|
|
|
A Christmas & New Year message from Papa Readers who have followed or been involved in the recent travails of British nationalism will know that, while the “parallel party structure” appears to be moving forward within the BNP, there are indications that the jump to a new party is not far away:
Such a move, of course, is high in risk. Here’s someone for whom I have a lot of time explaining why to readers of British Democracy Forum:
That was “Papa Luigi”, a long-serving BNP activist and reformer, and the thinking man’s champion at BDF. Now, in the summer I met Papa for a lunch at a pub down in my rural Sussex fastness, and we discussed the problems and limitations of nationalist political activism and the alternatives. He places a higher value on cultural activism than I do, and where I have a philosophical focus he has a religious one. But there are large areas of agreement between us. Here he is, again, from the same BDF comment:
I don’t know quite what he has in mind. But it will be more original than the launch of yet another nationalist party. Wonder if he needs any help. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 05:21 | # For the dozenth time, I ask: why can’t British nationalism produce some kind of single-issue anti-immigration party similar to UKIP? This is not rhetorical. I don’t know much about British nationalist politics beyond what I read here, in very occasional and very biased pieces in The Economist, and in the now defunct American Renaissance newsletter (apparently AR will be maintaining its website in expanded form). Hasn’t UKIP had some effect, for example, in helping keep Britain out of the euro? Anyway, here is their platform re immigration. It seems a pretty good start. The point it seems to me is to get some nationalist victories in some area, and then build on that to push for more extreme policies later. “Gradual radicalization” is the key.
3
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:29 | # As Monty Python might have put it, “Splitter!”. I’m fairly convinced that there is absolutely no future wahtsoever in electoral nationalism in Britain. Of course, that only leaves ‘non political means’ of resistance, whatever that means. 4
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:22 | # Leon Haller @ December 24, 2011, 12:21 AM
The British National Party for the whole of their existence have been a one club anti immigration game player, and previous to them The National Front also. The British people have rejected them and all other bit players of the same ilk. WHY? Thousands of column inches have been poured out trying to square that circle, but anyway here’s my two penarth, or perhaps more aptly, my one pence worth. It’s the media stoopid! No, I don’t mean you personally - just a saying I heard somewhere. My views on the MSM and the devastating impact it is inflicting on Western civ and nationalist ire have been well aired - to the point of ad-nauseum. Another reason why nationalist anti immigration ire is not having any effect on the British people (and perhaps more importantly the MSM) is because this story has not, and is not, being offered to the public conscience in the context of the bigger picture, ie. The getting rid of English white folk. I say again, at no time for public consumption has the BNP (for example) or any other nationalist source, other than the two % on the alternative Internet, have spelt out the big picture. The ramifications of not telling it like it is in a matter of fact English are incalculable. The reasons for not telling it like it is maybe manifold, but I suspect the courage to do so is high on the list. The nationalist cause is bereft of the sort of leadership class from which such a courageous person could emerge. It had crossed my mind that the multi headed hydra that is the cause of all nationalism’s ills is far too complex a situation for the masses to absorb, I dunno, there’s probably something in that line of thought. Looking through the Telegraph’s comment section I see even the brighter lights of the bloggerati posting there seem woefully ill informed. Some may even suggest it is not important for the mass of the people to understand what’s going on. Why racism? Why white guilt? Why tolerance? Why no discrimination, Why anti hate legislation, and above all, why must we have saturation immigration? People just cannot join the dots, or more likely, they don’t even care. As for UKIP I dunno, are they just another safety valve, is this sort of thing genuine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfRmZYtL-Bk
5
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:17 | # Bill, Are you saying that a party which goes around saying “if immigration is not stopped, Britain will one day have a population of >100 million, and the native British will no longer be the majority” would have no resonance with the British people? These are very easy concepts (overcrowding and demographic change) for the idiot masses to understand. Talk about interracial crime stats (or is that illegal) and then rhetorically ask how people will like it when the high crime/high terrorist groups are the majority. If nothing else, wouldn’t a single issue party pose a threat to the Conservatives, such that they would start being better on immigration? It seems to me that UK’s failures in this area are partly due to weird electoral demographics: specifically, that Labour’s leadership consisted of the vilest of national traitors, but its core voters were disproportionately from the “outer provinces” (Scotland and Wales - not sure how they’re referred to), places which haven’t experienced the invasion to anything like the extent of England, and thus whose voters felt comfortable supporting Labour for other than racial reasons. If Scotland has received few immigrants, and if most of the people there support Labour for its economic or social policies, the effect of their non-immigration-based voting has been to empower the traitors, who turn around and inflict their treason upon the poor English! (Perhaps there should be calls for English independence!) It’s late, and I’m not expressing myself well, but I think you can see an apparent paradox. Arguing about MSM perversity presumes that most British support the invasion because they’ve been brainwashed, or otherwise not supplied with the facts. But are most British in fact supportive of further immigration? 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:42 | #
It means a shot of palingenesis straight to the scrotum will be required. Something GW has explicitly said will not be needed all the while saying the British people cannot do “will and strength” (because they are pussies? all the more reason for hormonal supplementation then) as their more obstreperous and prone to “debasement” German cousins can. Recall GW’s statement to you that “we will militarise” as the final redoubt of ethnic survival. It sounded suspiciously to me like he was considering moving towards your tender bits, needle full of Kraut juice in hand, for making the English look like such lamentable sadsacks. Wherefore English Moralism? 7
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:34 | # Papa Luigi is part of a growing filth column for Kraut palingenesis inside English nationalism. Anyone who will not join up with the former has no balls. LOL 8
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:50 | # Suggested name for new political party: “Muds Out!” Suggested slogan for new political party: “No balls, no membership!” LOL 9
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:07 | # To him that hath shall more be given and to him that lacketh, what little he hath shall be taken… If one does not have the metaphorical balls one needs, I say we take his literals. The white-whiskered, greybeard faction not willing to do the palingenic lifting might find themselves hanging by their loosened silver cords… 10
Posted by MOB on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:17 | # Christmas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KvrbYZB2vY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRobryliBLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4puLybRGSAw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWkbIOtu8WU&feature=related 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:53 | # The Lauridsen is very interesting, Marge. Thank you. 12
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:47 | # Is the Internet making a difference? I’v pondered on this question many times. Here’s an interesting piece from the BBC.23 December 2011
. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16209411 Is the Internet making a difference? Yesterday I saw two hours of compilation of comment disappear into the either. Twice it happened. Is there a time limit or something? I was not amused. What’s going on?
13
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:06 | # Is the Internet making a difference? If interested, continue from my above, Youtube - Hannan - Ron Paul. @ December 25, 2011, 02:47 AM
14
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:52 | # Here is an aniti BBC rant I chanced across on the comment section of Daniel Hannan’s piece in the Telegraph. see above @ 03.06 am. I include it here as it amply demonstrates what any embryo nationalist party will encounter from the MSM. It wasn’t until I noticed the link to the Daily Mail at the end of the post did I realise the commenter (Groovybear @ 07 06 PM) had done a copy and paste job from an article by Richard Littlejohn at the Daily Mail entitled ‘Whatever the BBC say, Britain is still mainly white, Christian and straight.’ I regard the author of this Daily Mail article as a total piece of sh*t, he’s a one club golfer ranting against all we here rant about, but if anybody has the temerity to suggest voting for British nationalism he will go into a tirade of we’re all knuckle dragging Nazis.
15
Posted by John on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 11:23 | # @ Leon Haller: You have ignored my question which I have asked three times now.
16
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:28 | # Bill,
As far as I am aware, the Telegraph moderators have magicked out of existence two mature threads and one new one, all on the Terry/Susarez “racism” issue. You can rest assured that if every comment had religiously expressed devotion to wiping out the “evil of racism”, those threads would still be on the page. Such censorship is a clear admission of failure. Too many white people do not agree to be silent as we are dispossessed and dissolved, and those that do cannot carry the argument. I mentioned in the Suarez piece that over 13,000 votes had been cast in a Telegraph poll on the FA disciplinary committee’s verdict. Across all the football racism threads that I have been engaged in over the last days and weeks, including the earlier ones on Terry and Blatter, I reckon anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 readers must have been exposed to some serious dissent. It must make a difference. It must introduce doubt, discord, dissatisfaction, however nascent. As straws in the wind, the present heights of censorship do not bode well. “They” are pushing back. But they are also commercial animals, and they like the hit rates that come from active threads. They are in a quandary. We, at least, know which way we want to go. 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:53 | #
Ideally, yes - but not right away. This is a little more complex than it ought to be. I believe in a complete free market in money, as I do in beers, cars, phones, or other commodities (at least, those without serious military applications). If a neighborhood wishes to circulate its own money, and people are willing to use it for transactions, so be it. The problem is that allowing an instantaneous return to a free market in money without some governmental guidance would be tremendously economically destructive. This represents a kind of regression or even reprimitivization of economic calculation. The situation you ask about is of course what originally obtained throughout the world in very ancient times (or isolated places). Many commodities have been used as money over the millennia. However, there is a natural economic tendency for businesses to arrive at a preference for one or a couple of commodity moneys, and over the course of centuries these came to be various precious metals, gold preeminently. Going off the 19th century gold standard was a terrible economic event (or series of events, as our present world-wide fiat currencies were not imposed all at once). We can know with deductive certainty that the last century would have been far more economically productive had the nations of the world kept to the gold standard. Now we must return to gold, which will cause some dislocations, though they are hardly insuperable, especially in light of the massive benefits (elimination of most inflation, flattening if not elimination of business cycles, more rational economic calculation and entrepreneurial planning) to be derived from going back to real money. So the problem is that we don’t want to have people engaging in lots of monetary experimentation, even if they ought to have been otherwise allowed to do so in the absence of fiat moneys. That is, in a pure free market precious metals are likely to win out as general moneys (meaning consumers would prefer them to non-metal moneys). We can expect them to do so again after a general elimination of fiat currencies. The problem is that simply removing legal tender laws and allowing for competing currencies could introduce the aforesaid period of monetary experimentation until people rediscover the superiority of gold. Hence, my description of a “reprimitivization”. It would be like restoring the ancient status quo, which over millennia the market itself came to reject. But the period between that reprimitivization, and the expected return to gold, would be calculationarily chaotic, and thus economically wasteful. My solution is to require a gold standard, at least for some period of time (there could be a “sunset” provision). Read Rothbard, The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar, for how exactly this should be done (basically, the dollar gets defined as a unit weight of gold - eg, 1 dollar = 1/1600 of an ounce of gold - but how that is to be set exactly so as to soak up the dollars out there, I forget). After the gold requirement is sunsetted, people should be free to use whatever they want as money, though my suspicion is that nearly everyone would stick with gold - which is how things should have been all along. The one issue lurking here is the problem of fractional reserve banking, whereby ‘money’ is created out of air. I agree with Rothbard: this practice is inflationary (and thus constitutes theft of purchasing power), and simply criminal (under traditional standards defining fraud). FRB should be criminalized as fraudulent. This does not mean banks must only act as warehouses or vaults, and can’t make loans. Banks would be able to lend money that they had tied up in, say, time deposits (cd’s). Say you give the bank an ounce of gold to store, and purchase a one year certificate of deposit, in exchange for which the bank pays you interest. During that time the bank could lend that ounce to someone else. That would not be FRB, nor fraud. But if you simply stored the gold with the bank in an ordinary account, then the bank would be committing fraud if at any time it did not have the reserves on hand to allow you (and all similarly situated accounts) to withdraw your gold (obviously, the bank might charge you a storage fee, just like any warehouse which stores furniture, clothing, etc). Please note: nothing of what I have said is original to me. When it comes to monetary issues, I follow Mises/Rothbard (the “Austrian School”) completely. 18
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:22 | # High profile sporting events, especially week in week out football league fixtures, draw vast crowds of of hundreds of thousand’s who ultimately provide the funds, without which, could instantly bring the football industry to its knees. The vast majority of these spectators are whites, who, apparently, are comfortable with multicultural football. I am not overly interested in the game myself, but if asked, I would guess the percentage of non white players is around the 25% mark. The establishment sees British football (or any other sport) as the poster boy for the success of Multicultural Britain, by extension they, (the establishment) feel quite confident in claiming Britain is now an established vibrant multicultural nation. Britain is dead - Long live Britain. Deep down, who would be confident enough to claim otherwise. It is clear that the people watching football week in week out, see no connection to the racial spat being enacted out on the pitch and the questions being asked at the highest levels of society. They see no relevance to the racial spat on the pitch and what British society has become. Worse still, they cannot relate to being involved in such circumstances on a personal level. The cowed marginalised football crowds could have tremendous political clout in bringing the poster boy industry down. All they have to do is withdraw their support and stay away. Bu no, it’s not even on their radar to contemplate such a move. It is interesting though, the EDL crowd I understand, are mainly from the football supporter scene - so perhaps there’s hope yet. Yes, if the football supporters ever went on strike, they could get a real big bang for their buck. As to the nationalist scene in Britain, it is clear the collapse of the BNP has left a big black hole, there is a void waiting to be filled. My view (such as it is) of the awareness of the average voter remains unchanged, the British public are not suffering nearly enough, at least not yet. The PTB know full well as long as most have a full belly and roof over their head, there’s not much for the establishment to worry about. Something out of the blue will be needed to shake them up, something like a collapse of the ‘just in time’ delivery system, or maybe a run on their local bank. Heck, I’m reduced to clutching at straws here. When I first set out, I was confident in my beliefs. I was confident (how naive can one get?) in the belief the BNP was the vehicle to get us out of this mess, I was confident in the belief that the Great British public had the moral sense of wherewithal to see off the MSM. Alas, I along with millions of others were mistaken in our misplaced assumptions, perhaps we has swallowed the myths of our age, the Battle of Britain, Dunkirk, Bulldog bollocks, Churchill, in fact the whole bloody ball of wax. Toto, we’re no longer in Kansas. GW. Lost in the post. I think I misled you or perhaps didn’t explain clearly. My lost cause/s were destined for MR. This is not the for first time. In midstream of typing out the comment it just vanishes. I know I should carry out this function on Microsoft Word, or copy as I progress, but I don’t always remember and lose everything. It was you (MR) I was asking if there is a ‘time out’ on comment compiling/typing dwell time. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:45 | # Bill, The ExpressionEngine software utilises timed captcha (the posting code) sessions as part of the battles against spamming. Immediately above the comment box there is some good advice: copy your comment because not every browser will return you, if the captcha timing is over-stepped, to the previous page with your draft in tact. I do apologise for the EEs system, which is certainly a nuisance. But a quick copy will get around the problem. 20
Posted by Silver on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:19 | #
I think that would be great if it true, though I find it interesting that it was the 20th century—with fiat currencies exploding—that was, in fact, far more economically productive than the 19th. Mild inflation is hardly the calamity that you think. Iceland experienced rates of inflation over 20% (and often over 40%) almost every year from 72-87 yet per capita GDP doubled between 1970 and 1990. If growth can be so healthy against that backdrop, it’s hard to believe more modest inflation of only a few percent per annum does any great harm. Also, inflation isn’t necessarily destructive of wealth, provided there are safe and liquid instruments in which to invest savings. Looking at America, there have only been a few years during the last fifty that annual inflation ran higher than the return on 3-month T-bills (very safe, very liquid). 21
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 02:36 | #
It seems Another Year has been keeping an eye on my posts on BDF. I have indeed suggested the two strategies that he mentions, but he would be wrong to assume that I am proposing just a two pronged approach. It is a shame that BDF has degenerated into a ‘shit’ throwing contest, but that’s always the outcome when a political forum operates with no effective moderation. Leon Haller asks:
British Nationalism has produced a succession of primarily single issue anti-immigration groups, all of which have been denigrated in the media specifically because of their single issue focus, and they were so denigrated, simply because their chosen single issue was related to race and immigration. The problems experienced by anti-immigration groups do not lie with the political groups concerned, they eminate from the treatment of these groups by the mass media, andso it is the mass media that we need to challenge and change before we can hope for electoral success.
No, UKIP has been largely ineffectual. Bill states:
Bill’s observations tie in with my own, that we must challenge and change the mass media if we are to have any hope of galvanising what Nick Griffin so often refers to as nationalism’s ‘soft support’ sufficiently so that it translates into electoral support in the form of votes. Sadly, the majority of people form their opinions according to what they see, hear and read in the mass media, and we must acquire the support of a significant number of journalists before we can significantly alter the output of the mass media. Gaining the support of a significant number of journalists means that we must find a way to acquire the proprietorship of a number of media companies, including local radio stations, newspapers and TV stations. This is in part what I refer to when I talk about developing an infrastructure that will facilitate nationalist electoral success and it is an essential prerequisite of electoral success on any significant scale. Instead of simply pushing leaflets through people’s doors and hoping that they will vote for us, we must devise strategies to gain proprietorial control of a section of the mass media. Without that we are simply ‘pissing into the wind’ - neither the BNP nor any other nationalist group is going to leaflet its way to victory - particularly in the face of blanket mass media hostility. Next time the representative of a nationalist party asks for your support, ask him what his party’s strategy is for gaining control of a sizeable portion of the mass media? If the group concerned has no clear strategy to achieve this, then they are sadly never going to achieve significant electoral success and lending them your support will be a complete waste of time and money. The time for radical new ideas has come, we cannot continually repeat the tactics that have failed in the past. There is a saying that a definition of madness, is to continually repeat the same actions, and to each time expect a different outcome. The truth however is that if we keep on doing what we have always done, we will keep on getting what we always got. We must approach the pressing problem of our national salvation with a new approach, and that is what I intend to provide.
22
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:13 | # As it’s still just barely Christmas Day in California, I will start by wishing all a Merry Christmas! Perhaps what I meant by “single issue anti-immigration party” is that I keep reading here that the native British do not want mass immigration, and, if that were really true, would not a single issue party resonate with them? My assumption, of course, is that the British have never really been asked flat out about immigration or otherwise had the opportunity to register formally their disapproval of it. By the latter assertion, I mean that the BNP, National Front, etc, always seem to this outsider to come freighted with lots of extraneous baggage - Holocaust denial, Jew baiting, some member saying something positive about Hitler, some criminal or unsavory associations, etc etc - which the hostile MSM end up magnifying until the original platform gets obscured. What I think could work would be an upstanding nationalist party purely devoted to stopping immigration. As long as a nationalist party must focus on an entire Cabinet of issues, so to speak, as though it actually had hopes of becoming the Government, the primary issue also gets obscured. For example, given my own background, I might well be forced to disagree with at least some portion of a typical nationalist economic platform. Likewise, there must surely be many otherwise patriotic Brits who will not make time for a party having any links, however tenuous, with anything neo-Nazi. I have known some very racially conservative Americans, including some idiots in my own family, who totally oppose any and all immigration, but who won’t have anything to do with anything ‘racist’, including even those making racialist arguments against immigration (yes, they are ideologically schizophrenic, but so are vast numbers of people of all class and occupational backgrounds everywhere - and we still need their votes). The point of the pure anti-immigration party is to allow British voters to feel comfortable registering a protest vote, and to let the Tories know the extent to which they had best heed the wishes of what I hope is the majority, and reduce or eliminate non-European immigration. Also, when working for radicalism within a hostile system, it is best to start achieving some victories in something, somewhere, and that is best done by campaigning on the issue that is in fact the least controversial (and which in the case of immigration also happens to be ultimately the most important). As soon as nationalism can claim some victory, greater radicalization, an ‘upping’ of demands, becomes realistically possible. Within what are, perhaps unfortunately, quite stable democracies like the US, Canada and the UK, nationalism can only proceed through a process of gradual radicalization. Laying out the whole agenda at once simply overwhelms the ideologically falsely conditioned masses, and keeps nationalists (and more importantly, their issues of concern) relegated to irrelevance. Unfortunately, I see no realistic possibility that this will ever happen:
I am reminded of why the decrepit and misery inducing Soviet state survived so long even after it was perfectly clear that its underlying ideology had long exhausted itself among its denizens. Simply put, no one wanted to stick his neck out criticizing the regime, as it would get cut off (sometimes literally). Yes, there were heroic dissidents, but few, understandably, wished to emulate their sufferings. And yet, the Soviet system was fundamentally unstable (perhaps more so than PC Britain). As soon as Gorbachev allowed a bit of glasnost, the whole thing spun rapidly out of control. It no longer had a mass base of support, and with the tiny opening, everyone soon knew it. The question is whether multiculturalism and continued rabid immigration do have that base. The thing is to find out (I think they did not in the US as recently as 1980 or even possibly 1990, but now, with all the tens of millions of nonwhite newcomers settled here, as well as the intense and ongoing brainwashing of the young, through schools and media, I’m not sure). Anyway, thinking it possible to get support from a goodly number of UK journalists, who apparently must worry not only about career harm, but actual prosecution, for telling non-PC truths, strikes me as fanciful in the extreme. And how in the world is underfunded nationalism going to acquire media proprietorships? Hostile takeovers? It seems to me that in the Age of the Internet, the way forward wrt media is precisely to bypass the MSM, and seek to build up alternative media sources, like MR, or simple quasi-academic presentations via YouTube, which one hopes will go ‘viral’. Ultimately, there is no way to ‘end-run’ the hard work of constant organizing and educating. This may bring me round to my endless White Zion advocacy, but the bitter, bitter, bitter truth is that in neither the US nor the UK is there a solid majority strongly in favor of nationalist positions. Yes, a decreasing majority of white Americans is still opposed to legal immigration (one suspects what they really mean is nonwhite immigration; I for one would like more white immigration). But their opposition is never passionate. I bet the same thing is true of the British. Perhaps a sizable portion of the native people opposes immigration, but how many really care about stopping it? If a majority did passionately oppose it, I’m quite sure one party or the other would go about stopping it. So it’s really a matter of persuading people of the dangers of immigration, and of the moral right of Britons to end it. There’s just no getting around the fact that a lot of hard work is necessary to move a people from apathy to concern. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:37 | # BTW, surely this summer’s unpleasantness is boosting nationalist fortunes, isn’t it? Sadly, I haven’t heard about any “resurgence of the Far Right” coming out of the UK, but I’m quietly hoping that’s due to MSM silence… Please tell me something’s stirring ... 24
Posted by Bill on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:07 | # Leon Haller on December 26, 2011, 02:13 AM
There is a lot of logic and sense in your above post. Trouble is we’re not dealing with a situation that is either logical or sensible, instead we’re trying to deal with an illogical nonsensical situation with the conventional wisdom of nationalism ie. logic and sense. Put another way, we’re in a war of words, we’re in a psychological war, where up is down, and down is up, in fact the people responsible have turned our whole culture upside down and inside out. Generations of media bombardment of this topsy turvey world into our homes has made this world a reality, the once seemingly impossible is now the norm. How do you combat that? This aspect of the role of media of in promoting multiculturalism has been dealt with at length elsewhere at MR, even in this thread. But so vital is the media to our cause I will no doubt re-visit and comment further. BTW, I lost a comment to the either in reply to the question of a anti immigration only nationalist party. I simply could not muster the motivation to re-write the lengthy-ish reply. For generations, the British public (whit civ) have suckled on the teat of the BBC, (MSM) my first inklings of an agenda in progress was in the early ‘60’s, and it has continued unabated up until this present day. This incremental laboratory experimental of the re-engineering of our people has succeeded beyond their wildest dream, (despite along the way stirling resistance by one brave and resolute lady, Mary Whitehouse) How far the British people have gone under is anybody’s guess, I doubt even the architects can answer that one. The media give us our culture, it gives us our opinions, it gives us infinite choice, it gives us what they euphemistically call strong language, it gives us once unthinkable sexual lifestyle choices in all it’s guises, most insidious of all it promotes itself as being one of us, they’re on our side, trust us, we know what’s good for you. They, give us friendly familiar faces, be it news readers, economic correspondents, home affair correspondence, political correspondence, etc.etc. All nice people who know everything and generously pass on their knowledge and expertise with a smile and bon amis. They advise us on what to eat, how much we should drink, how to drive our vehicles. there is simply no end to their beaming concern for our welfare. To those veiwers who have busy lives to lead and who are not tuned into the agenda, I would say it is impossible for them not to become victims of this brainwashing. I don’t see anything wrong. One thing the nationalist movement hasn’t tried (other than the Internet of course) is tell it like it is, to explain what the immigration scam is all about, what liberalism is all about, what white guilt is all about, what the future has in store for whites, either intentionally or unintentionally, What has nationalism got to lose by telling it like it is. 25 or 30 years have been lost by not telling it like it is. Even Enoch Powell never told it straight out, yet he must have known. The burning question is, what if the public were informed? Would they understand? Would they believe any of it? By the time they find out it will be too late! I have no magic solution, it seems more and more likely the whole edifice of civilisation will come crashing down for some reason nobody could have foreseen. Who knows? Apologies for being a ‘one club’ poster. Best of luck Papa.
25
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:55 | # More talk of founding another party on the territory of already established parties. Any new party with Brons / Kemp / Moffat will be a Racial Nationalist one and thereby seek to compete with the NF. We dont need a new fucking party for fucks sake - all the electoral / ideological territory for their new party is already taken ; BNP = Ethno-nationalist Building another party to compete with those ones on their own ground is a total waste of fucking time. People barely vote for the established parties - why would they vote for Brons /Kemp/ Moffat etc - their egos have overruled their common sense. What we need is to dump politics completely. Building a political gehtto in the liberal gulag is a waste of time, energy, money. You cant win a rigged game - and the political game is rigged so that nationalists will always remain a tiny rump in society. What we need to do is copy what worked in history - and the ecxample is clear, we form a new nationalist movement based on the civil rights struggle of the blacks in the 1960’s in America - who did not win elections, but by social activism / legal cases / civil rights campaigns caused the established parties to change society for them. We need ; 1) A CROSS PART CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANISATION
The era of politics is over. Political campaigning is a total waste of time. We must dump politics completely except for elections times when we vote. The new movement will allow nationalists to unify around issues / campaigns etc and create a new unified movement from the faction riven disgrace that is the present one. The idiot politicians in nationalism have never understood that before the white masses will vote for a white nationalist / nationalist party - THEY HAVE TO BE NATIONALISED FIRST. Until they have a consciousness of being part of a community - THEY WILL NEVER FUCKING VOTE FOR A PARTY THAT SEEKS TO GIVE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION TO THAT COMMUNITY WILL THEY ! The social project seeks to nationalise the masses at the community level, and hence once nationalised, they will vote nationalist. FOR FUCKS SAKE WAKE UP !
26
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:58 | # Maybe my statement re another party is refutable. My point really was that a single-issue focus on ending immigration ought to be adopted. I’m sure the long term national(ist) interest requires a re-ethnicization of the British people (how about “re-racination”? that ought to be a word if it isn’t). But any sort of rediscovery of British tradition, any remaking of the British people, presumes that the British haven’t been completely colonised/conquered through immigration. I don’t see how anything is possible long term sans immigration termination. In that sense the USA is lost. There will never be a recreation of the old White Republic. Our nationalist hopes must focus on white empowerment or prevention of persecution within the multicult, and, perhaps ultimately, racial secessionism. My intellectual interests in that struggle are focused on refuting those (especially otherwise ‘conservatives’) who think there is something immoral or beyond the pale about whites politically organizing along racial lines. But I presume Britons are more ambitious, and would actually like British people to define the culture and determine the fate of the territory called the UK. Surely repatriation of all nonwhites (including Jews) is the primary nationalist goal (even if beyond that nationalists may have hazy visions of instantiating a British volkstaat). If you don’t end immigration, nothing else matters. 27
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:09 | # Leon Haller on December 26, 2011, 02:13 AM
Leon the truth of the matter is that whenever an anti-immigration party or pressure group begins to campaign, and no matter how studiously they try to avoid offending Jewish groups, they find themselves immediately attacked by Jewish community groups, Jewish led Marxist organisations, Jewish journalists and Jewish owned media companies. They get attacked by other non-Jewish organisations as well, but it is evident that the hard core attacking them, and the most vociferous groups attacking them, are essentially Jewish. The Jewish groups attacking, always raise the specter of the Holocaust and produce leaflets asserting that ‘racism’ begins with attacks upon illegal immigrants but then inevitably gravitates to anti-Semitism and ends with genocidal concentration camps. Some might argue that this is an understandable and unfortunate consequence of mere Jewish paranoia following the discovered horrors of the Holocaust, but that does not explain why Jewish groups attacked Mosley’s BUFs back in the 1930s when they were simply anti-Marxist and before they had shown any anti-Jewish tendencies. Indeed Mosley was constantly attacked by anti-Semitic groups in this country in the early days, precisely because he discouraged anti-Semitism within his movement and wanted to avoid conflict with organised Jewry. The virilent attacks by Jewish groups inevitably become a self-fulfilling prophecy causing the frustrated leaders of any ‘single issue’ anti-immigration group to eventually become anti-Semitic when they probably would not have been anti-Semitic otherwise. This is sometimes viewed as an unfortunate consequence of innocent Jewish paranoia, but experience soon teaches one that it is a deliberately contrived outcome, organised Jewry actually courting anti-Semitic attacks in order to provide the evidence needed to discredit anti-immigration groups, and to intimidate their own people, thus reinforcing the ethnocentric attitudes of their communities. Once the members of anti-immigration groups realise that unprovoked Jewish opposition is an inevitability, irrespective of how carefully they attempt to avoid anti-Semitism, it is understandable that the next logical step is to question whether or not Nazi anti-Semitism was brought down upon the heads of Jews by their own actions also? For an anti-immigration group to avoid charges of anti-Semitism, its leaders would need to constantly perform acts demonstrating undying Judophilism, to such an extent that they would appear to be in thrall to organised Jewry and this itself would provoke suspicion that Jews exercise an unhealthy level of influence within our society. That is, it would itself provoke the anti-Semitism it sought to avoid. Undoubtedly there are many Jews who play no conscious part in the machinations of organised Jewry and its leaders, and the only sensible position for White nationalist groups to adopt is one of drawing a clear distinction between the interests of innocent people of Jewish heritage and the malign interests of organised Jewry. We must however recognise that while organised Jewish groups exist, there is very little possiblity of any effective anti-immigrant organisation avoiding being labelled ‘crypto-Nazi’, neo-Nazi, or something similar. Organised Jewry will make sure of that.
This will not be easy, but it is eminently possible. It will be impossible to win a General Election unless we are successful in this, and if not, we are left with a stark choice; either we give up and surrender to our fate of genetic obliteration as a result of continued mass immigration; or we embark upon armed insurrection in the hope of securing control of the state by force of arms. The first of these options is unacceptable to me, while the second appears so impossibly difficult that the prospect of establishing our own mass media suddenly seems so much more feasible. 28
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:17 | # Lee John Barnes on December 26, 2011, 07:55 AM To paraphrase a hippy chant of the late 60s, “Hey, hey, LJB, how pleased I am that you think like me!” 29
Posted by Helvena on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:51 | # Papa Luigi, “the only sensible position for White nationalist groups to adopt is one of drawing a clear distinction between the interests of innocent people of Jewish heritage and the malign interests of organised Jewry.” Using your logic we should also draw a clear distinction between innocent immigrants who are not consciously breeding us out of extinction and those who activity agitate to replace us. What makes the Jews special? If we can’t survive without the Jews we have already lost. It is those that control our society, who have already miscegenated with the Jews physically or mentally, that must be shown the door. Why build a party that picks on the powerless guy like ourselves? They didn’t leave their countries of origin because they were fat cats. Cure the disease and the symptoms will go away. 30
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:55 | # Lee John Barnes on December 26, 2011, 07:55 AM
Lee Barnes has provided a fairly comprehensive list of the elements ‘infrastructure’ that I have been referring to as essential for nationalism to have any real prospect of achieving success. Once we have thes in place, we will have a nationalist community and a framework around which we can build our new nation among the decaying remnants of the old. 31
Posted by Helvena on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:19 | # That’s “breeding us out of existence” not extinction - OMG 32
Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49 | # I find myself in complete agreement with Lee Barnes on this issue. His initial outline of what should be done is intelligent and should be taken seriously by everyone. 33
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:44 | # We agree 100 % Papa. The nationalist revolution will not political, it will be social. We must build a whole new nationalist movement from the ground up, which we can then integrate at a later date into a political struggle. But first comes the social struggle whereby we create amongst our people a sense of being part of a community again. That is the primary problem in nationalist thinking - the inability to recognise that a people who dont regard themselves as a people, will not vote as a people for a party that seeks to give them political representation. The political struggle must always be preceeded by a social struggle to inculcate and recreate a sense of being a people into our folk - for the primary problem is that our people have been divided on the grounds of race, politics, ideology, class, propaganda etc and no longer see themselves as a people. We must start to form a new nationalist movement on issues that are outside politics, for politics always leads to factionalism. WE HAVE A MYRIAD ISSUES TO CAMPAIGN ON THAT CROSS ALL PARTY / IDEOLOGICAL LINES AMONGST THE WIDER NATIONALIST COMMUNITY ; IMMIGRATION With these issues we transcend the political factionalism that divided the nationalist movement, and we can start to form a UNITY OF PURPOSE to fight the enemy for a change instead of each other. 34
Posted by Helvena on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:10 | # Jewish pornography and organ trafficking, might we add those to the list? And lets make a word up for the bad darkies as oppose to the good ones. One that functions like ‘Zionist’ does. 35
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:53 | # @Haller
Pretty interesting for you to defer to some government guidance in this case.
A lie since you’ve been repeatedly pointed to the historical record. Among British colonies in America, the free market had picked fiat currency, abandoning gold and silver, and achieved prosperity. It was the bankers who forced a gold standard, impoverishing the colonies, forcing them to discard the bankers’ mandate and go back to fiat money, which made the bankers wage war, and America was born. Following the civil war, the free market was happy with greenbacks (debt-free fiat currency) and silver, but the bankers wanted a gold standard because gold was scarce and easy to manipulate. So how did they go about forcing a gold standard? Here’s how:
The filthy bankers removed a lot of greenbacks and silver from circulation, causing a depression.
More lies. The bankers were all into forcing a gold standard after the civil war and established one in 1900. The U.S. dollar was on a gold standard till 1971, with brief suspensions during the world wars and the Great Depression, during which gold was confiscated. So most of the twentieth century had the U.S. dollar tied to gold, and when other currencies controlled by bankers were taken off of the gold standard, they were tied to the U.S. dollar.
If you went back in a time machine to the America of 1870-1899 and preached to the public the “massive benefits” of a gold standard, the public would lose no time in hanging you forthwith.
Fiat money won in the free market in colonial America, greenbacks (fiat money) and silver were the choice after the civil war. The bankers wouldn’t have any of this because gold is scarce, more easily manipulated and bankers have most of the gold. You’re not a dupe Haller, but a filthy propagandist and liar on the money issue. You even ask, “why can’t British nationalism produce some kind of single-issue anti-immigration party similar to UKIP?”! As if you don’t know. Like Papa Luigi said, “British Nationalism has produced a succession of primarily single issue anti-immigration groups…” but mainstream media demonization prevents the groups from getting anywhere… “and no matter how studiously they try to avoid offending Jewish groups, they find themselves immediately attacked by Jewish community groups”... and as noted earlier, groups like the EDL end up infiltrated and destroyed from within… this is because the money masters own the media, and use their wealth to set up phony opposition and infiltrate genuine opposition. You know this answer but pretend you don’t and try to keep the same people in power with the money policies you promote. To hell with you Haller! 36
Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:19 | # Helvena on December 26, 2011, 09:51 AM
In my earlier post that you quote, I was answering Leon Haller’s question about the problems arising from perceptions of neo-Nazism, which can cloud matters and reduce support from people who, while opposed to immigration, are sensitive to such perceptions. To avoid the possibility of misunderstanding, perhaps I should have prefaced the sentence that you quote with, “In order to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism ...” The very fact that you question me critically as you do over this issue illustrates the delicate balance that ideologues must maintain between being seen as ‘too extreme’ by softer sections of the potentially nationalist electorate, and ‘too soft’ by those that have developed harder attitudes.
37
Posted by Bill on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:02 | # On doing my daily rounds of the MSM comment of my bookmarked choice, I read the daily output of opinion in all its guises, to say I read it is definitely an overstatement as the sheer volume presenting itself for scrutiny is mind boggling in its scope. So being more accurate, I shall say I skim and scroll through the daily deluge of political opinion and comment on offer. What is immediately noticeable, and how can one fail not to notice, is the mountainous non stop effort by nearly all the media pundits of directing and sustaining the bubble of political comment and opinion, focused entirely on maintaining the political status quo. It’s all about the blue team and the red team, it’s about Cameron, it’s about Clegg, it’s about Milliband, it’s about the revolving door of the blue team and the red team. One could be forgiven in thinking the whole of mainstream political comment is aimed at not allowing their readers the thought of possibility there is another world beyond the Westminster bubble, that to stray outside the ring-fence of the red-blue box is heresay. And do you know what? It works, it numbs the mind of the reader. The writers are immensely skilled at what they do, they should be for they command handsome salaries and status. The result is the British people are brainwashed, they are brainwashed to such a degree they do not allowing their gaze to raise beyond the red team blue team horizon and its revolving door, such a thought never even register to do such a thing. All of my three score and ten years and more, I have witnessed the effects of the red team blue team revolving door. The red team craps all over the nation’s affairs, the hornets nest is stirred and the wise ones call for a change of tack, in comes the blue team and commences to add a further layer of guano over the British people. And so the process continues, the mainstream press and television, who are ever present, continues on its merry way, no matter which colour team is in residence. I’m now convinced that during this time a different agenda has been played out behind the scenes by a different set of people, unknown people, unaccountable and unelected. people The fruits of these decades of deceit are about to be harvested and displayed before us. The mass of brainwashed people eagerly go along with it, tribally supporting the red and the blues, the winders up in the media congratulate themselves on whoever wins as it it of no consequence. In the meantime the people continue to get crapped on again, and again and again. Oborn of the Telegraph has an article up today, it’s no different to the thousands of other such efforts he has penned throughout his career. The amazing thing is, his commenter’s, who are intelligent educated people fall for the red team blue team guff every time. I think our elite is correct in thinking the masses are no better than domesticated animals and need need treating as such by their betters. So to those embarking on making inroads into the blue team, red team scam the best of luck. The present system is so entrenched it is impregnable, too many powerful people have vested interest in keeping it that way. 38
Posted by Papa Luigi on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:04 | # Bill on December 29, 2011, 02:02 PM
I can understand your frustration Bill, but the truth of the matter is that most people don’t believe the establishment line any more than you or I, they simply lack the motivation to take action. The British public are cynical and they continue to vote for the ‘blue’ or the ‘red’ teams simply because they see no viable alternative and hope that by voting as they do they will secure the best of a bad deal. When nationalist political parties stand in elections, they rarely do so in a sufficient number of constituencies to be able to form the next government, even if all of their candidates are elected. Furthermore, when they do stand large numbers of candidates, it is evident that they lack the resources necessary to win in anything like a small minority of constituencies. The perception is therefore that a vote for a nationalist candidate is at best a protest vote, and at worst is a waste of time. No nationalist political party since Mosley’s BUFs has been able to credibly claim to have any chance of winning power. Mosley’s personal fortune and the money of his aristocratic supporters gave him that credibility, but alas, no-one in British nationalism has had the financial wherewithal to make a similarly credible claim since. This is where I come in, and why I have devised an astonishingly simple plan to equip my group with that financial wherewithal. The present system is not impregnable, it simply seems so, because so many people have repeatedly made the same mistakes, over and over again, for more than 70 years. There are many who in ignorance will continue to repeat those same mistakes, and they will continue to reap a bitter harvest, but enlightenment has finally dawned and 2012 will be the turning point. 39
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:29 | # The red team vs blue team kabuki show is not, as Lippman had it ‘manufactured consent’, but rather manufactured dissent. It’s at the same level of discourse as the ads that proclaim Coke over Pepsi, or which juxtapose the merits of Daz versus Omo. It’s all to do with brand awareness and market positioning. 40
Posted by Steampunk on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:56 | # Politicians are creating and maintaining conflicts and the entire euro zone is crashing… we are standing here helpless and in most cases clueless! I think the UK will follow soon and the pound will crash as well! Post a comment:
Next entry: Tony Lecomber on the future of nationalism in Britain
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) |
Posted by Another Year on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:07 | #
AFAIK the Papa has two key themes: i) tithing a regular financial sum towards some greater organisational kitty and ii) PLEs - ethnic ingatherings to build a powerbase or various satellites in promising locales. As a two-pronged strategy I fail to see its general effectiveness. Perhaps things have moved on. The BDF is now reduced to the equivalent of gangs throwing bags of faeces over the peace wall in Northern Ireland, hoping to hit something.