Their emergency rooms have been shuttering their doors for decades. Their pensions are non-existent. People are fleeing their state (including Mexicans in search of better benefits elsewhere and safety from Mexican gangs).
And yet they still keep doubling down. “Double or nothing, double or nothing!” Year after year, with all the social systems now in full cardiac arrest, their cry is still, “Double or nothing!”
And now this volley from Bill McKibben, an East Coast Puritan, for heaven’s sake.  It’s so bad they can’t find a single Californian to pimp the wonderful benefits of race replacement and white expulsion.
What is the final event, I wonder, that will pry their heads up from their Holy Scripture of Multiculturalism?

My contribution:

jabowery at 09:04 AM March 16, 2013
You have 3 years to move to a place that has put your political theories to the test.

I’m wondering whether this is the right idiom to put in place or whether to go for it and try to get people using the word “sortocracy” as in “the big sort”  It seems that people are so desperate to take some kind of action that the above “judgement” handed down, very publicly, might not be the better tactic for memetic virality.

GW has expressed the constraint:

“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south.  We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us - and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”

DanielS has expressed the constraint:

“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”

An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.

Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.

Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.

The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).

In this fascinating narrative advanced by Scottish Theologian Alexander Hislop, all supra-scriptural practices instituted by Catholicism (naturally) are attributed to insidious expression of the evil Babylonian Mystery Religion:

READ MORE...

My working hypothesis is that JudeoChristianity is, and has for nearly all of its 2000 year history been, a true conflict of cultures between Mediterranean/Levantine “civilized peoples”/group semi-organisms and northern European “barbarians”/individualists.  In the ontology of northern Europeans, these “civilized” peoples/group semi-organisms were known as “dragons”, “serpents”, “vipers”, “worms” and “giants”, depending on their precise forms and modes of action.  JudeoChristianity was basically a group semi-organism psyop that succeeded where military efforts failed, although it did occasionally take the dragon form as under Charlemagne. The success suffered a setback with the discovery of the New World because the frontier allowed escape of what the domesticators might call “feral humans” but the closing of the frontier in the late 1800s began a slow process of rounding them up and redomesticating them. Viewed in this light the termination of the Apollo program and the bureaucratic takeover of any pioneering spirit was absolutely critical to prevent another escape. The “support” for Israel/Zionism provided by the settler stock Americans is just a way of keeping them “Waiting for Jesus”, or perhaps I should say, “Waiting for Godot‘s Son Or Someone Like Him” while their culture is finally destroyed once and for all.

From the guy who, years beforehand, predicted a Reichstag-type event would occur right around the turn of the millennium to get all the JudeoChristian sheep riled up to go kick Muslim butt, click here for a theory about the February 15, 2013 “act of God” in the form of a cosmic coincidence, signs in the sky, fire from heaven and blah blah de woof woof in the context of the saber-rattling between Russia and the US over the middle east, reserve currency status, blah blah de woof woof.

Admittedly, this isn’t years before hand, but then I wasn’t as sure a sequel to the Waiting for Godot’s Son Or Someone Like Him blockbuster wouldn’t be a box-office flop with the cannon fodder after the Greatest Story Ever Told which one would have thought had climaxed on 9/11/2001 (with its final scenes the resolution in The Pacification of the Terrorists). 

The franchise may have legs after all.