Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 01:40 | #

Some folk involved may have made past misjudgements in views, but as decent honest English folk we are willing to learn and we have evolved onto a specifically English not British, non-stereotypical page, which is of a common sense, fair minded, justice seeking, lawful stance.

We are willing to educate and connect with any other communities and also are willing to educate and share a platform…

*yawn*

Question 11: Do you believe a heroic band of palingenetic Aryan Supermen should ethnically cleanse England of all the muds and mongrels?

A. Fuck no.  We love race-mixing.  We think those filthy Krauts got what they deserved when our heroic RAF burned them alive - extra crispy.

B. What are you on about, mate?  Is that the newest brand of football hooligan?

C. No.  It is impolite, not representative of proper English middle-class decorum for an English woman not to spread for a nigger.

d. Yes!  Bollocks on that old queen Churchill.  Let’s break out the jackboots.

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:51 | #

d.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:22 | #

Chaos@1

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Classic.

One of the funniest ever comments on MR!

Been a hard week, thanks for the laugh.

I fear for most English the answer would be (b.)- though for most Americans it would be (b.i. - “is that on American Idol?”)

Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:56 | #

My immediate reaction to GW’s comment is that the English are paralysed by political Correctness, only the brave will stick their neck out and even respond, let alone tell it as they see it.

All such polls, questionnaires etc. are very suspect.  This lack of openness due to reticence is interpreted by the establishment that the English are a tolerant people and are cool with diversity.

The whole nation is in the grip of liberal correctness, that’s why I commented on Nigel Farage the other day.  I’ve no real idea who Farage is and what he’s all about, but anybody who sticks two fingers up at the EU head honchos raises my interest. 

The time is not far off when the PC bubble is gonna burst, I just feel it in my water.  Just imagine what the response of those 5000 in Leicester (Lester) would have been if they only had the merest hint of what immigration is all about.

Like last year’s riots, the blow back from the English when it comes will take the establishment totally by surprise, whoda thunk it?

The whole liberal scam is kept afloat by coercion, bullying, threats, taunts and pc.

Our politicians can now sense all of this, reality is rearing its ugly head, and they are heading for the lifeboats.

  http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/11/where-now-immigration-debate

Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:06 | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester

Since the war Leicester has experienced large scale immigration from across the world. Immigrant groups today make up around 40% of Leicester’s population, making Leicester one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the United Kingdom. Many Polish servicemen were prevented from returning to their homeland after the war by the communist regime, and they established a small community in Leicester. Economic migrants from the Irish Republic continued to arrive throughout the post war period. Immigrants from the Indian sub-continent began to arrive in the 1960s, their numbers boosted by Asians arriving from Kenya and Uganda in the early 1970s.[11][12]
In the 1990s, apparently drawn by the city’s free and easy atmosphere and by the number of mosques, a group of Dutch citizens of Somali origin settled in the city. Since the 2004 enlargement of the European Union a significant number of East European migrants have settled in the city. While some wards in the northeast of the city are more than 70% Asian, wards in the west and south are all over 70% white. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) had estimated that by 2011 Leicester would have approximately a 50% ethnic minority population, making it the first city in Britain not to have a white British majority.[13]
This prediction was based on the growth of the ethnic minority populations between 1991 (Census 1991 28% ethnic minority) and 2001 (Census 2001 – 36% ethnic minority). However Professor Ludi Simpson at the University of Manchester School of Social Sciences said in September 2007 that the CRE had “made unsubstantiated claims and ignored government statistics” and that Leicester’s immigrant and minority communities disperse to other places.[14][15] The Leicester Multicultural Advisory Group is a forum, set up in 2001 by the editor of the Leicester Mercury, to coordinate community relations with members representing the council, police, schools, community and faith groups, and the media.

Not a peep of concern from the English of Leicester has escaped into the public discourse.

Whatever happened to the 150,000 who must have have left, where did they go?  The same can be said of most other major cities, London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Bristol, Derby, Nottingham, the northern mill towns, the deindustrialised towns of the Midlands.

It’s the Invasion of the Bodysnatcher’s, pure science fiction.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:25 | #

Bill, Thanks for the link.  I have left a comment ending with Powell’s Rivers of Blood, which might raise a few hackles.  The New Statesman has a very free comment policy, so I don’t expect it to be taken down.

CC, bet your Panzer can’t beat my Hurricane.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:46 | #

Thanks GW.

I think your New Statesman comment deserves to be put up here (hope you don’t mind.)  Wider readership and all that. 

John Standing

No discussion of migration into England (not Britain, let’s recognise the issue where it bites) is fit for purpose unless it recognises three facts from the outset:

1. The migrations in question date from 22nd June 1948, and arguably from the outset of WW2. All immigrant populations since then, whether or not members are born here, are one.

2. Their effect is to colonise the land of a people, the English, who possess kinship, ethnicity, and indigeneity; and who are being replaced without consultation, which is wicked. The replacement takes the form of direct generational replacement through on-going immigration and differential birthrates, displacement abroad (especially of young English families), and deracination by race-mixing. In other words, this is a genocide event for the English under Article 2(c) of the 1948 Convention.

3. The English struggle for life and land is natural, normal, healthy, and moral, and is a universal human behaviour. It is self-defence, which is a morally unimpeachable cause. It is not “racism” or “hate”.

Only if these facts are accepted can an honest debate about mass immigration be conducted. We have not had such a debate. In my view the liberal Establishment and the other interests suppressing honesty will never allow it, and the inevitable end-result will be the “rivers of blood” Powell has been so dismissed and demonised for foreseeing.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:22 | #

Establishment justification for third world immigration into Britain has come in many guises over the years, labour shortage, do the jobs the British won’t do, skills gap, bedpan wallahs, opportunity and many more, oops!  Nearly forgot, mustn’t leave out how much diversity enriches our culture.

To sum up, establishment justification for immigration into English lands has always (without exception?) been about economic considerations.  Notwithstanding the Andrew Nether revelations has there ever (to my knowledge) been any attempt at a political justification for mass immigration?  Even if Nether’s outpourings were an attempt at labour’s political reason for immigration it held no credence for me.  Just another head-fake.

How easy it is for the media to head-fake its audience, all they have to do is ‘don’t mention the war’ and hey presto! it never happened.

Labour wanted to rub the conservative English nose in diversity some said, others say it it was to ensure labour votes forever, which, on the surface are credible reasons, but there is compelling evidence there are other reasons for enticing an alien presence among the English.

The reasons put forward by the elites for mass immigration have never held water, every damn thing about this business is founded on lies and deceit.  They’re not playing the white man. (LOL)

I’m hoping the interest being generated by (mainly) UKIP’s Nigel Farage (with his Youtube fame) will hasten things along.  There’s no doubt the Tories are toast, it’ll all be a long drawn out water boarding for them until 2015 (if that) and that’s when it will all kick off.

We’ve never been here before.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:49 | #

Why should not the English acquiesce in the neo - Marxist morality which was the natural outgrowth of resisting the one Austrian man who stood up to the Jews?

Posted by antifascist on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:52 | #

@Al Ross, Austrians are evil white supremacist nazis, just like hitler, and so are you Al Ross.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:08 | #

Yes, quite so. However the omission of the word ‘racist’ in your otherwise admirably concise comment would seem to indicate a catechismic lacuna.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:32 | #

Al Ross is a funny name for an Austrian.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:27 | #

And Leo is a splendid name for a united Kingdom nigger.

Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:38 | #

@Captainchaos

Good news due to the economic slump the US population is decreasing which I am sure is mainly among the black and hispanic populations.

US birth rate hits all time low

The birth rate has hit an all time low in the United States, with researchers blaming the poor economy for low fertility rates and women’s choices not to have families.

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in 2011, birth rates only increased among women in the 35-to-39 and 40-to-44 age brackets and declined among younger women. But overall, the birth rate decreased from the year before, reaching the lowest ever reported in US history.

Another surprising statistic: More than 40 percent of all babies were born to unmarried women. Such a large statistic indicates that a large number of US births may not have been planned.

The year 2010 saw 3,953,593 US births, which was down 45,793 from the year before. The fertility rate had also decreased to the lowest ever rate reported, which scientists and researchers believe could be due to the severity of the recession.

Elizabeth Gregory, author of “Ready: Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood”, claims that the poor economy, together with an already-increasing trend of women giving birth later in life, is the cause of the new data.

“The big switch in the timing of when women have children was underway long before the recession of 2007, but the recession intensified it,” she wrote in the Huffington Post.
Other researchers have cited the high cost of groceries and child expenses as another reason for less childbirth.

“The cost of raising a child these days is just too expensive for us to consider having a larger family,” wrote Joanna Mazewski, a blogger for Babble, a parenting website. “I’m not just talking diapers here: education, extra-curricular activities, insurance, etc., are all factors we considered before ultimately deciding on his surgery.”

Mark Mather, a demographer for Population Reference Bureau, told ABC News that aside from women actively choosing not to have children, the recession also affects a woman’s physical ability to give birth.

“The economy is definitely having some effect on fertility and we know that from previous decades during the Great Depression we saw a pretty significant drop in fertility and then again in the 1970′s,” he said. “We weren’t too surprised to see a decline in fertility during this most recent economic downturn.”

The low US birth rate has not yet reached European levels, but the nation may soon face some of the same problems. Demographers worry that if the young population plummets, it will become difficult to take care of the elderly that can no longer be a part of the workforce. This would consequentially affect the tax rates, which would likely skyrocket if the elderly population outweighs the young.

http://rt.com/usa/news/rate-low-women-birth-878/

 

 

Posted by antifascist on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 18:58 | #

<u>Ha, excellent news! </u> (British Nazi White Supremacist Racist @jamesuk ) More white women in America are having children later in their lives, according to your article, since your too illogical to realize, the consequences, of your nazi white women having children later on in life, I thought I would provide you with a source of real information.   

Genetic Risks to the Mother and the Infant: Assessment, Counseling, and Management
By Stuart K. Shapira and Siobhan Dolan

Another factor that commonly increases the baseline population risk is maternal age. Women who are 35 years or older at the time of delivery (i.e., advanced maternal age) are considered to have an elevated risk of having an infant with a chromosomal abnormality, such as Down syndrome.

Age 35 years at the time of delivery is designated as advanced maternal age because at that age the risk of chromosome abnormalities exceeds the risk of a complication from the amniocentesis procedure used to diagnose the abnormality.

Therefore, an amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling procedure is routinely offered to women of advanced maternal age for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities [17]. As with women who have risks associated with family history and ethnic background, women with advanced maternal age should receive, as part of their standard preconception care, information about the genetic risks to a pregnancy and the available prenatal diagnostic options.

A significantly increased risk for chromosome abnormalities is not associated with advance paternal age. However, as a man reaches the age of approximately 40 years, his risk of having an infant with one of several autosomal dominant conditions (achondroplasia, Apert syndrome, Marfan syndrome, and others reviewed in [18] and [19]), increases above the baseline population risk [20]. This risk information should also be incorporated into standard preconception genetic counseling and risk assessments, although the advanced paternal age risk is quite small compared to the significant risk for chromosome abnormalities that occurs with advanced maternal age.

Summary

Genetic issues are too important to be ignored during preconception care since they can have quite profound implications for a woman’s future pregnancies. An important recommended intervention is a complete family history assessment, either though a self-assessment tool that is reviewed by the physician, or through a questionnaire administered by a healthcare provider.

The utility and success of family history tools in assessing risk are well established in other medical areas [23, 24] and should be similarly effective in the genetic assessment of risk as part of preconception care. Genetic counseling information should be provided regarding the baseline population genetic risk to a pregnancy, as well as additional risks revealed by family history, ethnic background, and, if applicable, advanced maternal and/or paternal ages.

Appropriate carrier testing should be offered, with the understanding that a negative carrier test result, in the case of some DNA-based tests, does not exclude the possibility that the individual tested is a carrier. Women with an increased risk of having an infant with a birth defect or genetic condition should be referred to a clinical genetics provider for further counseling and information about pregnancy options. Finally, women who themselves have a genetic condition should receive appropriate preconception and prenatal care, education, and medical counseling to avoid morbidity and mortality for themselves and their future pregnancies.

Footnotes
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References
1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The importance of preconception care in the continuum of women’s health care. ACOG committee opinion 313. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2005.
2. Czeizel AE. Ten years of experience in the periconceptional care. Eur J Obstet Gynec Reprod Biol 1999;89:43–9. [PubMed]
3. Czeizel AE, Gasztonyi Z, Kuliev A. Periconceptional clinics: a medical health care infrastructure of new genetics. Fetal Diagn Ther 2005;20:515–8. [PubMed]
4. Myrianthopoulos NC, Chung CS. Congenital malformations in singletons: epidemiologic survey. Report from the Collaborative Perinatal project. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1974;10:1–58. [PubMed]
5. Christianson RE, van den Berg BJ, Milkovich L, Oechsli FW. Incidence of congenital anomalies among white and black live births with long term follow-up. Am J Pub Health 1981;71:1333–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Van Regemorter N, Dodion J, Druart C, Hayez F, Vamos E, Flament-Durand J, Perlmutter-Cremer N, Rodesh F. Congenital malformations in 10,000 consecutive births in a university hospital: need for genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis. J Pediatr 1984;104:386–90. [PubMed]
7. Balkite EA, Puck SM. Prenatal genetic risk assessment: A guide for health professionals. Cambridge, MA: Genzyme Genetics, Genzyme Corporation; 2003.
8. de Weerd S, van der Bij AK, Cikot RJLM, Braspenning JCC, Braat DDM, Steegers EAP. Preconception care: a screening tool for health assessment and risk detection. Prev Med 2002;34:505–11. [PubMed]
9. Program ME. Genetic risk screening office guide. Scarborough, ME: Foundation for Blood Research; 1998.
10. Prenatal Screening Questionnaire. American Medical Association: Family History Tools, 2006. (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13332.html).
11. Family Health and Social History. March of Dimes: Genetics and Your Practice, 2006. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/gyponline/index.bm2).
12. American College of Medical Genetics. Fragile X syndrome: Diagnostic and carrier testing. Working group of the genetic screening subcommittee of the clinical practice committee. Bethesda, MD: ACMG; 1994.
13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fragile X syndrome. ACOG committee opinion 161. Washington, DC: ACOG; 1995.
14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Prenatal and preconceptional carrier screening for genetic diseases in individuals of eastern European Jewish descent. ACOG committee opinion 298. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2004.
15. Cystic Fibrosis Genetic Analysis Consortium. Population variation of common cystic fibrosis mutations. Hum Mutat 1994;4:167–77. [PubMed]
16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Genetic screening for hemoglobinopathies. ACOG committee opinion 238. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000.
17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. ACOG practice bulletin 27. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2001.
18. Crow JF. The origins, patterns and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nat Rev Genet 2000;1:40–7. [PubMed]
19. Rolf C, Nieschlag E. Reproductive functions, fertility and genetic risks of ageing men. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2001;109:68–74. [PubMed]
20. American College of Medical Genetics. Statement on guidance for genetic counseling in advanced paternal age. ACMG Newsletter 1996;6:13.
21. Lenke RR, Levy HL. Maternal phenylketonuria and hyperphenylalaninemia: an international survey of the outcome of untreated and treated pregnancies. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1202–8. [PubMed]
22. Drogari E, Smith I, Beasley M, Lloyd JK. Timing of strict diet in relation to fetal damage in maternal phenylketonuria. An international collaborative study by the MRC/DHSS Phenylketonuria Register. Lancet 1987;2:927–30. [PubMed]
23. Johnson J, Giles RT, Larsen L, Ware J, Adams T, Hunt SC. Utah’s family high risk program: bridging the gap between genomics and public health. Prev Chronic Dis 2005;2:A24–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Tyagi A, Morris J. Using decision analytic methods to assess the utility of family history tools. Am J Prev Med 2003;24:199–207. [PubMed]

Posted by antifaggot on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:58 | #

An increased risk of children being born with chromosome abnormalities is “excellent news” is it antifa?

Keep it coming pal, thousands are going to see these comments of yours.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:07 | #

Good news due to the economic slump the US population is decreasing which I am sure is mainly among the black and hispanic populations. jamesUK @14

Are you being sarcastic? The nonwhite underclasses have children as they feel like it, or as pregnancy randomly occurs. It’s true that abortion in the USA is now more of a nonwhite than white phenomenon. Whites are on average both more ethical and more intelligent, and thus are less likely to get themselves impregnated unintentionally, as well to have abortions should they do so. As I’ve long predicted, the Christian movement within the US is growing, and will continue to do so (I say this regardless of various contemporary claims about declining religious affiliation), and thus abortion within the white community will continue to decline. The “white genocide via abortion” issue was really a 70s/80s Baby Boomer phenomenon.

Hispanics are strongly natalist, more so now in the US than in Mexico (a function of their (correct) perceptions of greater economic opportunities here). Huge numbers of Hispanics are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, and for them, life in the US is a huge improvement. Such positive sentiments, esp about the future, lead to higher fertility. It will be a while before Hispanics perceive a true decline in their living standards, let alone one sharp enough to override a family centered culture. (I bet the same situation obtains among the UK’s Muslims.)

No, pal, the people who are not having children as a result of our crappy Obamunist economy (joys of non-capitalism, anyone?) are young whites dismayed at their lack of ability to enjoy anything like their parents’ material lifestyles, and so, to keep up their middle class existences they, first, went into excessive debt, and, second, now that people are admirably ‘deleveraging’ themselves (if only the Federal Govt would do the same!), they are foregoing family formation. Not good.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:03 | #

Antifascist,

You are posting here because we strive to be a free-speech site.  I can tell you that on the rare occasions I have posted questions at anti-fascist sites they are moderated out.  The traitor-left is censorious because it has to be.  Its true believers are without factual knowledge, without normal life-principles, and quite without normal decency.  I believe most of you - and I mean only whites - are religious fanatics in a secular, political paradigm.  You are not to blame for it.  You are certainly not aware of it, not self-conscious at all in terms of who and what you truly are, who you love and who loves you, to whom you belong, and so forth.  You have only a thin and truculent ideology where your awareness should be.

Of course, none of this applies to the non-whites and Jews among Herr Hirschfeld’s spiritual disciples.  They are not lost and confused or sickened souls, but simple racists by their own terms.  One expects their racism.  It is the useful idiocy of the whites one finds extraordinary and demanding of an explanation.  What has happened in a mind that can only perceive love of kind as hatred of the other?  How did it become so narrow and so needy of labelling men as cyphers, without normal human characteristics, so it could project its own hatreds on them?  How does that work, psychologically?

I am hoping you will provide us with an explanation in due course.  But first let me return to the question of free speech.  Here there are just two rules for commenters.  First, be intelligent. Second, be civil.  A refusal or inability to conform leads to exclusion.  Now, in my capacity as the owner of this site I am going to expand a little on what constitutes incivility.

Using the word “Nazi”, “fascist”, “hater”, or “xenophobe”, or any other anti-fascist label that dehumanises good men is not acceptable.  I will not tolerate labelling.  You will address people here and approach their commentary in a manner which does not lead you to the reflex action of dehumanisation.

By this means I free not only my friends here from your boorish habit, but you also.  You will have to become aware of your own motives, and thereby so shall we.

Posted by geoffdavies on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 02:19 | #

An interesting review that corrects several stereotypes in Mathew Goodwin’s book on the BNP

http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/guest-book-review-new-british-fascism.html

Posted by antifascist on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 03:02 | #

@GuessedWorker,
Thank you for clarifying what you consider to be appropriate language on this website vs inappropriate language.

It shows that the administrators and commenters on this website, in general cannot tolerate descriptive/categorical generalizations, of their own political ideologies, yet they have not problem insulting, defaming and making generalizations, about antifascists and other marxists.

I find you at least, Mr.GuessedWorker to be the most civilized out of this very intolerant crowd of people on Majority Rights, I heard a few of your interviews, as well. Unfortunately you seem obsessed with what you call the “JQ” as much as most commenters on this website, as shown in your interview with Lee Barnes, which I heard.

Of course you can decide what is appropriate, vs inappropriate, here in the comments section. However, I feel very disappointed not to have the opportunity to hurl back generalizations, about commenters on this website, when they are allowed to make obscene generalizations, about marxists and antifascists.
Instead, I shall post occasionally, only scholarly peer-reviewd articles, from science, political science and sociology, that runs contrary to the commonly held assumptions, and beliefs expressed by statements of “nationalists” on this website.

  What has happened in a mind that can only perceive love of kind as hatred of the other?  How did it become so narrow and so needy of labelling men as cyphers, without normal human characteristics, so it could project its own hatreds on them?  How does that work, psychologically?

<u>

Interesting questions Guessed worker. My own personal life experiences, have shaped my views, for example at elementary school, middle school, high school and university, the only people who ever bullied me physically or verbally, were white males. They did this because I was smarter than most of them, and I hated playing sports, watching sports, and therefore they viewed me as an outsider. I no longer identify as a white male, I identify as a member of the one and only human race.

This is partially due to my own experiences, such as being able to make friends with african-americans, arabs and mexicans, rather easily, I identified more with their struggle against the evil, materialistic, decadent and chauvinistic white man, who has oppressed them for hundreds of years, through slavery and warfare and colonization. As a member of the one and only human race. I empathize with the struggles and suffering of all people who have been oppressed by the evil, corrupt, bully, called the white man, my own experiences, research in the field of cultural psychology, and general understanding of world history from the 17th century till the 20th century, have shaped my views, and antifascist marxist political ideology.  </u>

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:02 | #

antifascist, would you oppose the formation of a society that excluded from its territory you and people like you in some sense, including possibly race and/or ethnicity?

Posted by antifascist on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 05:18 | #

If people wanted to separate from the United States of America, and build their own ” nation/state”?
Or just in general people wanting to separate from others?

Race is a social construct, but more importantly, it is a meaningless concept, sociologically.
What I mean by this, is that a Race or Races, cannot have one identifying culture, language, hair color, average height, average weight, average IQ,  religion. Therefore I think it is not only impossible, but also bizarre to seek to unite all people of a certain skin color, ” white”, “black”, or “yellow” under a banner of one nation, and pretend that everyone has similar common interests.

Ethnic groups, such as the Nigerians. Somalians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Scottish and Welsh.
Have their own cultural uniqueness, and inside of these nations, a similar religion, hair color, average height, average weight, average IQ, and religion is possible, at the very least at the tribal level in Nigeria, and Somalia.

If people want to live together, based on a certain ethnic identity, not a racial identity , I have no problem, with this decision. I would be appalled however, if this new nation/state, decided to create a capitalist economic system which exploited it’s local inhabitants, and of course, I think it is rather narrow minded to only want to socialize with your own ethnic group, and live a boring sheltered life, and why would people who are sane want to keep empathetic and peace loving marxists, out of their society?

So no, racial identity is no a justification for anything, let alone building a white supremacist state, with Jared Taylor as your Reichschancellor.

But if you want to separate from the USA, or other places in Europe, based only on Ethnic identity, this is legitimate, and would be more so if you used a maoist economic system, in my opinion.

Posted by Silver on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 06:22 | #

It is the useful idiocy of the whites one finds extraordinary and demanding of an explanation.  What has happened in a mind that can only perceive love of kind as hatred of the other?  How did it become so narrow and so needy of labelling men as cyphers, without normal human characteristics, so it could project its own hatreds on them?  How does that work, psychologically?

Who knows, GW, who knows? 

    *yawn*

Question 11: Do you believe a heroic band of palingenetic Aryan Supermen should ethnically cleanse England of all the muds and mongrels?

Yep, it’s a real mystery of the ages.

As for the silly little antifa spamming the site with tired old marxist boilerplate, he seems fairly young and his wounds from the insults and bullying he grew up with still raw.  “Antifascism” is his weapon of choice for taking revenge on the past.  I don’t think this tendency is peculiar to the psychology of leftardism.  The phenomenon is probably part of a broader class of “revenge politics,” consisting of plugging the holes in one’s own life through the promotion of (sometimes extreme) political ideologies.  The result is an eager beaver political advocate not much different in substance from a religious fanatic with a conversion experience who insists on proselytizing everyone in sight: the tenacity stems not from expectation of personal gain but from the desperate desire to secure common acceptance of the beliefs that his sense of wellbeing or self-worth depend on so completely.  You often see this with extremist equalitarians.  The possibility of any innate differences in ability between individuals must be denied in toto because the connection between greater ability and greater worth is threateningly clear, meaning that perhaps… gulp…  those rotten bastards who belittled them in the past may not have been entirely wrong?  That’s bitter indeed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:19 | #

Antifascist,

I am not concerned to categorise or defame you.  Why should I wish to when you actually call yourself “anti-fascist”, and do so in wilful ignorance of what fascism is (an Italian political movement) or where your own thoughts on it originate (Jewry).  I want you to know yourself so that, then, you might know the world about you for yourself and from your own powers of perception.  It is tragi-comic to venture out in the morning all dressed up in your ideological armour because it disguises the man within from himself.  It’s like looking at Pee-Wee Herman all dressed up in the armour of a Roman legionnaire.

We are completely aware that this is what is going on with you.  As Silver kindly explains, you are struggling to resolve a crisis of identity in your own heart.  You are labouring under one Jewish ideological yoke (“Marxist boilerplate”) for reasons of your own personal salvation from another (Hirschfeldian racism) - a salvation which is had by doing the Jewish work of killing ethnic awareness and self-love in the European and, ultimately, robbing Europeans of ethnicity.

It is as plain as day.  You must not think that the boilerplate disguise works for a minute.

Now, your statement in bold, while typically truculent and lightly conceived, indeed almost mechanical, is another attempt to deflect.  This is going to stop.  You are going to be forced to explain yourself to yourself, and to us.  You will not be allowed to escape into the boilerplate.  You will, as I told you a long while back, be forced to confront your behaviour.

On the subject of those here who hurl generalisations at you, I am not pleased by them either.  But you must understand that the psychology of nationalisms in Europe and White Nationalism in America is conservative and defensive.  Nationalism is the preserve of those who have proven insufficiently suggestible to be soaked up into the approved ideology of the times.  And not only are they independent, they are vigorous.  Each and every one of them has, by his own hand, fashioned a question about the world and formulated an answer.  It may not always be a very good answer.  But it represents a kind of freedom that you do not know.  If you did, you would look aghast upon yourself as you stand before us today.

Fundamentally, you are killing our people.  They are defending them.  They are a mite angry with you, and they are right to be so, both for reasons of the human heart, ie, love and loyalty, and for reasons of principle.  The cause of life is, after all, the greatest of all causes by degrees of magnitude.  Indeed, to struggle for life is the only human right in Nature.  All other rights are contingent.

On that score, it does not matter that you were bullied or that you were made to feel insignificant.  Your sense of hurt is not important.  It is not more important than our people.  Would you have the tens of thousands of white American women raped by blacks throw themselves into a politics of destruction of the African race?  By your reasoning they should all do so.

Your reasoning is flawed.  Here is the question for you: How can my twenty year old daughter, who is a beautiful and intelligent, wilful white girl, be to blame for your hurt, and why should she pay the price of losing her people for it?

Just one quick criticism of your ideology.  On the much over-worked social construct, the mind does not construct a false reality but a functionally true one.  Otherwise life choices would be entirely a matter of serendipity, and selection for fitness could not prevail.  Without fitness there can be no evolutionary process, and no life more complex than a simple cell.  The fact that Nature is so manifestly rich places a clear limit on self-construction theory, and that limit is at the operation of the intellectual function.  That is, the intellect operates by associative representation, which the other systems of perception do not.  But even then the representation must be functionally true more often than not.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:11 | #

GW @ 18.

It is the useful idiocy of the whites one finds extraordinary and demanding of an explanation.

The most perplexing mystery throughout my quest has been the puzzle why have our elites signed on to the global agenda, thus necessitating the throwing of their own people under a bus?

All I could come up with is that they must have been promised a seat at the top table, when trying to flesh out my instincts I drew a blank, I couldn’t.  To me, there was never any justification for abandoning your own kind.

I had simply no idea what I had let myself in for when I turned to the Internet for answers to my question - Why immigration?

Almost from the beginning, recurring themes would appear mushroom like, no matter the myriad of nooks and crannies my searches led me, these themes kept popping up in such diverse locations it was always a problem fathoming the connection.

Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself here, let me explain.

Such has been the transformation of the Internet over this period it is almost impossible to convey to a newcomer what it was like,  for an ordinary chap straight off the street, information on the subject was as rare as hen’s teeth, that’s even if you knew what questions to ask and where to look.

If someone had told me back then that I would be delving into such diverse areas as history, philosophy, political theory, economics, oligarchies, biblical history, and a whole lot more,  I would not have believed it.

Suffice to say the recurring theme for me has been the story of the elites throughout history.

I’m convinced today’s narrative has its origins in a world of long ago, perhaps to pre history even. For a person of basic education, it took me a long time to reconcile this idea, as for the more advanced stuff, it plays havoc with my RSI index finger.

All this complexity and yet in its simplest manifest ion it’s as plain as day,  Hallelujah for that.  All those people on our streets who don’t look like us.       

The world of the elites is moving (deeper) into the practice of eugenics, a world which will be ruled by the brightest and best, a world overseen by those who decides those who will live and those who will not.  In short, an engineered slave class serving the elites in perpetuity.  Population control will be centre stage, it is already being openly discussed if you know where to look.

To quote Blair (again,) the kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux.

The die is cast, it’s all around us,  it’s already here.

And that’s why our elites are on-board the global express, yes they’ve been promised a place at the world’s top table for they are the chosen ones, the brightest and best.  The sunlit uplands beckon and the Blair’s and the Brown’s and the Cameron’s (how far up the food chain are these people?) will be leading the surge. 

But what about the millions of useless idiots who’ve been conned to go along?  What is their future?.  Will their destiny be that of the useless eater?

Who was it prophesied the antifascist will become the new fascism?

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:34 | #

GW is certainly right about the censoriousness of the Racial Left (which includes much of the “Right”). I was banned from The Nation site (not just Leon Haller, but any type of pseudonym I tried), not because I made any personally defamatory comments, or used any epithets or obscenities, but simply because I pointed out the parasitical nature of public sector unions! I did so in blunt but not slanderous language.

I’ve been banned from other places, too, merely for pointing out plain racial truths, including at most “conservative” sites. JRichards would have banned me even from MR for not accepting his wild conspiratorialism at face value, and self-asserted know-it-all Greg Johnson has banned me from Counter-Currents for being less than worshipful of his/their ideological idiosyncrasies (“Leatherfaggots Unite for Whites!” is probably not going to make a large impression in what’s left of Middle America). Most persons, regardless of ideology, just can’t handle being seriously challenged.

So a tip of the hat to GW’s now very old-fashioned English sense of civility and honor.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:01 | #

@Leon

‘So a tip of the hat to GW’s now very old-fashioned English sense of civility and honor.’

Agreed. Remember though that ‘anti-fascists’ confront and physically attack nationalists on the street. They demonstrate no tolerance, they show nothing but contempt, hatred and violence towards any that disagree with them.

........

‘It shows that the administrators and commenters on this website, in general cannot tolerate descriptive/categorical generalizations, of their own political ideologies, yet they have not problem insulting, defaming and making generalizations, about antifascists and other marxists. ’ ~ antifascist

Your fellow ideologues show no mercy towards my brothers antifascist. Remember that when you enter our house and spout your venom and outdated, discredited failed beliefs. I am sorry you were bullied at school. I dislike bullies too. I dislike even more those that were bullied then become bullies themselves.

What happened to you when you were a child does not justify the genocide of an entire people. You will not win this war. I urge you to reconsider and play your part in pulling your fellows back from the brink of their own annihilation.

 

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:27 | #

You’re welcome, Leon.  One day I hope we will convince you that neoliberalism + traditionalism +  Catholicism leaves something to be desired (two things, actually: fundamentality and traction on the liberal project).

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:38 | #

to antiFascist:

don’t even dream of coming ==here==.  I might kill you with my own hands, or have you thrown into the concentration camp we recently set up in the Negev to hold the Sudanese infiltrators. We are turning the tide against Leftists nowadays here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:55 | #

Bill: “The die is cast, it’s all around us, it’s already here.”

Yes, the function of the masses as compliant consumers and wage slaves without the possibility of political struggle is taking shape.  Politics is bought.  Democracy is being ended - that work is pretty well done.  No European people in the West can be confident in their own existence, and all but the smallest of them have had their birthright removed without discussion.

The date for white American minoritisation was recently advanced by a decade.  The only two dates given for a “white British” minoritisation, which is already dishonest because it is the English bearing the initial brunt of race-replacement, are David Coleman’s 2066 onward and the Leeds group’s 2080 onward.  Both utilised the old 2001 Census figures.  I have looked at the Leeds methodology and didn’t find any allowance for illegal immigrants, of whom some 550,000 were finally acknowledged to be here by the government machine in 2005.

The English numbers in the 2001 Census were never clear because we did not have an ethnicity box to tick, in line with the then official decision that we no longer exist.  But every Census underestimates the non-white element because so many non-white households never return the form.  A former Census team member posted at the DT a while ago how it was estimated that in some areas up to 30% of non-white households simply don’t return the form, with no action taken against them.

Political nationalism is controlled by the state, and exists only as a dog in the manger.  If they succeed in shutting down debate on the internet, that will reduce real nationalists to sending electronic samidats to one another, while the machine seeks out opportunities to stamp out even that.  Everything that can be done to genocide us will be done.

It is already here.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:53 | #

@antifascist

The origins of Fascism are more complex than you seem able to grasp – see for example this essay http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ghosts_of_the_past .

Nationalism can take many political ‘forms’ but both Fascism and Marxism are on the same ‘ontological territory’ – perhaps you disagree?

Now you said: “why would people who are sane want to keep empathetic and peace loving marxists, out of their society?”

OK have you actually ever spend any time, at all, in the company of bog-standard Marxist activists? You know like say SWP members? I have. Empathetic and peace-loving are not the terms that immediately spring to my mind. Rather hate-filled, disingenuous, near-psychopathic (in some case) generally with ‘difficult’ personalities etc. Now that’s not all of them – some were naïve do-gooders – the ‘Vicar’s daughter’ syndrome grounded in sympathy with those less fortunate and so on, but a shockingly high percentage were of the first type.

Let me give you an example – I was studying biology and had just discovered something called ‘inclusive-fitness theory’ otherwise summed up as something called Hamilton’s rule. At base it’s simply applied population genetics that tells us the possible ways in which proximity of genetic relatedness can shape the natural selection of cooperative and/or altruistic traits (at it’s core is a basic life-history ‘trade-off’ - the precise details do not matter in this context).

Anyway I brought up Hamilton’s work in conversation with a then obscure and now relatively prominent Trotskyite SWP member – generally along he lines of “equally is a great ideal but people will always love their own kids more than other peoples” - basically that human life is shaped (to some extent) by a ‘proportionality of concern’ that distally declines. Mr. Trot was literally outraged – how could someone by so utterly reactionary etc.?

I attempted to explain that I didn’t think or claim that moral concern or social solidarity simply ended with one’s immediate relatives but that he could not seriously claim to be a ‘scientific’ socialist and ignore what science might have to say on the broad topic. Well even more outrage followed. Red-faced and with an angry voice (so much so that other people in the pub noticed his demeanour) he told me that Hamilton’s work had been shown to be profoundly mistaken. Curious to know more I asked him about this – where could I read about this etc.? After he calmed down at bit he recommended a book by an academic philosopher I’d personally never heard of.

Being a scrupulously ‘fair-minded’ person I did get the said book out from the main university library – the author attempted to suggested that inclusive-fitness theory was ‘logically impossible’ as indeed was much of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (Darwinism was a ‘fairy tale’ apparently). Of course the arguments in the book were a conceptual and empirical ‘car-crash’ and, more or less, total bullshit. Indeed rather obviously so – if inclusive-fitness theory is ‘wrong’ then so to is the basic maths it emerges from (but I digress). 

I had found it very curious that a self-described ‘materialist’ and Marxist had recommended such a poorly argued, anti-scientific piece of nonsense – coincidently the author of the book was fairly obviously ‘theologically’ inspired in his attempted ‘take-down’ of Hamilton and his wider work would have been considered, by even fairly moderate people, to be extremely reactionary. Then I had a second discussion with Mr. Trot and several of his friends about science. I suggested that scientific activity, in general, did ‘progress’ and offered, over the long run, cumulative truth about the world mainly because it could in principle be falsified by real-world phenomena hence had a self-correcting mechanism (again in general, over the long-term etc.) derived from the basic notion of ‘trial and error’ experimentation/reasoning. Again more outrage – scientific theories are ‘overdetermined’, how could I be so ‘naïve’ etc.

The penny finally dropped – I had an epiphany. These people had nothing like a ‘scientific’ world-view. It was more like a form of religiosity. If the real-world and their ideology clashed than the real-world could go fuck itself in these people’s minds. They were very unpleasant, bullying and deeply disingenuous individuals. But I myself was a rather naïve 1st year undergraduate (18/19) when I encountered these people (in reality rather than in abstract) so I have forgiven myself for even being silly enough to treat them with some basic respect.

Now Mr. Trot and his mates could not be considered to be formally stupid. Mr. Trot was at the time a PhD candidate (technically a DPhil at this particular university but who cares) in analytical philosophy at one of Britain’s ‘elite’ universities. I say ‘elite’ because at least 50% of the people I met there – both students and faculty – seemed, in retrospective, to be as thick as pig-shit to be brutally honest. How can I put it? ‘Superficially clever’ but all surface and no depth.

So what were the consequences for me?

(1) I found I actually valued science and the scientific methodology above any ideology.

(2) I loath to this day disingenuous, intellectual dishonest and dogmatic ideologues of any type. The type of people that can happily ignore robust empirical evidence and real-world phenomena if it does not fit into and/or contradicts their ideology. Let alone those that think their ideology is ‘infallible’. I genuinely despise such people.

(3) I was determined as a ‘side-project’ to educate myself about philosophy, particularly the philosophy of science and political philosophy - so as not to feel unable to defend myself against being browbeaten by the Mr. Trots of this world. I started with Roger Scruton’s introduction to modern philosophy and Karl Popper’s ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’. It’s a hobby I maintain to this day.

(4) I stopped thinking that the problems of the world had (or have) some easy ‘simple-minded’ ‘catch-all’ solution(s). The world is a very complex place – political ideologues are very simple in comparison. Dogmatism is a seriously dangerous political and intellectual vice.

OK so what’s this got to do with antifascist and his world-view?

Well try finding out a little bit more about the world as it actually is perhaps?

Why for example is Denmark one of the most ‘progressive’ nations with regard to relative economic equality, various forms of social solidarity and social-capital and so on but is also one of the most highly homogeneous societies (ethnically, linguistically, culturally etc.)? Are Danes all evil ‘racists’? Would 500000 or so Somalis or Pakistanis significantly improve Danish society and make it more ‘enlightened’ or ‘fun’?

Why are the terribly exciting, multicultural and diverse societies of Brazil and the USA at the lower end of the human development index etc.? Particularly the USA - given its wealth - is way down on where it should be on such an index.

Again going back to the real world there seems a robust socio-political ‘trade-off’ at work. One can have wondrous diversity but at the expense of social solidarity. One must make a choice over the political value one places on the politics of maximally heterogeneity and the politics of maximal homogeneity. They are in deep tension with each other and have very different consequences for the socio-political ‘phase space’ a society can operate within.

Social solidarity and diversity are like oil and water – they do not easily go hand in hand. Now antifascist probably thinks “well this guy is some old Nazi that’s bullshitting me”.

OK google Roger Scruton, David Goodhart, Robert Putnam and the terms social-capital, solidarity, etc. It’s an empirically grounded observation both in intra-societal (between US states) and inter-societal comparison that greater diversity (heterogeneity) reduces the scope of both public and personal forms of social solidarity and attenuates even the possibility of the generation of social-capital in the first place. Lower diversity (greater homogeneity) has the opposite effect.

So antifascist needs to decide if he’s a multicultural liberal cosmopolitan or a collectivist of some sort. One cannot coherently or substantively be both.

Now of course antifascist will come back and express something along the lines of the following: “but capitalism uses racism to get the plebs to be divided against their class enemy etc., and that racism has been historically a rather plastic ideological construct used and reused in a variety of settings and contexts and so on”.

OK ruling elites may functionally benefit from a ‘divide and rule’ policy. And racism might be one of those tactics BUT if in-group/out-group dynamics of various types were not a real world ‘ontologically grounded’ phenomenon why and how could such ‘divide and rule’ tactics ever have traction? The well observed fact that out-group/in-group phenomena is plastic (it can coalesce around ‘explosive’ socio-politic cleavages such as religious affiliation or utter trivia like sports teams) but also its ubiquity would, to my mind, see anyone of a ‘scientific’ mindset be given pause for thought and think it extremely foolish to dismiss it as some sort of epiphenomena within collective human affairs.

Similarly if ‘racism’ is merely (and only) a part of a ruling-class tactic in order to keep capitalism going then why, for example, did Native Americans have such a bloody and bitter form of out-group/in-group culture? It little strange as they certainly could not be classed as capitalistic or bourgeois exploiters by anyone claiming to be a Marxist. Was that out-group/in-group culture also epiphenomenal too?

One final question to antifascist – does he/she agree with the radical black psychiatrist Dr. Frances Cress Welsing that ‘racism’ is:

“Racism (white supremacy) is the local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined; which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action, and emotional response, as conducted, simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war); for the ultimate purpose of white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on planet Earth - a planet upon which the vast and overwhelming majority of people are classified as nonwhite (black, brown, red and yellow) by white skinned people, and all of the nonwhite people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people.”

Make of that statement what you will but this is true - from a global perspective it is we Europeans that are the demographically vulnerable and a tiny minority. But our ‘annihilation’ is OK, welcomed even? And I thought lefty types were into ‘conservation’. Silly me.

What about this – again from Dr. Frances Cress Welsing

“Children are the only future of any people. If the children’s lives are squandered, and if the children of a people are not fully developed at whatever cost and sacrifice, the people will have consigned themselves to certain death.”

Wow antifascist that sounds like some dangerously reactionary biopolitics doesn’t it!

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:25 | #

“antifascist”‘s response that he would oppose the formation of a society that excluded from its territory others on the basis of a “social construct” is adequate to terminate any further discussion with him.  He is an inhuman monster and should be treated accordingly.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:59 | #

GW @ 30

When filling in my 2011 census I thought why am I doing this?  What’s the point?  Knowing full well 100,000’s would not complete or return their forms.  It would be the same people who never get their car MOT’d or insured, or taxed or anything else they didn’t feel like doing.

How much tax revenue is lost in this way?

The shifting sands of liberal relativism in tandem with non discrimination is taking a terrible toll on our once functioning nation.  The 68’ers who are now in charge are putting their theorise to the test.  Is it deliberately to cause chaos or is it unintended liberal consequences forever coming to the surface?  I guess we will never know, as they are wedded to the system and there’s no reverse gear.

I suspect the principle method of tally of numbers entering into the system is by way of insurance numbers issued, which would include EU workers and others, (majority third world) who claim all the goodies of the welfare state, all of which, as you say, leaves goodness knows how many illegals (ouch!) undocumented migrants lost in the system.

This chaos can only get worse, houses are not being built in anywhere near sufficient numbers, infrastructure and social/facilities also.  Our population must be increasing at the rate of a million a year, mostly due to net immigration and new foreign births.  Yet no-one in authority seems concerned in the least, it’s as though these people will somehow will be immune from the chaos of it all.  Haven’t our leaders any imagination?  They use the same roads, the same rail facilities, drink the same water, dispose of the same waste, use the same shopping malls and supermarkets.  Even if they live in their castles they’ve got to come out sometime.

As things stand, with half million a year immigration net intake plus immigrant related birth rate increase I would guess we will reach parity by about 2040.

What a shocking admission that nobody knows how many people are living here.

We here in England we are living in insane times, they rabbit on endlessly about creating new jobs, conveniently forgetting our population is increasing exponentially, it must be something in the water.  They are sexualising children and yet are nonplussed when paedophilia rears its ugly head,  they are equally baffled when sex education produces more single mothers.  They introduce open all hours drinking and wring their hands when our town centres are reeling with drunken teenagers.

How much of this is intentional and how much is just plain stupid liberal madness?  And yet the same phantasmagorical mix made the Olympic Games a stunning success. (So it is claimed)

Only this last week I went to a funeral.  My grandson and me were late on the day and entered church just as the cortège was arriving.  Parked vehicles were everywhere, the church was packed but we found seats on the very last row.  My mind wandered as I sat and looked around this ancient village church where generations of villagers had worshipped, been christened, got married and lastly laid to rest.

Hundreds of years of history witnessed within these walls, and we attending were all part of it.

Most of us attending must have been of a similar generation to the deceased, I could see a sea of grey hair and thinning pates whichever way I looked.  My grandson sat beside me, I wondered what what he was thinking as the eulogy was being read, I don’t suppose it meant much to him, but to we others, we could all relate to the story being delivered from the man at the front dressed in flowing white.

I couldn’t help thinking that for most of us attending our time too was fast approaching, these people were my generation and when we have all gone England will feel its loss.  This generation is probably the last generation of a remembered old England.  I couldn’t help thinking our elites know this and when we’re out of the way gone, their job will be that much easier.       

At the bottom of our garden as a child, over the fence this is the England I remember.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyzAIkMwrg

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:22 | #

Bill@33

Wonderfully bittersweet comment, and a lovely video at the end. I watched the whole thing. One can’t help contrasting the mess of today with the stolid, rural order of yesteryear. I don’t think all the blame for the decline rests with the nonwhite criminals and colonizers, however. It was the global phenomenon called The Sixties which really unleashed the tide of general degradation, which cost our nations their confidence, which in turn paved the way for the opening of borders.

But one thing is certain: to the extent possible, those who foisted the aliens upon us betrayed our lands, and must be appropriately punished.

Posted by antifascist on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:32 | #

@GW

1.We are completely aware that this is what is going on with you.  As Silver kindly explains, you are struggling to resolve a crisis of identity in your own heart.  You are labouring under one Jewish ideological yoke (“Marxist boilerplate”) for reasons of your own personal salvation from another (Hirschfeldian racism) - a salvation which is had by doing the Jewish work of killing ethnic awareness and self-love in the European and, ultimately, robbing Europeans of ethnicity.

2.Fundamentally, you are killing our people.  They are defending them.  They are a mite angry with you, and they are right to be so, both for reasons of the human heart, ie, love and loyalty, and for reasons of principle.  The cause of life is, after all, the greatest of all causes by degrees of magnitude.  Indeed, to struggle for life is the only human right in Nature.  All other rights are contingent.

3.Would you have the tens of thousands of white women raped by blacks throw themselves into a politics of destruction of the African race?  By your reasoning they should all do so.

4.Your reasoning is flawed.  Here is the question for you: How can my twenty year old daughter, who is a beautiful and intelligent, wilful white girl, be to blame for your hurt, and why should she pay the price of losing her people for it?

5.Just one quick criticism of your ideology.  On the much over-worked social construct, the mind does not construct a false reality but a functionally true one.  Otherwise life choices would be entirely a matter of serendipity, and selection for fitness could not prevail.  Without fitness there can be no evolutionary process, and no life more complex than a simple cell.

Okay, I will address the main contents of your comment in 5 parts. Mr.Guessed Worker.
<u>
The main thesis of Professor Cornel West,  is very relevant to part 1. of your argument, and I agree with him entirely.</u>

http://race.eserver.org/toward-a-theory-of-racism.html

TOWARD A SOCIALIST THEORY OF RACISM
by Cornel West

The psychosexual racist logic arises from the phallic obsessions, Oedipal projections, and anal-sadistic orientations in European cultures which endow non-European (especially African) men and women with sexual prowess; view nonEuropeans as either cruel revengeful fathers, frivolous carefree children, or passive long-suffering mothers; and identify non-Europeans (especially black people) with dirt, odious smell, and feces. In short, non-Europeans are associated with acts of bodily defecation, violation, and subordination. Within this logic, non-Europeans are walking abstractions, inanimate objects, or invisible creatures. Within all three white supremacist logics—which operate simultaneously and affect the perceptions of both Europeans and non—Europeans—black, brown, yellow, and red peoples personify Otherness and embody alien Difference.

The aim of this first step is to show how these white supremacist logics are embedded in philosophies of identity that suppress difference, diversity and heterogeneity. Since such discourses impede the realization of the democratic socialist ideals of genuine individuality and radical democracy, they must be criticized and opposed. But critique and opposition should be based on an understanding of the development and internal workings of these discourses—how they dominate the intellectual life of the modern West and thereby limit the chances for less racist, less ethnocentric discourses to flourish.

The second step—microinstitutional or localized analysis—examines the operation of white supremacist logics within the everyday lives of people in particular historical contexts. In the case of Afro-Americans, this analysis would include the ways in which “colored,” “Negro,” and “black” identities were created against a background of both fear and terror and a persistent history of resistance that gave rise to open rebellion in the 1960s. Such an analysis must include the extraordinary and equivocal role of evangelical Protestant Christianity (which both promoted and helped contain black resistance) and the blend of African and U. S. southern AngloSaxon Protestants and French Catholics from which emerged distinctive Afro-American cultural styles, language, and aesthetic values.

The objective of this second step is to show how the various white supremacist discourses shape non-European self-identities, influence psychosexual sensibilities, and help set the context for oppositional (but also co-optable) nonEuropean cultural manners and mores. This analysis also reveals how the oppression and cultural domination of Native Americans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other colonized people differ significantly (while sharing many common features) from that of Afro-Americans. Analyses of internal colonialism, national oppression, and cultural imperialism have particular significance in explaining the territorial displacement and domination that confront these peoples.

The third step—macrostructural analysis—discloses the role and function of class exploitation and political repression and how racist practices buttress them. This step resembles traditional Marxist theories of racism, which focus primarily on institutions of economic production and secondarily on the state and public and private bureaucracies. But the nature of this focus is modified in that economic production is no longer viewed as the sole or major source of racist practices. Rather it is seen as a crucial source among others. To put it somewhat crudely, the capitalist mode of production constitutes just one of the significant structural constraints determining what forms racism takes in a particular historical period. Other key structural constraints include the state, bureaucratic modes of control, and the cultural practices of ordinary people. The specific forms that racism takes depend on choices people make within these structural constraints. In this regard, history is neither deterministic nor arbitrary; rather it is an open-ended sequence of (progressive or regressive) structured social practices over time and space. Thus the third analytical step, while preserving important structural features of Marxism such as the complex interaction of the economic, political, cultural, and ideological spheres of life, does not privilege a priori the economic sphere as a means of explaining other spheres of human experience. But this viewpoint still affirms that class exploitation and state repression do take place, especially in the lives of non-Europeans in modern capitalist societies.

2. I sir, am not physically killing anyone you try to define as “white”, or anyone who belongs to one of the 87 different European ethnic groups.  Slavoj Zizek the Slovenian Philosopher said it best, love is Evil, you cannot hate something, without loving someone else, I am indifferent towards most people. 
<u>Zizek
” I was always disgusted with this notion of ‘I love the world,’ ‘universal love’ – I don’t like the world. Basically, I’m somewhere in between ‘I hate the world’ or ‘I’m indifferent towards it.’ But the whole of reality, it’s just it: it’s stupid. It is out there. I don’t care about it.

Love, for me, is an extremely violent act. Love is not ‘I love you all’ Love means I pick out something…. Even if this something is just a small detail, a fragile individual person, I say ‘I love you more than anything else.’ In this quite formal sense, love is evil.”
</u>

3. Women have traditionally been oppressed in Western Civilization, for instance not being allowed to vote, being kept out of universities/ colleges, having no option of contraception, or abortion, if impregnated by a rapist, or lover, centuries ago. I dislike the sexual oppression of women, in the forms of rape, and physical abuse, by any member of the human race, regardless of skin color, religion or gender.
Do not assume that I am cheering while stupid black men, or stupid arab men, assault and harass european women, I dislike their stupidity as much as I dislike the stupidity of a european man who also assaults women. 

4. Assuming your 20 year old daughter, is from Britain, it is harmful morally and ethically to call her “white” or tell her to self-identify as “white” instead of self-identifying as a British women. I have no grudge against your daughter, as long as she does not racially vilify people who by accident of birth, just so happen to be born with a different skin color, and a similar level of intelligence, assuming you have not taught her to feel hatred of non-eruopean people. 

5. I do not doubt that living organisms, have to adapt to their environment and must deal with the laws of natural selection.
If the traits that give individuals a reproductive advantage are also heritable, that is, passed from parent to child, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next generation. This is known as differential reproduction. Even if the reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any heritable advantage will become dominant in the population. In this way the natural environment of an organism “selects” for traits that confer a reproductive advantage, causing gradual changes or evolution of life. This effect was first described and named by Charles Darwin.
However, this does not mean that all people should be coerced to have children, by a collective of racists, or that suicide, is necessarily always undesirable for human individuals, although group suicide may indicate mental illnesses, as causal factors, for the “suicidal ideation”.

Posted by antifascist on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:17 | #

@JamesBowery “antifascist”‘s response that he would oppose the formation of a society that excluded from its territory others on the basis of a “social construct” is adequate to terminate any further discussion with him.  He is an inhuman monster and should be treated accordingly.

I do not have an argument against ethnic/tribal separation from the bureaucratic state in the USA or other places in Europe.
<u>
My arguments, are against racial collectivism, not ethnic collectivism.</u>
It seems far more inhumane for people, who are observing your political ideology, to separate/segregate yourself on a racial collectivist basis, instead of an ethnic collectivist basis.
If you wanted to separate from the USA, and form your own small state, on an ethnic basis, i.e. Scottish, Irish, Welsh, or Norwegian Americans. This would not be a concern for me, or most other marxists.
It seems almost monstrous , to build a racial collective, on the basis on skin color, what if you had a dictator for example, would wanted to ethnically cleanse the state of Montana for example, of all non “white” peoples. Our concern as marxists, is on the basis of what a theoretical “white” nation, might become, and what sort of violent genocide it may inflict on non “white” peoples.

Posted by daniels. on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:57 | #

The aim of this first step is to show how these white supremacist logics are embedded in philosophies of identity that suppress difference, diversity and heterogeneity. Since such discourses impede the realization of the democratic socialist ideals of genuine individuality and radical democracy, they must be criticized and opposed.

Then Cornhole goes on with his Frankfurt school bullocks about how to take down racism, the very discrimination that would maintain differences.

Nevertheless, he can blur this fact and the reality that Whites may genuinely, legitimately not want to live with his kind - that they may not want anything from him, let alone to exploit him. He lures in the disaffected with the magic term “psycho sexual.” Now they have the key to transcend nature’s bio-power and enter a fantasy labyrinth of utter nonsense, what must seem like an intellectual wonderland for those whose White parents were of a vulgar, pragmatist stripe.

Antifascist agrees with Cornhole.

To think such an idiot such as Cornhole has a lucrative and prestigious Ivy league post.

Blacks are not at a disadvantage in the West: they have lucrative government jobs and pensions, welfare to fund their propagation, affirmative action, academic scholarships and set asides, Jewish media to cover up their crime, Jewish academia to cover up their bio power, Jewish law to remove White men’s means of defending against it.

Nobody’s grandfather was a slave. The enslavement of nobody’s great grandfather entitles them to rape and kill today. It does not entitle them to the billions of dollars spent on them; for them to arrogate our resources, propagate and perpetrate violence against us.

White men are at the disadvantage. The powers that be have seen to it (see my other post in Worse is…what?), pandering to women’s propensity for liberalism, as it gives them an advantage in partner selection and is easily pandered to by Jews; and exacerbated farther as they tend to empower liberal men for the reason of advancing that power of selection.

Women are not at a disadvantage in the West, particularly not with its disorder and PC rule structure - at least not until the decline has gone far enough for them to be surrounded by African and Middle Eastern behavior. (By contrast, I have worked out one paradigm which should be fair to White men and women regarding their needs and aspirations).

The English and other Europeans are warranted to survive by a profound depth and distinction of evolution; with that they are warranted to live separately from others in order to maintain distinct peoples and lands; a biodiversity not possible otherwise than by separatism - an ecology which is our prerogative. We are not the imposers.

Antifa would impose that for which Antifa has no warrant - the destruction of European peoples - ignoring the clear implications that Dr. Lister had set out; and the radically reasoned litmus test provided by James Bowery.

Imposing non-Europeans upon Europeans who want to live separately is neither Antifa’s, nor anybody else’s prerogative.

I suppose it was good to take occasion to see this bit of Cornhole West - He is even more stupid than I had remembered him as being. He says he is a Deweyan pragmatist - hm. Doesn’t show here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:37 | #

Antifascist,

You are revealing yet more of the sickness of your own heart.  Don’t - don’t - give way to the inner needs which consume you.  Don’t produce anti-white racist diatribes predicated on other anti-white racist diatribes in order to do so.  Don’t label.  Don’t try to mount arguments.  I am not arguing with you.  There is no argumentational justification for your emotional condition.  There is only diagnoses, self-forgiveness, healing - or continuing in the same vein for the rest of your life.

The question, therefore, is whether you are able to see yourself as you truly are, bereft of the personal justificiations with which you suppose your extremism provides you.  We are only concerned to bring you into contact with yourself.  So, let us begin with a question:

If you could make the white race die out, would you do so, even though it would mean your death too, and the death of all those fully related to you?

Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:15 | #

Some clips that may be of interest. St Georges day parade, Brighton, England 2012. Anti-fa vs nationalists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOMpwMy0Ptg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pmvf9PAYDU&feature=related

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:44 | #

“White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice. White prejudice and Negro standards thus mutually ‘cause’ each other.”  —Gunnar Myrdal

Of course what Myrdal spews underscores the thesis or doctrine which states: All black problems are a result of white racism.

Noel Ignatiev takes that canard leap forward and proffers his prescription: Wipe out the concept of the white race and all things will become equal.

Of course the aforementioned notions only could be concocted by radical egalitarians. Hateful radical egalitarians in the case of Ignatiev. They simply will not accept or even consider any other explanation of why there is disparity of outcomes between the races. They doggedly cling to their wrongheaded conclusion that if there is an achievement gap between blacks and whites, this, ipso facto, is proof of white racism. Of course that assertion has no basis in reality. But on the other hand, they admit there are differences in a wide range of abilities (cognitive being one) within racial groups, but they vehemently reject the fact there is a significant differences between races, empirical data notwithstanding.

It seems to me that what these radical egalitarians real fear is whites will look around a see racial reality for what it is.

Ponder this for a sec: how must a black man feel or think when he looks around and sees everything (sans God’s creations) was invented by whites - more particularly white men? Too much psychological pain for most to bear? I suppose it is. So along come the radical egalitarians to fix it for them. Their fix, in part, is to simply assert there is no such thing as race. Race is nothing but a social construct. Furthermore, they say, the fact that white men invented planes, trains, and automobiles (virtually all technological advancements) was/is only made possible through the benifits derived from “white skin privilege”. Is that not hilarious convoluted logic! Even pathetic?

Of course whites’ innate creative ability had nothing to do with it. According to the egalitarians, had it not been for that nasty white racism holding the black man down, blacks would be on par with whites in all areas of modern civilization. Yes perhaps the Hutu would colonizing Mars by now if not for negative impact resulting from whites looking down on them, right?

Liberalism. A natural or man made disaster?

Posted by Bill on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:04 | #

Leon @ 34

Thank you, pleased you liked the video, (love the music) it really was like that, we used to play in those corn stooks and make a den with them.  The film in the video was produced in the year of my birth 1938.

This way of life was preserved for a further two decades due to the time warp of war.  By the mid 60’s when the swords had been turned to ploughshare it was all over, television and consumerism heralded in the new era.

Conservatism was all but dead by the end of the 50’s Sure, conservatism continued to play tag through the revolving red team/blue team door, but it all turned out to be a sham.  Maybe it always was?

You’re spot on about the 60’s as I’ve penned elsewhere, this was the decade of the beginning of instant satellite communication which changed everything, it was the decade which ended by putting man on the moon.  It sewed the seeds of world revolution which we are harvesting today.

America has certainly got a lot to answer for, both good and bad.

The world’s elites never miss a trick to hi-jack the latest technology for nefarious gain.. 

Political conservatism is dead, gone, no more, kaput.  Small ‘c’ conservatism is proving more durable, the English people will never capitulate to post modern liberalism, some will but most will not.  I’ve got to believe this to maintain my sanity.

You know, it’s very disorientating to find all one’s life has been an illusion, it’s a bit like finding out your parents are not your real parents.

Posted by antifascist on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:15 | #

@GW

If you could make the white race die out, would you do so, even though it would mean your death too, and the death of all those fully related to you?

I do not want people to be killed, I do not want to be killed, I do not want my relatives to be killed.
Therefore Why would I want to see people of the one and only human race, killed? I do not.
No one on the Marxist Left, and Antifascists, are trying to cause genocide.
The Warmongers are the Democratic Socialists, The Centrists,Libertarians, Traditional Conservatives, and Neo-Conservatives.
We have yet to see what people who espouse “nationalist” ideology would do if they gained political power in the USA, would they be warmongers?
Many people such as Jared Taylor, and Norman Lowell, would be warmongers, if they had the opportunity, based on their statements in public.

I am not a member of antifa, but I am an antifascist, and a marxist. I think antifa protests violently at times, during nationalist rallies, because they fear what you would do, to them if you ruled the government of the USA.  And I believe they harbor legitimate concerns, about what these nationalists, would do, only a fool can be narrow-minded enough to say, all marxists are bad, and all nationalists are good, or all nationalists are bad, and all marxists are good. It depends on the intelligence, of the individual and whether they personally harm other people.

Posted by antifascist on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:20 | #

@Thorn

Noel Ignatiev takes that canard leap forward and proffers his prescription: Wipe out the concept of the white race and all things will become equal.

That is not what Professor Noel Ignatiev means, and by the way he is a great man, and a true humanitarian. He proposes that when people self-identify as a member of a race instead of as a member of an ethnic group they become supremacists, and extremists, read how the Irish became white by Professor Ignatiev you won’t regret reading it.

Posted by daniels. on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:12 | #

Blacks are not at a disadvantage in the West: they have lucrative government jobs and pensions, welfare to fund their propagation, affirmative action, academic scholarships and set asides, Jewish media to cover up their crime, Jewish academia to cover up their bio power, Jewish law to remove White men’s means of defending against it.

I might add that Blacks have advocacy groups, which can have huge funding - which Whites are not allowed.

They are allowed to organize by law and to discriminate, Whites are not.

There is even an ironic sense wherein the cycles of poverty and patterns of their evolution may create a sense of having less to lose; therefore, not protecting that which is precious and laboriously earned, they may have a tactical advantage in taking the initiative.

For example, they may see the same thing that we see, that White women can be much more fine.

Many Blacks have been in The US for a long time, and with the tutoring and support of their advocacy groups, they know the ropes of America’s bureaucracy and how to play it, much better than the more recently arrived and disorganized White Americans.

Civil Individual Rights do not favor the circumspect, which is characteristic of White Patterns. The removal of discriminatory classifications to protect those circumspect patterns of Whites would leave undeveloped links in White processes susceptible. Civil Individual Rights would serve Black opportunism well, as they are a more masculine, much less sublimated, more direct, aggressive and hyper-assertive kind of people. 

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:16 | #

I do not want people to be killed, I do not want to be killed, I do not want my relatives to be killed.
Therefore Why would I want to see people of the one and only human race, killed? I do not.

Good.  Next question.

If the effect of your actions was to make the white race die out, including yourself and all those fully related to you, would you nonetheless continue them.

By the way, the human race is a species.  Races are sub-sets exhibiting a genetic distinctiveness evolved by natural selection.  Ethnicities, like mine, are sub-sets of races exhibiting a further level of shared genetic distinctiveness.  Let’s not pretend that evolution has no meaning, or that the mind is an organ of perception which cannot select for adaptive traits.

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:25 | #

That is not what Professor Noel Ignatiev means, and by the way he is a great man, and a true humanitarian. He proposes that when people self-identify as a member of a race instead of as a member of an ethnic group they become supremacists, and extremists, read how the Irish became white by Professor Ignatiev you won’t regret reading it.

When Ignatiev starts ranting against brown and or black supremacists, racists and extremists (that’s where the mother load of racism can be found), then I will not hold him in such contempt.

Why does he target only whites?

Never mind. I’ll tell you why. He is a “liberal racist”.

——-

David Horowitz once commented that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”

Note: All the aforementioned academic fields were created by Marxist intellectuals.

 

 

Posted by daniels. on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:06 | #

.....................
..and of course, you’ve got the Jewish media promulgating guilt trips, round the world about Black slavery, exploitation of Blacks to no end…one White guy does something to a Black and there is no end to stories about it….  yet nothing, nothing about the exploitation, millions of crimes and destruction that Blacks have inflicted upon Whites. All stories for the entitlement of Blacks. If Whites can make it through, they must be pigs!

Endless Jewish movies, TV and other media about Black heroism and victimization. Promotion of Black culture through music and sports.. nothing about their over population..nor the imperiled White populations.

I knew the media had gone through the roof with this movie, Paris Trout. It is a totally fictional story about a White racist man in the south who kills a Black girl, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Trout

Time to Kill is another one - didn’t happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(film)

and it doesn’t happen that Whites rape Blacks and yet, a guy I know cited this as counter evidence of White malevolence when I began citing Black rape statistics.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:15 | #

GW if you’re there.

Sleuthing as I do I came across this.  (See below)

Now you may have already seen/heard it before, if that’s the case no sweat.

I think it was before I alighted here at MR, I had occasion to email Melanie Phyllips.  It was the day after she had appeared on Newsnight or some such the previous night.

I started by saying how much I admired her spirited performance the previous evening and and how she had been outnumbered and ganged up on.  The BBC gave her a torrid time.

I went on to ask her what was happening to us here in England, and why my world had been turned upside down.  I politely gave her the full monty of how things had been turned on their head and all was chaos.  I asked her why and what was it all about.

Not expecting a reply I was surprised when a reply came. I suspect it was a standard reply to such an email, it was polite but non commital and and the questions were actually not referred to and that was that.  Looking back I suppose this was the nearest thing to a flickering moment of fame(LOL)

Anyway that was that.

A few days ago I found the above interview.  Personally I found it most intriguing and I think you will too.

I know your views, at least I think I do, so don’t go looking for your gun (messenger and all that.)

Have a look, see what you think.

http://britanniaradio.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/take-aim-melanie-phillips-by-roger.html

 

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:14 | #

Oh I feel I’m being ignored by antifascist. He hasn’t replied to me with his ‘wisdom’. What gives?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:41 | #

I mostly read that, Bill.  Mel is a Jew.  Her focus is on what is good for Jews and, especially, for Israel.  She slugs away at “the left” primarily because she perceives it to be anti-Israel.  Her solution to the demographic crisis of the English people is to press on and make it “work” better.  Moslems have to be house-trained so as not to behave in ways that rile the natives.  That, too, is good for Jews.  It’s all very predictable.

Nick Griffin is rebuilding his reputation by identifying the Zionists behind the EDL, and calling out “Tommy Robinson” to save what remains of his movement from their malign influence.

This is the fourth part of Griffin’s last broadside on that account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE_MYu-hDp0&feature=youtu.be

Here is his original expose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRRIm8hYfBo

Posted by daniels. on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:49 | #

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2413599/School-bully-in-plot-to-stab-boxer-Nigel-Benns-son.html

Something about an animal like that having a woman like this - utterly disgusting.

THE mother of Nigel Benn’s secret love child has told for the first time of her heartache as the boxing hero cruelly shuns her and their little son.

The ex-champion refused to accept paternity until after DNA tests.

And even though he provided a house for three-year-old Harley, the fighter coldly warned the boy’s mother Lisa Andrews he’ll make them homeless as soon as the child leaves school.

Benn also published a book implying Harley was the product of a one-night stand.

Now the youngster has started to ask about his father - so blonde Lisa has decided to set the record straight.

She is speaking exclusively to the Sunday People because Benn is acting as though their son doesn’t exist.

Cuddling Harley - the image of his famous father - Lisa, 31, says: “Nigel was the love of my life and there was a time when he loved me.

“I don’t want my son growing up with the world thinking he is the result of a sordid one-night stand. He was born out of love.”

Multi-millionaire Benn has seen Harley just ONCE - when he turned up for the DNA tests.

The twice-married fighter, nicknamed the Dark Destroyer, callously ended his five-year romance with Lisa after she became pregnant.

She says: “It’s easier for Nigel to pretend I never existed but it’s not fair on Harley. Nigel has behaved appallingly.”

Lisa, who works as a table dancer at a top London nightclub to help support her son, says Benn:

-SEDUCED her with constant flattery and romantic nights of passion;

-SHOWERED her with flowers and £50 notes in extravagant displays of generosity and sent her lots of affectionate letters but;

-EXPLODED in fits of jealous temper, once squeezing lemon juice into her eyes, and has now

-THREATENED her in a foul-mouthed tirade of venom after discovering she wanted to tell her story.

Benn, 36, lives in a £2 million mansion with second wife Carolyne, 29, their three-year-old twins India and Connor and his children from his first marriage, Dominic, 13, Sade, 11, and Rene, five.

Lisa says: “Nigel makes a big fuss about being a great dad, but if you love one of your kids you love them all - whatever you think of their mother.”

Benn, who earned £1 million a fight at the height of his career, has bragged of bedding thousands of women.

The former WBC super middleweight and WBO middleweight champ was still with first wife Sharron when he met Lisa in 1991. He chatted her up at a club where she was working.

Lisa says: “A few weeks later he took me for dinner and told me he and his wife were splitting up. I felt guilty because he had children but I was bowled over by him and we spent the night in a hotel.”

Lisa was soon besotted. She says: “Nigel is like a spider. He spins this huge web and you get caught up in it and can’t get free.

“He puts you on a pedestal and worships you and that’s very flattering and hard to resist.”

The mum says Benn was an incredible lover and recalls: “He saw me after getting badly hurt in a big fight.

“He couldn’t even laugh or walk properly but his injuries didn’t stop him making love. He’s amazingly strong and often we made love three or four times a night. He’s very passionate. No one has ever made me feel as good.”

After Nigel broke up with Sharron in 1993, he shared a flat with Lisa in Middleton-on-Sea, West Sussex. She soon saw Benn’s more sinister side.

She says: “I was in a restaurant with girlfriends when he turned up with a huge bouquet. He had clipped £50 notes around the flowers. There was £1,000.

“But when he found we’d been to see the Dreamboys male strippers group he went mad. He picked up a lemon and squeezed the juice into my eyes.

“I was blinded and it really hurt. I ran out of the restaurant. Afterwards he was full of apologies and in tears.

“Another time he ripped my bracelet and watch off my wrist during a row. He lost his temper over the slightest thing. If I spent more than two minutes in the toilets at a nightclub he accused me of stopping to flirt with some guy.” Meanwhile Benn was two-timing Lisa with travel agent Carolyne Jackson, 20, who became his second wife.

Benn moved in with Carolyne after Lisa found out about his cheating.

Lisa says: “I was devastated. He told me he loved me and wanted to have children with me then betrayed me.”

Months later Benn called to say things were not going well with Carolyne. Lisa started seeing him again and in December 1995 found she was pregnant. She says: “When I phoned to tell him he went quiet before saying, ‘It will be a beautiful baby’. I said, ‘You’re not going to speak to me again, are you?’ He just said ‘no’ and put the phone down.”

Two months later he proposed to Carolyne in the ring after losing his title. His son Harley Benn Andrews was born four days before Carolyne had his twins.

Benn, with a fortune put at £10 million, offered £50 a week for the baby’s upkeep.

When Lisa, struggling on income support, sought more, Benn insisted on the DNA tests to prove Harley was his. Lisa says: “Nigel phoned to say he wanted to be in Harley’s life but I heard no more.”

Benn is now paying monthly maintenance and has bought a £107,000 three-bedroom house for Lisa in Pagham, West Sussex.

But he insists she must move out when Harley leaves school. The house is one of 16 he owns. His own home in Beckenham, Kent, has eight bedrooms,

Benn, now a £3,000-a-night DJ, called Lisa when he found she planned to tell her story. Lisa says: “He called me a name and threatened me. I was petrified. I’m a 5ft 4in dancer and he’s this huge ex-boxer.”

Police monitor Lisa’s phone and have warned Benn to stay away. He apologised but scared Lisa has 24-hour security.

She says: “Nigel says he loves Harley but how can he when he has never even sent him a birthday card?”

Nigel’s former manager and close friend Peter Defreitas is Harley’s godfather.

He says: “Nigel has treated Lisa dreadfully. She has done nothing to deserve it.”

Lisa adds: “My son is my life now. But if Nigel wants to be Harley’s dad then he can be. He’s missing a lovely little boy.”

Posted by daniels on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:53 | #

http://britanniaradio.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/take-aim-melanie-phillips-by-roger.html

 
I listened to that too - slick, perfectly confident deception.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:56 | #

Nick Griffin, the EDL and British Nationalism.  One man’s take.

To me the two sides are similar, but the BNP is more evolved.

Right from the beginning of my involvement I have been instinctively suspicious of Griffin’s BNP centralising strategy of anti-Islam.  It all smacks too much of the anti jihad sites we see. 

Now combine anti jihad with the communitarian route.  Isn’t that Lee Barnes’s idea?

What is the best strategy?  With still no access to a wider audience, (media) the game is, and always has been to raise public awareness among a sleepwalking populace.  An articulate think on your feet spokesman is a vital requirement.  Farage is such a guy. 

I caught a snatch of conversation on the BBC recently and Nick Griffin’s name was mentioned, I don’t know in what context I couldn’t hear for background noise.  I maybe wrong but what I did hear gave me the impression that the BBC’s tone suggested they are pretty miffed at doing such a demolition job on Griffin.

I also read a critique by the UAF and their sentiments came across as being similar.  It’s almost like now they haven’t got Griffin and the BNP to savage and vilify, they might have to invent someone.

Griffin disappointed (to say the least) millions (?) of our good people, flicked’em underfoot like a spent fag end.

That was despicable! 

Now he’s making a comeback.  Some nerve!

I’ve commented before, the BNP is still a well recognised national brand, it’s their most valuable asset (all-be-it toxic as it is.)  It has lain fallow for some-time now but most British people still recognise the BNP for what it is and what it stands for, namely, an explicitly pro-British, anti-Islam, anti-immigration party organisation.  IOW’s they are the only party with such a message and in a position to harvest the discontent to come.

The time will rapidly be upon us when popular discontent erupts due to (note America’s election result*) and the only game in town will be a resurgent BNP.

Will UKIP be a challenge to Griffin with an anti EU narrative?  Tough one to call. 

Will Tommy Robinson’s EDL evolve in time into a going political concern to make a difference?  The EDL at the time of writing is in crisis with its leader being held in police custody until Christmas 2012.  (As reported on the Internet) and that’s about as far as I (or anyone?) can see.

In Britain, (maybe America too) I can see nothing but mainstream political crises stretching into the future,  I don’t think our current crop of 68’ers are sufficiently capable of managing the now inevitable accelerating decline.*  I say again, we’re all entering into uncharted water.  With an Obama victory, a surge toward the new order is a certainty.*

There’s always a danger, when the time comes, these three parties will be falling over each other to grab the spoils, it could be a bun fight.  Let’s hope not.  Sort it!

Iran still smouldering, Syria a powder keg, an economy bumbling along the bottom, who knows where it is all leading?....

Where’s that crystal ball gone?

Posted by geoffdavies on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:36 | #

This is like the North South Super Highway.

http://www.traditionalbritain.org/content/inveigled-eussr-david-hamilton

Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:10 | #

I presume that some of you have seen the following in the DT:

Clarissa Dickson Wright causes outrage after condemning Muslim Leicester as a ‘ghetto’