|
|
|
British General Election 2010 So we have arrived at the end of the campaign road. Judging from the final round of opinion polls, the Conservatives may win sufficient seats to govern with Unionist help. If so, there will be no electoral reform to genscherise British politics and install the Liberal Democrats permanently in government - or to help the minor parties achieve a presence at Westminster. For one minor party, the campaign began with the rebellion of the jilted Alby Walker in Stoke Central and progressed via the dark affair of Mark Collett’s arrest, concluding with a red-misting Bob Bailey doing a Prescott in Romford and the party’s website manager, Simon Bennett, resigning and briefly taking the site off-line. His motive may be, as he himself states on the BNP section of British Democracy Forums, “several botched attempts” by “Nick’s industry experts” to steal his “legally owned designs and work”, or it may be his exposure to prosecution over the Marmite debacle. The preponderant majority of nationalists avert their eyes from this endless train wreck. They think instead about the cause, believe in it, work for it, fund it. Most are huge and uncritical fans of Nick Griffin. But the truth is that for those who aren’t, and who put their loyalty to nation and nationalism before electoral progress, convincing members and even prospective members to withhold subscriptions and donations long enough to break the power of the Griffin clique is logistically difficult to impossible. The protesters do have a powerful case, but no power at all to influence anybody. I will simply say what I have said before. To stand any prospect of mounting a serious political challenge to the Establishment, the party has to be run by educated, intelligently radical, visionary and articulate people who look, sound and behave like national leaders. The boots and fists Nazoid skinheadery of the past had to go, and so does the current fascination with low-brow PR disasters. But movement in that direction may be impossible if, as friends and enemies of British nationalism claim, the BNP has effectively become the property of this fellow, Jim Dowson. A lot of people would like to know what the real situation is and why this man is now so powerful in the party. We all hope for the sake of our people that the results in Barking and Stoke Central surpass expectations, and produce BNP MPs. We hope the party’s performance in all the other 337 constituencies where it is putting up a candidate, and in the tranche of council elections, shows beyond any doubt that history is with us, and we are going to win. But can we, in all honesty, with a party like this? We will get the first indications of the party’s electoral progress quite quickly, because it is putting up candidates in all the seats which traditionally declare early. I’ll blog on this thread as results are announced. Comments:2
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 06 May 2010 03:21 | # I googled Simon Bennett and found this article: It was discouraging until I began reading comments and found that 90% of them supported the BNP. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 06 May 2010 08:36 | # Someone please enlighten me. What is the best outcome for nationalists? BNP breaks 10% of the popular vote, elects (how many?) MPs, while Tories gain seats, but fail to win the PM, as Lib Dems form a coalition with Labour? Cameron has the stench of a Bush, only more leftwing. I cannot help but think it would be better for British survival if he were to lose. But my knowledge of Brit politics is very limited. 4
Posted by "Heigh-Ho" says Andy Neather on Thu, 06 May 2010 08:47 | # Bob Bailey for Prime Minister! 5
Posted by Bill on Thu, 06 May 2010 08:50 | # Shhh! listen - it’s quiet - too quiet. Strange no significant traction has been gained in smearing the BNP during this election. GW is right, the rank and file PBI don’t care about any criticism, infighting or whatever as they are past caring, they see themselves as the torch bearers of something more aloof and worthy. The BNP is grinding out its destiny in spite of everything, a sort of inevitability if you like. Just think what they could achieve given a favorable headwind. Three million votes would cause a considerable stir. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 06 May 2010 08:53 | # http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/cameron-britain-labour-cuts
Who is this ass Dominic Sandbrook? He bills himself as some kind of historian, but he is clearly a fool. 7
Posted by David on Thu, 06 May 2010 09:45 | # I somehow see eye-to-eye with Fred on this .... creepy. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 10:13 | # Shhh! listen - it’s quiet - too quiet. That is true, Bill. But the difference is that under FPTP the prospect of the BNP winning seats is limited to just two still fairly long shots (both 50+ per cent Labour votes in 2005). The European Parliament election used the list system in which the simple volume of BNP votes by region determined whether they would win seats, which of course they did. Also, the party put up candidates in only 339 of the 640 seats. So the media could run a much lower-profile campaign this time round. But it has still fully met its quota in that regard. Fred, David, Well, we can put electoral considerations aside at this late stage, and begin thinking about the performance of the party, the results of the vote, and the future. The advance of the party electorally is a product of the advance of understanding among our people, and that latter advance is inevitable. The question is whether the party is sufficiently professional to meet the expectations of it ... to develop smoothly and seamlessly from its present form into a VB, for example. The answer is very likely no, the present form is constitutionally incapable of that kind of development. A further change as substantial as Nick Griffin’s turn to an electoral strategy will be needed - and NG himself has spoken of this to the media. A lot of people understand it. 9
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 06 May 2010 10:53 | #
Relatively speaking it’s been far less of a train wreck than the Labour party’s campaign - which is what matters currently and some of it is deliberate sabotage from the enemy rather than self-inflicted.
War chiefs stay war chief while they’re winning and being lucky is easily the best trait in a war chief.
Personally i think Plato was wrong. There are no philosopher-kings. There are philosophers and there are kings. There are commanders and staff officers. There are politicians and advisors. Different strokes for different folks. Apart from that though the establishment is crumbling as we speak. Firstly they can’t replace white people and keep the system running as it was. Secondly jews can’t maintain a country they have taken over as a minority stealth elite. Their strategy for success when competing against a host tribe is built on hyper-paranoia. They’re programmed to loot and flee. The Anglosphere built a gigantic global banking system. Since the end of WWII that global banking system has been gradually taken over by a tribe of people who are programmed to loot and flee. The current banking crisis is nowhere near over and is going to get a lot worse. We’re heading into a Weimar situation where the old establishment will be discredited. Lastly, our genocide is built on the ability of the enemy to keep it secret through censorship of the media. Initial BNP success has to be in working class areas because they are the people who see with their own eyes the things the media don’t report. BNP electoral success in working class areas forces a little bit of reality onto the TV screens which then hopefully will lead to middle class people realising their grand children are going to be the Boer farmers in a nightmare British future. At that point no doubt the BNP will start attracting a broader range of membership. @Leon Haller
In terms of the main parties i don’t think it makes a great deal of difference who wins as there are evenly balanced pros and cons to any scenario. What matters is BNP progress in vote share, total vote, number of councillors, possible member of parliament etc. A member of parliament would be the real shock wave but personally i’d rather see lots of councillors and a subsequent large increase in members as for me the critical thing is creating a mass membership organisation with strength in depth.
In 2005 it was 192, 000 votes and 0.7% of the total vote share so 10% is pushing it i’m afraid. Tripling it to 2.1% would be excellent progress. The BNP are starting from a very low base and nationalist parties in Austria, Denmark, Holland etc are all much further ahead. Their significance is that we need nationalist success in one of the big three - France, Germany or Britain. 10
Posted by Bill on Thu, 06 May 2010 11:20 | # Seen any green shoots lately? If, and it’s a big if, the polls are correct and the election results pan out as the polls suggest - then the rottenness of the system will be exposed. Again, if the polls are right, any combination coalition of the nation wreckers will only accelerate their intentions, thereby alerting to the country at large to their programme of evil intentions. Change you can believe in will be seen as sick joke, change you never thought possible is coming our way. Obscured by the manic media election-fest is the Greek tragedy being played out, I don’t pretend to know where all that is leading (EU collapse - NWO?) but it doesn’t look too good from here. Remember that only a few months ago our brightest and best were trumpeting Britain was well placed to ride out the economic storm. Global problems require global solutions. BTW, what’s a jobless recovery? 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 11:34 | # Wandrin, Relatively speaking it’s been far less of a train wreck than the Labour party’s campaign The Labour Party is in long-term decline, and its problems will only mount as the nation digests the years of warfare, debt, immigration, political correctness, and spin. It will elect a lightweight to succeed Brown. Its power-base in the NGOs and voluntary sector will lose funding. Its voter-base in the public sector will see the end of the fat years too. If the Liberal Democrats take the progressive baton, there will be no light at the end of Labour’s tunnel. It is still, remember, a party without a historical purpose. That chapter closed, finally, in 1989. The switch to cultural Marxism and client-group politics, which had been creeping in since Livingstone’s first adventure at the GLC, not only divorced it from its own traditional voters, but caused it to perceive those voters as “bigots” and “racists” deserving only of “treatment” by exposure to the Third World. It has tried to kill the English. I think its future is extremely uncertain. The BNP, meanwhile, presents itself as a natural replacement for the Labour Party among the WWC. It could not ask for more propitious circumstances in which to grow. It can’t fail entirely. The question is only whether it constitutes a restraint in itself on the process. 12
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 06 May 2010 12:31 | # GW, It could not ask for more propitious circumstances in which to grow. It can’t fail entirely. The question is only whether it constitutes a restraint in itself on the process. Agreed. I do see your point. My view is that BNP success will start to force media-hidden things out into the open leading to middle class people realising their long-term Boer fate and one way or another that will lead more in the direction you want. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 19:13 | # A slightly more comprehensive video of Mr Bailey’s encounter with Asian youth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0775lH2ak&feature=player_embedded 14
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 06 May 2010 20:02 | #
The details don’t matter. As long as it’s worse it’s better. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 22:23 | # Well, we are up and running. The only exit poll in the country, which will update its prediction at 11.00pm, is currently predicting:-
This would mean that Cameron would need 19 of the “others” to govern with the bare beginnings of a majority in the House. As the night progresses the results to look out for from a nationalist perspective are Barking, Dagenham, Stoke South, Stoke Central, Thurrock, Dewsbury, Rochdale ... I might have missed some. UKIP’s Nigel Farage, hospitalised today after a very dangerous flying caper, has a chance of unseating the Speaker of the House, John Bercow in Buckingham. The Greens might win their first seat through their leader, Caroline Lucas, who is fighting Brighton Pavilion. Ed Balls, the Education Secretary, is top of the list of Labour ministers who could find themselves in trouble. His seat is Normanton. 16
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 06 May 2010 22:38 | # Now that the polls have closed, I feel free to note that I am in almost total agreement with the remarks in the OP. No matter what the outcome today the time has clearly come for Nick Griffin to hand over the reins to someone else who can guide the party to its next stage of development. In the past Nick himself has acknowledged that such a time would come at some point, and this would seem to be it. I don’t see any need for a palace coup to accomplish the necessary change, Nick should bow out gracefully and assume a senior role in the policy directive and strategic planning function, perhaps also playing a leading role in cadre development. His replacement ought to be someone with no neo-fascist baggage and who is capable of attracting support from leading intellectuals on the nationalist patriotic right. 17
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 06 May 2010 22:42 | # Anyone wishing to follow the action in real-time, including glimpses of the BBC’s legendary ‘Swingometer’ can tune in here: 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 22:47 | # Thanks Dan, I’m glad you think as you do. The first constituency to announce is likely to be Houghton and Sunderland South, where the sitting Labour MP, Chris Mullins, has retired. The BNP candidate is Karen Allen. In 2005 the part polled 3.8%. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 22:58 | # Very comfortable Labour victory as expected, but turnout was only 55%. Swing to the Tories a big 8.4%. Karen won 1961 votes, 5.2%. UKIP won 1022 votes. Boundary changes make a direct comparison with 2005 difficult. But 5% is OK in the still very white and traditionally Labour-voting North-East. 20
Posted by Bill on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:11 | # It seems that what this election has been all about is the crowning moment of Cultural Marxism in Britain. The triumph of the media faction cementing the high point of the Gramscian long march. IOW’s the triumph of consolidation of Cultural Marxism. In reality the seeds of Cultural Marxism’s victory in Britain were sown back in ‘97 with the arrival of the new Labour project. Thanks Tony, Thanks Gordon. The long march over the last 50 years has come to fruition, Clegg, Cameron and Brown are the result and in concert will continue to implement the race replacement programme with vigour. You can’t blame the public, they didn’t stand a chance. Turning the British way of life on its head has been an awsome achievement, the flooding of our country with millions of alien newcomers and demanding subservience from the majority culture has been mind blowing to witness. However, the muddied waters are clearing, the die is cast. Communism or Nationalism? 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:14 | # Next result expected is Washington and Sunderland South. Safe Labour seat again. Ian McDonald standing for the BNP. In 2005 the party secured 3.9%. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:29 | # Ian polled 1913 votes, 5.1%. Big win for Labour on a 54% turnout, but a whacking 11% Tory swing. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:37 | # Sunderland Central likely to be next. Again, a safe Labour seat. John McCaffrey standing for the BNP, hoping to increase the 2005 performance of 2.3%, but the seat is so re-engineered it is basically a new seat. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:44 | # Similar to the last two Sunderlands. Easy Labour win but an 8.2% swing to the Tories. John managed 1913 votes, 4.5% of the vote. These are white areas, and not strong for the BNP. But it does look likely that the larger than anticipated swing to the Tories might have had a negative impact. UKIP polled 1094 votes, which is about the same as in the other two seats. Frankly, Dr Mark Deavin’s old policy of killing that party looks to be a pretty good idea right now. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 00:09 | # From the BBC:
So Labour makes this statement, meaning that the 600 people whose names are not on the electoral register are, being new, also overwhelmingly Labour-voting immigrants. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 00:51 | # Margaret Hodge thinks she has won a moral victory for 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 01:11 | # Amanda Foster, standing in Darlington - a safe Labour seat - as the first BNP candidate to do so, won just 2.9% of the vote. Likewise Michael Carey in Kingswood - 2.7% from a standing start. Likewise David Scott in Filton: 2.7% from a standing start. Ralph Musgrave in Durham: 2.5% from a standing start, Michael Ferguson in Middlebrough: 5.8% from 2.5% in 2005. Phil Spencer in Telford: 3.7% from a standing start, but beaten by UKIP at 5.9% in its second contest in the town. Mark Tolman in Bedfordshire South West: 3.4% from a standing start. Steve McCole in Broxbourne: 4.7%, up from 2.2% in 2005. Jim Taylor in Clacton, 4.6% up from 1% or so in 2005. Kevin Stafford in Loughborough, 3.9% from a standing start. Ian Sutton in Barnsley Central: 8.9% from 4.9% in 2005. My gut feeling is that this, together with the other results so far, represents about half of the vote share that would indicate strong and satisfactory growth in party support, notwithstanding the fact that GEs always squeeze minor parties. We need to see some of the higher profile BNP seats declaring. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 01:51 | # Peter Kellner, the pundit, observes that areas with a large ethnic minority vote are showing smaller swings to the Conservatives. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 02:32 | # It is interesting that in Nuneaton, where the party has put in some solid performances at council level, the candidate Martyn Findley has come in with a 6.3% from a standing start. That is much more like it, and points up the value of putting down electoral roots locally. More the norm, though, is the kind of result achieved by Andrew Taylor in Halton, 3.8% from a standing start. Bob Brindley did above average in Nottingham North, recording a 5.7% of the vote from a standing start. Martin Wingfield, senior party officer, recorded 3.8% in Workington from a standing start. On the Green Arrow blog someone from Aberavon was talking about motorists tooting their horns at the BNP people, as if the whole world was behind them. Kevin Edwards achieved a 4.1% vote from a standing start. In Barnsley East, Colin Porter has managed an 8.6% vote from a standing start. That is good. Will Blair in Rother Valley managed 7.7%, but that was only a 2.8% rise from the 2005 vote. Sharon Wilkinson’s 9.0% vote in Burnley is actually 1.3% down on 2005. Burnley suffered riots in 2001 and a huge effort has been mounted by the Establishment to pour oil on troubled waters. It has worked, though it must be a highly artificial situation. Martin Radford achieves a 6% vote in Bolsover from a standing start. Pity there haven’t been a lot more like that. 30
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 02:56 | # Replacing Griffin risks a coup. Change doesn’t always bring improvement. I like Andrew Brons regardless - would he be a contender for leader were Griffin to step down? Or just whom is it folks like so much over Griffin? 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 03:01 | # From the BBC:
32
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 07 May 2010 03:19 | # The BBC earlier reported that the BNP results were up 2% on a ‘same seat’ basis from 2005. Both the BNP and UKIP are up from last time, but the Greens are down. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 03:50 | # I said earlier that Mrs Duffy’s Rochdale was a target for the BNP. Not so. But the National Front pushed UKIP into fifth with a 4.9% share of the vote. 34
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 04:00 | # Nick Griffin said to be coming in third in Barking on a turnout described as very high. Earlier this evening Simon Darby uploaded a very brief post to his blog saying only:
First of the Stoke results: Melanie Baddeley achieved an 8.0% vote share, up 2.0% since 2005. 35
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 07 May 2010 07:49 | # Nick Griffin third in Barking and Dagenham with 14.6% Simon Darby fourth in Stoke central with 7.7% Bob Bailey fourth in Romford with 5.2% Michael Barnbrook third in Dagenham and Rainham with 11.2% Nationally the BNP has increased it vote by almost three times compared to 2005. Under a continental-style PR system they would have achieved 12-13 seats. 36
Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 07 May 2010 08:08 | # Well that’s it then - the English race is fucked and headed for inevitable decline, replacement and extinction. 38
Posted by Bill on Fri, 07 May 2010 09:12 | # Above link worked ok but you have find the montage of happy faces at Bolton East. This election has been a very postmodern affair with a very postmodern outcome, orchestrated from start to finish by a very postmodern media. By intention, confusion and chaos is at the very heart of the postmodern zeitgeist - hence the spectacle of an orgasmic media in full cry. There is no such thing as absolutes truth, no such thing as morality, nothing is anchored, nothing is securely moored in our lives. Apparently it’s all a construct of human history. It is all ephemeral, shimmering between clouds of confusion. Smoke and mirrors form a major part in our everyday lives, especially in the political. We did the right thing is the current mantra. This ‘I agree with Nick’ farce was latched onto by the media and they ran away with it, bamboozling the electorate into a crazy surge for Nick Clegg and change you can believe in. How are you feeling this morning Nick? Bit deflated I should think. Now where have I seen AL this before? Our American contributors will remind us, who was it who ran and romped away with a whole campaign on ‘yes we can’. Oh I do feel for our people, they don’t stand a chance against this postmodern kaleidoscope. This post election morning finds them waking up in Alice and Wonderland, Toto - we don’t live in Kansas anymore!. (Sorry- couldn’t resist it. Ok I know it was the Wizard of OZ) Ah well, early days. Looks as though the ethnic vote ensured both Nick and Simon were given short thrift as have many more. The inquest begins. When I visited the polling booth yesterday, I couldn’t help noticing that most were mature sophisticated knowing women, but there was also a sprinkling of (females) of all ages and types. I couldn’t help but hear Fred’s voice, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the place. I saw on a TV news clip where a woman unashamedly declared she was voting for Nick Clegg because she liked the shape of his ears. Says it all! 39
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:04 | # Can we now definitively state that Britain is a leftist nation? Correct me if I err, but such reports as I have seen suggest that more than half of voters voted for leftist parties. I’m speaking in terms of seats won. In terms of the popular vote, it seems that about 2/3 of Brits are leftists, 1/3 moderate conservatives, with a tiny number of authentic national patriots. If BNP and the Tories generally couldn’t do better this time, what hope is there for your nation? This is the true final victory of the Left. Three hundred years ago, Britain was a deeply rightist nation (by contemporary standards). Your (indeed, the West’s) entire ideological history, seen from a broad perspective, has consisted of an ever enlarged franchise, an ever enlarged state, and ever greater egalitarianism, first applied between Britons, now extended to aliens from across the whole planet. Occidental/racial patriots are never going to win anywhere. As I have said other times, our only hope is conquest. We must have a sovereign nation/jurisdiction under our majority. All WNs from across the Earth must emigrate to one smallish, linguistically easy, not yet too diverse, country (eg, Uruguay, or Australia, even just Tasmania), and take it over electorally. That will be the last outpost of the West. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:35 | # Having hit the sack at 4.10am GMT, I’ve climbed out again at 9.30am with a sense of some deflation. Among the other minor party news, the highlight is that Caroline Lucas MEP, leader of the Greens, increased her vote by 9.3% to take Brighton Pavilion from Labour with 31.3%. So, it can be done with enough long-term work. On the other hand Esther Rantzen, sainted media lady, bombed in Luton South with 4.4% (Tony Blakey of the BNP was just behind with 3.1%). Esther’s failure shows that the expenses scandal had no electoral legs. Likewise in Rochdale, where Bigotgate did not effect the Labour Party which saw its 2005 vote drop just 4.5% (despite the fact that the candidate had the suspiciously east European name of Simon Danczuk). Former BNP member and leadership candidate Chris Jackson polled OK for the NF at the first attempt in the town, however. In Luton North, where the EDL was born, the BNP candidate finished below the UKIP candidate. I don’t have the total number of candidates that UKIP put up, but it looks to have been pretty much every seat in England and Wales and most in Scotland. They will record not too far short of 900,000 votes in total. In most of the seats where they ran against the BNP they finished behind them. Another very large drop from the Europeans confirms that UKIP is a home for protest votes against Brussels, and nothing else. That is not going to change. It is reasonable to assume that the performance of both UKIP and the BNP last June was basically down to popular contempt for the EU. Elsewhere, Ed Balls hangs on in Normanton with a majority of 100. Former Home Secretaries Charles Clarke and Jacqui Smith lose their seats. We all wait to see whether Gordon Brown will stay (he can’t), whether Labour will govern with Libdem support (they will probably try), or whether David Cameron’s shaky claim to a moral victory will force him through the gap to the winning post. And the BNP? It has to learn the lesson that there are no easy prizes in politics. There are no prizes at all for low-brow behaviour. It must attract the educated middle-class. It must shape up its policies, especially on the economy, and present itself as a genuine force. There is not another way. 41
Posted by CS on Fri, 07 May 2010 11:26 | # I agree with Leon Haller that taking over one small country electorally by having WN from all countries go there would be a worthwhile project. Otherwise we will have to bank on a total economic collapse that will finally make the idiot majority see things our way. 42
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 12:07 | # Five of the key BNP results: Barking Dagenham and Rainham Stoke Central Alby Walker picked up 295 votes. Stoke South Thurrock Jackie Doyle-Price, Con: 16,869, 36.8% of the vote (+3.6) 43
Posted by Englander on Fri, 07 May 2010 13:45 | # It does baffle me why the BNP can’t draw more votes from the working class. These are a people for whom the BNP’s lack of intellectualism wouldn’t be a turn off, and who aren’t as in thrall to PC as the middle class and who are often as rough around the edges as the party itself. Why are they still voting Labour? The majority of the country is against immigration and yet the Prime Minister can call them all bigots (which is essentially what Gordon Brown did) with little in the way of punishment. If there’s a silver lining here then perhaps it will be in the re-thinking of the party’s approach which must be the result of all this. 44
Posted by Bill on Fri, 07 May 2010 14:26 | # Whole swathes of some regions now owe their economy to the government in the shape of accommodating public sector workers, of which nearly a million have been added by Gordon Brown. IOW’s, these people have a decided vested interest in a continued Labour government. Also consider the multicultural vote which tops up or surpasses the deserting numbers of former traditional Labour voters. The multicultural vote must now have reached the point where it can tip the scales in many constituencies. IOW’s, the new Labour policy of importing ready made Labour voters is already paying dividends. With the continued inexorable demographic trend to continue indefinitely, you can guess the end game. The media’s chattering class seem scared this morning that there is a crisis of democracy - all brought about by them of course. Maybe it’s just more scaremongering. Some-one earlier commented about whites retreating to a remaining white enclave. I’ve always thought Russia would be a remaining bastion of whiteness. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 15:37 | # Probably the last two BNP results, the first a decent one:- Amber Valley in Derbyshire, a big constituency where Michael Clarke won 3195 votes to increase the share over 2005 by 4.1% to 7.0%. ... the second perhaps the worst of the day:- In Dudley North Ken Griffith’s vote slumped from 10.9% in 2005 to 4.9% yesterday (UKIP’ vote rose by 3.9%). The one positive for nationalism to take from this election is the possible move to a more representative electoral system together with a loosening up of party loyalties. Something to work on going forward. 46
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 15:39 | # Leon Haller, or move to a small community in the US and dominate the politics there locally, waiting for the US itself to collapse. Thing is, once there’s an entity like that, it can then inspire others. It would require a strong foundation though - a radical, explicit foundation that would frighten the Hollow Men at its terrifying content. Something so logical and clear as race is too much for a proper American to stomach. He prefers drunken mystical BS. The 14 words are a start. I’ll note though: the religious element would need to be ironed out too. You can’t have Christians declaring pagans Satanic and a resulting holy war ensuing. Whatever groups settle there, even if they attend different religious services, they must be in harmony with regard to the state. 47
Posted by Matra on Fri, 07 May 2010 15:43 | # It does baffle me why the BNP can’t draw more votes from the working class. These are a people for whom the BNP’s lack of intellectualism wouldn’t be a turn off, and who aren’t as in thrall to PC as the middle class and who are often as rough around the edges as the party itself. Why are they still voting Labour? A couple of weeks ago I asked this of a couple of distant relatives from a working class area in Lancashire. They hate the EU, immigration, and lots of other things the main parties stand for but they still hate the middle class, the Tories, the capitalists, etc, much more. These guys are over 50 and I’m afraid their worldview was formed decades ago and they will never reconsider as, like most people, they are not the reflective sort. To them BNP means Nazis and death camps and besides, they are not respectable or fashionable. Even working class people care about such things. The only Anglo-Saxon groups that vote overwhelmingly and unashamedly for their own kind are the whites of a few areas in the Deep South and Ulster Protestants. So perhaps just not enough English are in daily conflict with foreigners for them to prioritise ethnicity, race, or nationalism over other issues. 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 15:54 | # Rounding things up, then, the BNP picked up a total of 562,977 votes in 339 contests, made up as follows: England: 530,979 To put that in perspective, under the current Labour vote distribution, and in the FPTP system, the party would need to increase that performance about seventeen-fold to win an outright majority. We have the council results to come. The hope must be that the voters discriminated between supporting the BNP in the Westminster election and supporting them locally, because without such a discrimination there will lost seats in the council chambers, I suspect. 49
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 15:58 | # Are Ulster Protestants considered Anglo-Saxon? I’d thought the ethnicity there was more from Scotland and of course Ireland. Perhaps I’m more English than I’d thought… 50
Posted by danielj on Fri, 07 May 2010 16:05 | # I’ll note though: the religious element would need to be ironed out too. You can’t have Christians declaring pagans Satanic and a resulting holy war ensuing. Whatever groups settle there, even if they attend different religious services, they must be in harmony with regard to the state. So, if we believe our Christianity, we can only be half-hearted about it then? Can’t base social policy on it? If we water down our belief in our God to make peace with men then we certainly can’t be expected not to water down our beliefs about the race to make peace with the same men. The only solution here is free and assortive association. I intend to impose a theocratic government should I ever wear the ring. All men do. Theocracy is an inescapable concept. Neutrality is an impossibility. Should you make common cause with Pagans they will eventually turn on you the same way that a nigger would after you finish the heist. 51
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 07 May 2010 16:30 | # To place the essential inequity of the FPTP system into perspective the 560,000 people who voted for the BNP are unrepresented in Parliament, while the 491,000 who voted SNP have 6 MPs. Similarly, the 165,000 Plaid Cymru voters have three and the 172,000 who voted Sinn Fein have five. Northern Ireland as a whole has fewer voters in total that the BNP and yet has 17 MPs in the Westminster parliament. It’s hard to imagine a better case for both PR and an English Parliament. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 16:38 | # Daniel, So, if we believe our Christianity, we can only be half-hearted about it then? Can’t base social policy on it? No, belief is not a basis for social policy except insomuch as it commends adaptive behaviours. But then, it is the adaptivity we enshrine. Belief can also commend maladaptive behaviour, such as universalism, and that cannot be legally enshrined simply because it is a faith object. If we water down our belief in our God to make peace with men then we certainly can’t be expected not to water down our beliefs about the race to make peace with the same men. Why not? Would you kill your own infant if you were told your religion required it? No, of course not. Kinship, not faith, is the highest value even for the faithful (except for psychopathically faithful people, of course). Theocracy is an inescapable concept. No, it isn’t. The feeling for gods is an emotional construct - actually a nexus of related, non-instinctual (ie, non-hormonally-triggered) emotions which are themselves the products of, yes, evolution. Even so, these emotions are not “inescapable” unless the genes for that “inescapability” are expressed. There are, believe it or not, millions of people for whom they are not expressed. I am one of those, and so are all my relatives known to me. People like us orient ourselves to the questions of being and time in a different way to the faithful. We cannot process theology, and we cannot live with theocracy. Neutrality is an impossibility. Not entirely. But the enemy is twofold: 1. The religious man who is driven to coerce others into faith. 2. The faithful man whose expression is other than religious - usually political, therefore - and who, if anything, is even more more determined to coerce his particular belief-system upon the rest of the world. Faith is an explosive quantity. It needs its intended expression, but that expression itself needs confinement to the private sphere. 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 16:41 | # Dan, It’s hard to imagine a better case for both PR and an English Parliament. I suspect that the Tories and Liberals will contrive something that denies “racists” and “bigots” their representation as far as it can possibly be done. That will be a shared priority. 54
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 07 May 2010 16:45 | # Yes GW, I’m sure you’re correct. Probably something along the lines of the 5% rule that applies in Germany. 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 16:58 | # BNP Council seats falling fast:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/council/html/region_99999.stm Probably inevitable given the convergence of the GE and the council elections. But the Labour Party picking up hundreds of seats? 56
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 07 May 2010 17:07 | # I voted UKIP, there was no BNP candidate. UKIP candidate was later seen at the count wearing a seedy grey sweatshirt tucked into his trousers. A fundamentally unserious person. (The other candidates somehow remembered to wear suits) 57
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 17:23 | # danielj, In other words pagans and Christians would likely need their own states… I apologise for painting the Christian as the bad guy, but if I knew much about paganism I’d say if it’d be apt to attack the Christian. I do know Christianity very much does not like false idols. Regardless of who comes out looking good or bad, the religious element would have to be harmonised for a competent state. Likely if we tried 10 states, 9 of them would fail. This is not something just anyone can do. 58
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 17:36 | # Daniel, I’m in agreement with your post… The religious element cannot be muddled. Whatever foundation is put down for the state, it must be harmonised. I don’t like taking the position that only a Christian state has ever worked because we see foreign states working and we have records of past states working. A pagan or atheist or whatever state might be unpleasant, but it wouldn’t inherently be incompetent. The Romans and Greeks both established states. Wisdom can be learned from them. Not every white is a Christian. I’m of the opinion that pagans would naturally convert to Christianity over time (and that witches and sorcerers wouldn’t arise anew…). It’s better that the religious element not be ignored though, which was the motivation for my post. Otherwise, a state’s future is doomed from birth. - Anyway, I tire of my having to defend myself from all of these positions I clearly don’t take. If my little post incites another SWB article or whatnot, so be it lol. They clearly don’t agree with my positions on some things. 59
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 17:50 | # Daniel, as you can see under GW’s entity, Christians would be in conflict. Hence my insistence that a state be brought into harmony… “Theocracy is an inescapable concept.” Amen. 60
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 07 May 2010 17:57 | # In a bit of good news from Russia, Medvedev has started to openly criticize Stalin’s USSR on nationalist grounds. I’ll include just a few of what I consider to be the most important quotes:
61
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Fri, 07 May 2010 18:38 | # In fact it was a 1997 Labour manifesto promise to offer a referendum on electoral reform - following the recommendations of the Jenkins commission - and a system of proportional representation. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 19:16 | # Frank, Christians would be in conflict. Only if their beliefs ran away into anti-life issues, such as out-group universalism. After all that Europe’s children have been through since the French Revolution surely we can agree that teleologies, godly or otherwise, cannot be the foundation of our political organisation. 63
Posted by Englander on Fri, 07 May 2010 19:23 | # Can someone explain “Cowdenbeast” for the uninformed? 64
Posted by BGD on Fri, 07 May 2010 19:44 | # My two penneths FWIW.. Seems the majority of the population are firmly institutionalized in their voting preferences with a smaller group of floating voters (who only choose between A or B.) Unless there is a serious crisis affecting the economy (or food shortages etc) we know they are unlikely to be shocked out of it. You can talk to them in the pub in the weeks before and get implicit agreement on all issues close to all our hearts but alone in that wooden box with a pencil in their hand the burnt fools bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire. All I can personally think of to try and change this situation is on the one hand to find a few locations where local intelligence (or rudimentary psephology) suggest fertile ground and plough, sew, water, fertilise and grow support to the point where you win a council or an MP and thereby publicity (and notoriety). Not pour money, effort and perhaps more importantly hopes into a thinner patch running the length and breadth of the country. Obviously there will still be branches across the land but tithe them a little for their financial and man-resources for the best chance areas. Then leaflet drop, shopping centre paper sales, monthly house to house paper sales, meetings, socials etc. I would guess that many here didn’t really feel the breakthrough in their water and yet the talking up of such things causes a mini-depression afterwards that sees drop out rates and inertia and the like. On the other hand perhaps like the Mothers Cross in Nazi Germany the leadership could create a BNP membership class that incentivises bringing on board new members. 3 new members introduced = bronze, 5 members is silver, 10 members is Gold and Platinum is 20 (or something). A small, reachable starting point for everyone that gets them on the road towards the higher end point. Then those new members are brought on board and incentivised too. Each stage gets a pin awarded at branch level and gold or above gets a handshake moment with the chairman. Give life membership this way not via the tacky begging letters asking for a relatively big sum upfront that must only generate a couple of giant’s handfuls from the party faithful. And if recent gossip and ‘net backbiting is to be believed (and who knows) much of the money pouring in through these campaigns is swallowed up in “administrative costs” more severe than that of any high street charity worker. Hopefully like a dodgy pyramid scheme it might “go viral” to use current internet jargon. Once we get a council or an MP and a couple of personalities then we can work on shifting the more hardened institutionalised voter but as the talking up of the LibDems showed it’s not so easy to translate hype and interest from Mr Omnibus into hard crosses in the box. Oh and eventually have Griffin gracefully moved sideways (or kicked upstairs, if there is such a sinecure - although I fear he won’t be keen to go) and bring back as many of those as possible (of good faith) who were forced out or who flounced out over the years during the Tyndall and Griffin eras and have a headline date for taking power “Project 2020” that everyone clearly sees and works towards. Have a wise structure populated by specialists and try to avoid the gravy train mentality, the careerists and “the EU dictates that you have to give me a pension of 50k a year” blah. Efficiency, Discipline, Camaraderie. If I had the finances (which I don’t at present but hopefully in the not too too distant future)I’d also try and help fund a full blown news site like the disgraced KA Strom’s one that went down shortly after his imprisonment. A focal point for UK but also pan-European news and commentary that can command a broad readership and inculcate new folk into the broad movement and try and develop something like the Political Cesspool off the back of it. And is independent of the BNP and attracts writers across the board on the ‘right’ (a shorthand but you know what I mean). I’ll get my coat.. 65
Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 May 2010 19:57 | # GW, You’re essentially saying race would be what the state serves. And I suspect that could work somewhat. Ethics and laws would have to stem from this, and anything that threatened this value system would have to be rooted out. It would be a religion somewhat I think. You’d declare a Constitution or founding set of principles as beyond bounds of being questioned - in a sense religious. A weakness would be the justification for why people ought to serve their race I think. You’d raise them in a culture that reinforced such a set of ethics, but the ethics’ foundation would be attachment which might vary from person to person. - I’m not looking to get into a big discussion that’s over my head atm anyway. I’ll at some point submit some quotes, and folks can debate from there. When the Greeks and Romans argued for why men ought to serve the state, they’d invoke the gods. I’m doubtful a human society could function by invoking some rational system that could rationally come to different conclusions depending on what one’s attached to. Though just the same, man doesn’t live by God alone - attachments and social connections are vital as well. And… I don’t see any proof that God wants us to live such an unnatural life either. We’re to honour parents and uphold society. 66
Posted by Englander on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:00 | # What do you lot think of this? “Wait for Us to Fail, Then Vote BNP!” 67
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:05 | # All sound proposals BGD but I fear that none will be viable without a change of leadership. That is the first priority. Nick Griffin and his immediate entourage have taken the project as far as they are able and the time is ripe for a change in command. Hopefully that can be accomplished without rancour and division but the first imperative is to remove anyone with unhelpful baggage from the public view. 68
Posted by BGD on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:05 | # Just seen LJB is arguing similarly re entrenched local community campaigning on his blog: 69
Posted by BGD on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:10 | # I agree Dan but.. firstly who is there to step up to the plate (?) and secondly I sympathise on the baggage front but with a new commander in the driving seat will we be getting more of the mealy-mouthed (so-called “political ju-jitsu”) stuff “we’re not racist you are”. There’s a way to baldly state our politics is there not rather than this watered down guff. Build our strongholds with some more honest rhetoric first and then spread out. 70
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:18 | # The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s Government (as British constitutional law makes clear), represents the former mining town of Cowdenbeath, in the county of Fife, Scotland. 71
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:35 | # The BNP has lost all twelve of its councillors on Barking & Dagenham council:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/council/html/3892.stm ... and two of the seven it had on Stoke-on-Trent council:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/council/html/3765.stm The Labour Party’s differing fates at national and local level requires explanation. Anyone care to come forward with one? I don’t accept Lee Barnes’ explanation that the people somehow all reached together for the Labour security blanket because of the approaching economic storm. They did not do that at national level, where it is behaviourially appropriate. There has to be something local-specific that explains Labour’s council success. 72
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:44 | # Frank, it’s for our kids, OK? And for family, and for kin. No gods needed. 73
Posted by danielj on Fri, 07 May 2010 20:47 | # GW: Your denial of the inescapable nature of theocracy rings hollow. Theocracy is and forever remains an inescapable concept even when adorned in the robes of enlightened Deists, or the ragged and tattered garments of scientific materialists like yourself. And you, should you obtain the ring, would act no differently than the wearers of it now do. You would lay down the inviolate principle in the same fashion as the Medes and Persians. You would erect a temple, gods and idols that require the blood of blasphemers the same as the rest of us mortals would should we be empowered. You’re a mere mortal Nazi just like the rest of us, including those filthy Krauts. Frank: I hope you realize I only register you as an allow and don’t frequent the SWB website and hope I’ve never gotten you into trouble for stuff I’ve goaded you to type here or elsewhere. 75
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Fri, 07 May 2010 21:05 | # GW, 76
Posted by CS on Fri, 07 May 2010 21:37 | # About religion, if it is too divisive an issue then split up our ethnostate into a religous and non-religous version. Another tactic is to target conservatives by creating an ethnostate that is conservative as well as white. Tell them if they want to live under conservative government the they have to agree not to let in non-whites. Perhaps we could “rent” land in Russia or elsewhere where their government agrees to leave us alone on condition we offer a reasonable yearly tribute for them. 77
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 21:42 | # Andy, The problem with that theory is that the “wind-bags, school-teachers, pen-pushers, and community outreach workers” never voted for a BNP councillor in the first place. The people who did have switched back to Labour. In much of the country they appear to have done it only at the local level, since the national Labour vote reduced sharply - look at the percentages in four of the five national results detailed in my comment at 11.07am (the exception being Hodge vs Griffin). No, there is something else going on here, but I cannot for the life of me see what. 79
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 07 May 2010 22:00 | # Another is the ethnic vote. It would be interesting to learn how much of the increased turnout in B&D;was a result of that. Here btw is an extract from an email bulletin received a few minutes ago from the BNP:
The inquest has begun. 80
Posted by BGD on Fri, 07 May 2010 22:17 | # I wonder if the comments that NG chooses to conclude his missive Dan were what really motivated him in writing it (and are mirrored in the thoughts here regarding Griffin moving aside):
81
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 22:46 | # Nick Griffin has circularised an email laying the responsibility for the party’s failure primarily on a high turnout. Actually, the turnout in Barking was only 61.4%, historically low for a GE but still 13.2% up on the desperately disinteresting 2005 GE. Griffin’s explanation implies that turnouts above the derisory levels normally attending council elections, especially by-elections, will automatically result in failures. Since GEs occur every four to five years, and Europeans every five years on a fixed-term basis, and pending locals always coincide, the prospects for holding on to BNP representation at council level are, it would seem, rather uncertain. In any case, his explanation still does not tell us why the Labour share of the vote went down at the national level by 7.4% gross despite the turnout, while the BNP vote increased, where candidates were standing, by around 2.5% - yet so many locals seats have been lost. This still needs thinking through. There are probably several influences at work. One might be boundary changes in some areas, which are, supposedly, conducted by the Boundary Commission on a party-neutral basis but, you know, this is politics. Griffin also sees a new way forward for the BNP’s campaigning:-
He also acknowledges that:
Incredible. And who has presided over twenty years of stasis in that department? And why? Likewise:
At what point does the penny drop that the performance of the party is linked to the quality of its leadership? I don’t want to denigrate what Nick has achieved, which is truly remarkable. But I want the effort to secure our children’s life in this land done with vision, professional management, intelligent analysis and strategising, and adequate funding. That is a lot to ask, perhaps. But it is also the least that is necessary. 82
Posted by PF on Fri, 07 May 2010 22:47 | # danielj wrote:
Its clear you dont mean theocracy literally here, although you write as if you do (with full confidence in the formulation and without irony or whimsicality). # a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) Otherwise its impossible to understand how you apply that word to the worldviews of people who don’t believe in the divine. Perhaps you are using the theos in theocracy to signify a dominant principle, as in: “One thing is necessary”. Suggested by your line that each man in power would lay down an “inviolate principle”. According to the thinking, everyone has their one dominant principle, which they are presumed to worship. Well, I think believing in a principle and believing in a Godhead are sufficiently different to be classed with different words - even if both result in prosecution, etc. What if the principle in which one believed was the search for truth? What if one’s understanding had progressed beyond articulated principles as primary sources of order in the universe? What if one had grew to understand them as rough ‘algorithms’ which the mind uses and which are not to be taken at all seriously? 83
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 07 May 2010 23:22 | # GW,
If not Griffin then who else? 84
Posted by Bill on Fri, 07 May 2010 23:37 | # Posted by Englander on May 07, 2010, 07:00 PM | #
85
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 07 May 2010 23:48 | #
Their loyalty to the Labour party has to be broken first which has slowly been underway for ten years or so. However after that their first next stop is more likely to be one of the “respectable” parties. They might go Lib Dem, Tory, Ukip in successive elections before they reach the BNP. This is very slow obviously and allows the enemy to pour more immigrants into areas where the BNP have put down a few roots. 86
Posted by danielj on Fri, 07 May 2010 23:49 | # Its clear you dont mean theocracy literally here, although you write as if you do (with full confidence in the formulation and without irony or whimsicality). Duh? Are you here writing with actual confusion or feigning indignation at my dogged insistence that your ridiculous and unjustified epistemology has, at the center, just like all the rest of ours, a “God.” You crack me up PF! I’ve gotta have a few beers with you after my non-drinking resolution expires round Thanksgiving. Otherwise its impossible to understand how you apply that word to the worldviews of people who don’t believe in the divine. You deceive yourself and smother the truth in unrighteousness by insisting that you don’t believe in the divine. Nevertheless, I’m well aware that you don’t consider infallibility to be an inescapable concept and I wonder if you believe that judgment is unfailing? Strange you pass said judgment with full confidence in your formulation and without any hint of even understanding the irony. What if the principle in which one believed was the search for truth? The one definitely shouldn’t run around like a loud-mouthed, god-denying, Socrates #2 proclaiming to know it all instead of humbly acknowledging he knows nothing. Besides, how can you set out on a journey to search for a treasure for which you have no hap and for a gem that you don’t genuinely believe exists? What if one had grew to understand them as rough ‘algorithms’ which the mind uses and which are not to be taken at all seriously? Well, then one has left the good company of the weeping Heraclitus and started laughing with the much-more-laudable-than-Nietzsche, Democritus. Or, perhaps it means you have in fact started keeping company with that little snot who was so perturbed by his Salome’s whip that he, enemy of egalitarianism, constantly worried about his popular acceptance and started frequenting syphilis infected whores. You know what they say? Lie down with whores, wake up with fees! Ok. That was just practice snark. I didn’t really mean any of it. All I can say PF, is that some things should just be discussed over ale… The point of this post is the BNP and my only reason for interjecting was to probe Frank about Christian Reconstruction. 87
Posted by danielj on Fri, 07 May 2010 23:53 | # One possibility is vote fraud. What about turnout issues? Perhaps the just couldn’t get the people out. Maybe they were lulled? I can’t remember economic conditions and the political landscape last vote time. 88
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 May 2010 23:59 | # Daniel, My explanation of the turnout issue is in my last comment. Turnout doesn’t wash because Labour’s national vote actually fell from the 2005 level by 7.4 points. We would have to believe that the additional voters went for the Tories and (slightly) the LibDems, while deserting Labour. But in the locals the same people turned about completely! The same difficulty arises with Dan’s explanation of the ethnic vote. No, there is another cause or combination of causes at work. 89
Posted by danielj on Sat, 08 May 2010 00:13 | # Oops! Sorry GW. I obviously wasn’t paying close enough attention! 90
Posted by BNP FOREVER on Sat, 08 May 2010 00:15 | # Guessedworker, instead of criticising griffin, join the BNP and help him yourself! 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 01:12 | # BNP FOREVER, I’d like to help. It would be a privilege. But as things stand I am not sufficiently anti-Islamic or pro-Jewish. Neither am I a “spirit-of-race” advocate like JB or Arthur Kemp. In fact, I’d like to bop that on the head. And I don’t see the mad-dog hard left as the existential enemy. They are my brothers, those among them who are English, and they are politically ill. All in all, I feel it would only be a question of time before Mr Covert Tactics got the nod to JB me. Maybe if more people start talking about intellectualising the party’s upper levels, uniting the patriotic right, focussing much more heavily on fiscal and economic questions, and so on, I might give it some serious thought. 92
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 01:27 | # Local vs national All residents can vote in local elections so all the immigrants can vote and not just the ones with citizenship / commonwealth status. EU citizens, South Americans, Middle easterners for example can vote locally but not nationally. 93
Posted by Frank on Sat, 08 May 2010 02:04 | # Daniel, I got my own self into trouble, though they didn’t confront me specifically. It might have simply been they confronted an idea entirely separate from me, that I had happened to propose. Either way, I’m wanting to reply to some things posted there, and will in good time (I’m ignorant somewhat of how Christianity spread in Ireland, and so i don’t even know part of the material I want to reply on). GW, I’ll argue this again later. Completely off topic I’ll issue my usual: be warned I have an argument that’ll trouble you! And back to the BNP. 94
Posted by danielj on Sat, 08 May 2010 03:03 | # Either way, I’m wanting to reply to some things posted there, and will in good time (I’m ignorant somewhat of how Christianity spread in Ireland, and so i don’t even know part of the material I want to reply on). Saint Patrick (an Englishman) chased out all the snakes! The tale is told (partially) in very readable fashion by the lover of the Jews, one Mr. Thomas Cahill in his “How the Irish Saved Civilization.” 95
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 08 May 2010 03:14 | # Wandrin - that’s not quite correct. British citizens and Commonwealth citizens who declare themselves to be resident in the UK can vote in local, national and European elections, while EU citizens may vote in local and European elections only. The voting privileges extended to Commonwealth citizens are an imperial anachronism that have should been abolished, especially since they are for the most part not reciprocated. 96
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 May 2010 05:53 | # I can only repeat myself. The West is white, and there is no reason to assume that our civilization will survive if we are demographically subsumed by non-whites (and many to conclude otherwise). For our civilization, and ultimately our race itself, to survive, for reasons I have set forth here at other times, whites must maintain sovereign majorities in at least some territories. Put more clearly, we must have our own countries, which would preferably be all-white, though I think our culture and civ could endure if we were only preponderant, but also ‘racialized’, majorities. I suspect most MR readers would agree with me (though certain complicating issues would have to be disposed of; eg, how did the Jews survive so long, and why can’t whites - and we, in our present form, cannot/will not - emulate them?). What is so dispiriting about elections like that of the US in 2000, France in 2002, and Britain this week, is that here were golden opportunities for the Silent Majority of allegedly anti-immigrant, pro-white, pro-nation patriots to register their disapproval with their respective dispossessionist regimes - and the silence is always deafening. In the US we had, for once, a genuine anti-immigrationist in Pat Buchanan; in Britain, which has been alarmingly overrun just in the past dozen years of Labour, you had the BNP (or even UKIP or just the wet Tories); most disturbingly of all, in France, Le Pen was actually in the final run-off - and yet the vast bulk of oppressed whites, having spent a generation watching their beloved and ancient French nation overrun by culturally hostile, physically dangerous, often criminal, and racially alien Muslims, could not bring themselves to vote for him. Whites were once the greatest race, but today most of our people everywhere are deluded and weak. This is not merely a local or nation-specific problem. With the needless capitulation of the Boer Republic, there is not a single race-conscious majority, or even large minority, anywhere is the Western world. The only exceptions might be whites of the American Deep South, a true “nation within nation”; the racially pure, and often color-conscious, white minority elites sprinkled throughout Latin America, who have more in common with each other than with their own national, mestizo populations, and who, gathered together, would thus constitute a real ethnonation; or maybe the Ulster Protestants - maybe), and though I know little about Eastern Europe, I expect them to travel our path of race-denial as they become increasingly ‘Westernized’ through economic integration within the EU. Lastly, Russia may yet survive, but even counting it as a white nation (something neither Hitler nor Madison Grant would have done, at least for the bulk of the population), it will eventually crumble apart ethnically, with the small, genuine white portion looking towards Europe - and then also following the path to race-denial, economic growth + immigrant worker-importation, and multicultural suicide. Seriously, what hope is there for our racial (and thus civilizational) perpetuity? The only hope is foreign demographic/electoral conquest of a sovereign nation. WNs are a small minority everywhere, but add us up across the planet, and even demographically, we could be, if concentrated within a single jurisdiction, a powerful force - very powerful if we consider that WNs are usually, contrary to media stereotypes, more intelligent than the general populations surrounding them. My very rough estimate is that there may be as many as 50 million white ‘racists’ (as defined by the liberal media) on the planet. Most of these are not, unfortunately, ideologically committed WNs, just persons like many I know personally (I also know other WNs like me) who aren’t ashamed of being white, generally dislike non-whites, vote pro-white, again as the media would define that, and prefer living with whites. As conditions worsen for whites everywhere, we all should start thinking long-term about where we could flee to. What country is most promising to settle in? Emigration is tremendously difficult, but not nearly so much anymore as it was when, for example, our ancestors came to North America. And we do have a rough precedent: Israel. If the Jews could reclaim a piece of ancient territory for themselves, so they could have their own ethnostate, why can’t we? 97
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 May 2010 07:24 | # A quick look at the votes cast in B&D;in 2006 council elections and 2010 elections shows the difference appears to be the turnout. In Mayesbrook, for instance, total votes cast per Wiki was 6854 in 2006. In 2010 it was 10,448. Robert Buckley totaled 1,145 votes in 2006 to win. In 2010 he garnered 1109. It appears to be the same for Goresbrook. Richard Barnbrook received 1,434 votes in 2006 to win and in 2010 received 1340 votes. 7032 votes were cast in 2006 per Wiki and 11907 in 2010. According to Wiki the BNP took 42.4% of the vote in Goresbrook in 2006. The number was 30% in 2010. Parsloes Ward appears similar. Leigh Friend took 1022 votes in 2010 and Ronald Doncaster won with 1,120 in 2006. The BNP gathered 43.2% in Parsloes in 2006 and Labour 40.5% in 2006 per Wiki. In 2010 Labour took 59% of the vote. Griffin’s numbers are much the same as the council vote. He took 14.6% of the vote in Barking, the BNP total in 2006 was 14.2%. Labour won 56% in ‘06 and Hodge took 54.3 in 2010. http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/9-democracy/elections/results/elect-local-10.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barking_and_Dagenham_Council_election,_2006 98
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 08:20 | # Desmond, Once again ... We know the turnout overall was up. We know from the pre-election opinion polls that support for the Conservatives was always in the 33 to 38% range, and we know that support for Labour was in the 28 to 32% range. So the large turnout reflected the pre-election polls in the national vote. Where on earth did the overwhelming local support for Labour come from? That is the question. Conservatives did not suddenly become local Labourites. The LidDems don’t hold the key. What’s the answer? Just saying “turnout” or even quoting the numbers does not answer that question. 99
Posted by BNP FOREVER on Sat, 08 May 2010 08:37 | # guessedworker, “I’d like to help. It would be a privilege. But as things stand I am not sufficiently anti-Islamic or pro-Jewish. Neither am I a “spirit-of-race” advocate like JB or Arthur Kemp. In fact, I’d like to bop that on the head. And I don’t see the mad-dog hard left as the existential enemy. They are my brothers, those among them who are English, and they are politically ill. All in all, I feel it would only be a question of time before Mr Covert Tactics got the nod to JB me. “ In that case, it’s probably good that you don’t try to help the party. You seem to be advocating the very type of discredited ‘nationalism’ which Griffin has been trying to distance the party from for the past decade. Nick Griffin may still be inadequate - his oratorical powers are unequal to those of Enoch Powell - but he deserves credit for moving the party in the right direction by doing away with Islamophilia, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and the politics of Oswald Mosley. And this trend is an obstacle for you to help save your country by actively supporting the party? Do you value Islam, the “Jewish Question”, and Holocaust denial more than the survival of your own country? Do you dispute the a party which is anti-Semitic, Islamophilic, and interested in the rehabilitation of Nazi war criminals by denying the Holocaust is not exactly conducive to a party’s electoral success? 100
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 May 2010 08:50 | # Billy Brag-ging how B&D;saw off Nick Griffin. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/bnp-barking-dagenham-billy-bragg 101
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' says Andy Neather on Sat, 08 May 2010 09:29 | # Well, we just passed the pivotal moment in British racial history (this truly was the last chance after Windrush, Powell 1968 etc), and another opportunity will not present iteslf. 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 10:36 | # BNP FOREVER,
If you can make such a false presumption as that, you have not been reading this blog. We publish nothing that is “discredited nationalism”. What did you think my reference to casting off “spirit of race” thinking meant? Actually, the party is still mired in “discredited nationalism” because no matter how much it gives itself up to electoralism and to abiding by the letter of the law, and no matter how much it, in reality, reflects the English nativist instinct, it can never fully escape the fact that fascism remains the default philosophy of nationalism. We here, alone, are trying to address that. This is what all our talk of ontology, subjects, genetic structure and whatnot are about.
Nick’s oratorical abilities are as good as anyone else on the national political scene, no doubt. No one is criticising him for not being the equal of great orators like Powell. That would be grotesquely unfair. And he garners his due praise for bringing the movement out of the Tyndallite past. That is his great contribution, and perhaps it is enough for one man. Now ... concentrate, because you are playing fast and loose with my words. What is the difference between Islamophilia and my writing:-
You see there is a difference, don’t you, and it is that the objection to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bangladesh et al in our midst is nativist and racial, not religious. A Pakistani population in the old northern towns is an offence against the English right to our own ancestral land. This is a matter of blood, not religion, and genes not culture.
I do support the party. But I do not think like the heirarchy. I believe they are wrong in significant ways.
One of the ways they are wrong is seeing the Jewish Question, for example, or the Holocaust as either/or, for or against options. If one’s only concern is to clean house and lock away the embarrassing and unhelpful talk about historical questions, straight away one has handed the initiative over to the other side. One is negotiating from a position of weakness. The superior strategy is to be relaxed about the Jewish Question and the Holocaust, and for that one must carry no anti-Semitic baggage.
Again, you can only think in “pro” and “anti”. But who sets these terms? Because of them, Nick’s strategy is to nice-guy his way around Jewish hostility, and it does not actually work, does it? He can’t buy them off with a few smiles. They just keep coming at him, insisting that he is “anti”. He should put the ball in the other court, and set out his terms for a lasting mutual amity (he did once do something like this, in an interview in Haaretz). The basis has to be that Jews must not oppose English ethnic interests for their own interests. Let hitherto vocal Jews - politicians, journalists, religious figures, and organised Jewry - demonstrate their agnosticism and, thereby, their sensitivity towards our right to exist. This is no less than they did for the first century of their life in our land. It would mean, for example, that the HET does not force-feed English schoolchildren with associated guilt for a misty and unknowable German crime in the years before 1941-45. It is not impossible for them. Is it? 103
Posted by BGD on Sat, 08 May 2010 11:13 | #
I know this site is more dedicated to philosophical superstructure rather than more immediate deeds so apol in advance if this is like graffiti on your wall, just a suggestion: Considering the idiot tube habits of much of our population perhaps a suitable talent among our far flung brethren could create a dynamic 20 minute video distillation outlining the true crisis unfolding in the UK with sufficient skill. Then, just perhaps it might encourage some of our people to absorb the key arguments and take a hand in our salvation. The video can be hosted online and a CD could also be created to post through a few doors in prime areas. In the latter case when negative publicity is generated in the local paper and the name is Googled more folk will view it. Like a book with four or five chapters it could even be formatted as précis chapters with a more fleshed out exposition online (a bit like the format that the Bell Curve took) and added to as resources and priorities permitted, just like Kemp’s online history but in video format. Topics including Demographics (using stills of government publications, newspapers etc), the legal screw tightening (race acts, anti-discrim acts, Europe (& Turkish Ascension into the EU), boiling frog - chronology and the fast evolution of restrictions and the fall of liberty), add a few more here.. And make it as bulletproof as possible to be able to repel the smears and misrepresentations that would be thrown it’s way. As per the earlier comment on how institutionalized the general population is in its voting preferences this issue has to be attacked head on if any progress is to be made. So, DVD / webcast for the low hanging fruit and deeper local campaigning for the wider population. At least if T’s revolutionary situation comes to pass after the complete failure of the electoral route then there will be a garrison in every town in ten or twenty years time.. 104
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 May 2010 11:47 | # A feature of my postings overtime has been the reasons why the British public are not flocking to the BNP. They are, v. briefly, tolerance, political correctness, media vilification, Christianity, consumerism, welfare state, sexual freedom (pornography) Bread and circuses, celebrity culture, endless football, (sport) Multicultural BBC conditioning. I’ll stop there, but there’s more. For the sake of brevity I will encapsulate the effects of the above as desensitising, creating a mood of insularity against realism, freedom from want, materially replete, but above all they are free from fear! Take a look at this map. To those who may not be familiar with our politics, Red is Gordon Brown’s Labour party (Left) Blue is Cameron’s Conservative, (Right) and Yellow is Nick Clegg’s Liberal. Note the concentration of red which generally can be characterized as high density post industrial urban areas. (inner cities) It is these areas where immigrant concentrations are highest and growing exponentially. It where the imported multicultural vote is richly harvested by Labour. It is these areas that have suffered heavily from white flight - only to be replaced by more immigration. The cities of London, Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford and Manchester are well advanced toward white minority status. The swathe of blue (and yellow) is politically middle England, rural, countryside, suburban. Comparatively sparsely populated and relatively free from enrichment. You will note that this area of blue and yellow geographically go to make up the overwhelming area of Britain. I don’t know what proportion of the population this area represents but let’s say 50%? The population living in these areas are, by and large, not in any way affected by immigration and only experience it when visiting a city or travelling through. Although in recent years, significant EU migration has gravitated to the agricultural food industry in these areas. When people are safely living within their comfort zone, immigration doesn’t figure very prominently on their radar, they are mostly still amongst their own and have no feeling of being taken over by people with who they have nothing in common. Any feeling of menace is lulled by the everyday demands of living their lives. Added to all of this they are totally unaware of the reasons why immigration is taking place. Like mushrooms, they are kept in the dark and fed BS. If you stopped them in the street and told them what the situation is they would just stare at you in disbelief. To such people, (who drink the political media kool-aid everyday) the BNP are evil and David Cameron is a nice guy. It is generations of Liberal and media conditioning that our people have been subjected to that nationalism has to combat. How you do that? Education? Insufficient time. Constant warnings? - Maybe. Perhaps fear is the only antidote, after all it’s our opponents nuclear weapon. 105
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Sat, 08 May 2010 12:29 | # It seems like a coalition of the Scots, the Welsh, huge numbers of public sector windbags and of course the blacks and pakis have imposed ‘lib-lab’ government on a Tory voting English rump. 106
Posted by BGD on Sat, 08 May 2010 13:20 | # I have a question for the Lee Barnes interview if it ever happens “You created a back of an envelope type calculation that you argued if the BNP is elected would preserve us as a majority in this country for years to come. If as seems very likely the Conservative-LibDem coalition come to agreement it won’t be long before Boris Johnson’s suggested wide ranging amnesty comes to pass (regardless of any window dressing about safeguards.)How does that impact on your sums for the prevention of the indigenous population becoming a minority in 50 years. Obviously by current BNP policy making the illegals legal, makes them untouchables. “ Part two “isn’t this likely to move you further down the road to civic nationalism?” 107
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 May 2010 13:26 | # BREAKING NEWS Police in Westminster have confirmed that a Scottish man has barricaded himself inside a large terraced house and is holding 60 million people hostage. 108
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 14:08 | # BGD, Lee and I spoke this morning over the telephone, and arranged to record the show tomorrow morning. We will, of course, talk about the impact of a Con-LibDem coalition. It takes a few hours to process an audio file for upload, but it will be on the page as soon as possible. 109
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 08 May 2010 14:08 | # Leon Haller, I quite agree with you that our time might be better spent migrating to some part of the earth where we could form a numerical superiority and simply govern ourselves as we see fit. There are several problems with this strategy but overall it might be the only solution. Please email me at s.davidson1981ATgmxDOTcom 110
Posted by BGD on Sat, 08 May 2010 14:32 | # OK, final comment from me and then no doubt time to disappear back down the foxhole. PR: Perhaps because it chimes with what I think about PR I thought I’d link to this man’s analysis of PR and its implications for us. The issue is out of our hands anyway so perhaps moot but can anyone knock it down? 111
Posted by kflood7 on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:10 | #
BGD, I have had similar thoughts. If I had the skills, I would make a video myself. In my impatience I have often wondered to what extent it would be possible to awaken someone given 20 minutes of their time, and how best to go about it. Books take patience to read, and there is a danger people might flip to the final chapter and be put off by what they read. Audio-video seems a better bet. Perhaps start off Craig Bodeker style. Or even with some non-racial stats to grab people’s attention. I know there are plenty of “wake up” videos on YouTube. I’m just surprised the quality and quantity is not higher. 112
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:24 | # To those old enough, cast your minds back to the general election of 1979. 113
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:36 | #
There is no way the B&D;wards that elected the BNP councilors in 2006 saw a Conservative turnout at 38%. The Goresbrook Conservative vote count in 2010 was maybe 9%. In 2006 it was, per Wiki, 11%. The answer, if you’re willing to see it, is in the ward numbers. 114
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:50 | # @Dan Dare
Yes you’re right. For some reason i had it in my head that people with indefinite leave to remain could vote in the locals. The EU voters alone are significant and i know in some areas the Labour party have been targeting them but that’s localized. 115
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 16:14 | # @Bill
I think your general point is correct. The vast majority are untouched by immigration so far and the media makes sure the negative aspects are kept hidden. However where the ethnic cleansing is happening in front of their eyes the white population still doesn’t switch to nationalist parties fast enough for the nationalist party to win before it’s too late and the immigrant numbers become too large. More worryingly there seems to be a glass ceiling on the vote. Of all the results from the election the most unsettling for me was the lack of progress in Stoke. There were good results from all three but i was seriously expecting Simon Darby to break out from the 8-10% mark into 16-20% terriotory. We’re missing something. 116
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 16:36 | # Desmond, The numbers measure the event. But they also measure the national event. Labour gained 414 councillors and 15 councils on a day when the national vote dropped to the second lowest level ever, behind Foot in 1983, and ninety-four Westminster seats were lost! As for the BNP losses, I think one has to accept that any of number of factors could apply, including gerrymandering ward boundaries, third-party campaigning, the UAF/SWP busing of ethnics to the polls (ie turnout, but not really), and quite likely postal vote fraud (there are fifty cases being investigated by the police, and they are just the ones where suspicions have been aroused). 117
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 16:37 | # @GuessedWorker
There’s no mystery to the turnout question. Take a hypothetical ward of 100 voters where 60 are Labour and 40 BNP and say Labour turnout is 100% at general elections and only 50% at local elections while the BNP vote is 100% for both. In local elections you’d get 40 BNP vs 30 Labour but when a general election coincides with the local then it will be 40 BNP vs 60 Labour. This is traditionally what happens with the Labour vote. It’s one of the secrets of the Lib-Dem’s relative success. They always get 95% of their vote out while other parties vary wildly. The BNP actually do very well in terms of getting their vote out the problem is there seems to be a glass ceiling on that vote. 118
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 16:41 | # Wandrin, the turnout in Barking was relatively low. A high turnout elsewhere did not deliver Labour seats at Westminster. There is no single answer. 119
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 08 May 2010 17:31 | #
That seems to be the nub of the matter and it’s something that simple tweaking won’t fix. Although the total vote almost tripled from 2005, the vote per contested seat barely budged. Although only slightly more than half of the 650 available seats were contested it seems reasonable to assume that these were the ones the party judged to be the ones which offered the best possible returns (candidate availability may have been a factor as well). I see that LJB is sounding a trumphalist note on his blog and I trust that GW will strongly challenge him on this tomorrow. 120
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 18:01 | # @GuessedWorker Yes, but what i’m saying is the turnout at local elections is always lower than when they coincide with a general election. Each party have the same number of supporters in each ward but each party has a differential turnout depending on whether it’s solely a local election or whether it’s on the same day as a national election. The number of Labour councillors was artificially low because the last council elections weren’t on the same day as a national election. To put it another way. The total potential Labour vote was down six points but that is outweighed by the difference in turnout of that total support when local elections are held on the same day as a national election. Example: Hypothetical ward of 100 potential voters again comprising 60 Labour supporters and 40 BNP supporters where Labour have 50% turnout when it’s local election only but 100% when the local election is on the same day as the general and BNP get 100% turnout for both. 2006: local election only, 50% of Labour supporters turn out, leads to 30 Labour votes and 40 BNP votes and a BNP win. 2010: local and general election coincide, total Labour support has dropped to 54 but 100% of Labour voters turn out, leads to to 54 Labour and 40(46?) BNP and a Labour win. On the surface it looks like a big increase in Labour vote but in reality it’s a big increase in the turnout of a slightly lower total Labour support.
Agreed. I’m not saying this is the single answer simply that this counter-cyclical thing is normal because of differential turnout between parties at local and national elections. Of the respectable parties the Lib-Dems are the best at always getting their vote out, Conservatives second and Labour has always had the biggest gap between local and national election turnouts. Another aspect of the same thing is the turnout of invader groups is generally as low or lower than the working class turnout except when there’s a BNP type party standing in which case the ethnic turnout shoots up to very high levels. I read there was something like 10,000 invaders brought into Barking and Dagenham over the last ten years. Of those maybe 30% voted at the last local election whereas this time it could easily have been 60% or so and maybe even more. The large increase in Hodge’s vote could quite easily be made up with the increased turnout among the invaders. Last but not least there was almost certainly some electoral fraud involved. to be continued… 121
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 18:32 | # continued…
Without trying to crunch the numbers exactly i think this shows the basic pattern - a similar number of BNP votes which comprise a lower percentage of the total votes cast - basically 40% of the vote with a 50% turnout i.e 20% of the total voters seems to be the Barking limit and yet this should be prime BNP terriotory. If 20% is the ceiling in prime areas, then it might be 10% in other working class areas and maybe 5% elsewhere - not enough.
A variation on the same theme. I think the general theme is the first time the BNP stands in a seat the vote is something like an average of 5% in good areas down to an average of 2% in bad areas. The second time the BNP stands in the same seat it doubles to 10%/4%. However the third time it stays mostly at the same level. 122
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 19:15 | # Wandrin, I reckon the progression is more like this. <u>Good area</u> This experience is mirrored at national level among nationalist parties elsewhere in Europe. The ceiling is in the range of 22 to 25%. It is, as you say, not enough. 123
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 20:00 | # @BGD
I think PR is good or bad for us depending on how you see things. Some people look at what has happened up till now - slow ethnic cleansing - and assume things will carry on that way to our extinction. If you take that view then electoral politics must succeed before it’s too late and in that case ultimately PR is bad for us for the reasons mentioned in the linked post. It would probably help us initially to get some political representation but at the same time would make it very hard to break out and actually gain power. FPTP on the other hand makes it very hard to break in initially but if the right conditions were ever right there’d at least be a chance of winning outright power. My view is that slow extinction won’t happen. I think there’ll be some tipping point in numbers where invaders will start serious communal violence which will eventually end in civil war. You can see the start of this in France, America and in many UK towns and cities where invader gangs are actively expanding no-go zones. In this scenario the critical thing is to have a mass membership organisation that can provide the skeleton of a militia. In a SHTF situation if we’re not organised in advance we won’t have much of a chance. So for me electoral politics has two aims, one is electoral success but the other is as a vehicle for creating a mass membership organisation. In terms of that aim i think PR is good for us in that it might let us get to a 5-10% glass ceiling and a 100,000+ member organisation easier. So i see two intertwined goals. The first is to win power. The second is to create a mass organisation that can become a militia if the first goal is not achieved and the invaders take us into a civil war.
I agree with LJB mostly. I think the simple fact that there were 336 BNP candidates is massive progress in terms of the second goal - creating a mass membership organisation. I also agree with him that the BNP needs to be a community activist organisation that also does politics. If there is a glass ceiling in terms of the first goal of actually winning power then community politics might help break us out of it. More critically maybe, if there is a glass ceiling that can’t be breached under the current political conditions then the organisation needs something to hold it together in the face of electoral setbacks. Community politics is something that can be done all the time. On the other hand there’s obviously something very wrong with an organisation that allows their primary media operation to be taken out on the day before an election. I make no comment on the causes but the fact there’s no fail-safe is ridiculous. At the very least there should have been a second person trained up ready in case Simon Bennet was on holiday or got sick or something. I think this does show there’s a problem in the leadership’s attitude towards the nuts and bolts of the organisation. I personally don’t have a problem with NG’s overall TV leadership but a general needs to have staff officers and an RSM to make sure that behind the scenes all the nuts and bolts are tight. 124
Posted by Leadership challenge? on Sat, 08 May 2010 20:21 | # I will qualify the below by stating that what I am stating is my opinion from afar, I have no contact to the inner workings of the top of the BNP, and it is pure conjecture. However, this is how it appears to sympathetic outsiders I have quoted a post on an election anorak forum I frequent. The poster has not revealed their identity in their 1400-odd posts, but reading between the lines one can hypothesise that they are: a) Senior in the BNP I should add that I second the opinion of this man “chaoa”. Griffin now is as much of a liability to the BNP as Tyndall in the late 90s. The obvious interim replacement as leader should be Andrew Brons, who is clearly head-and-shoulders above Griffin when it comes to handling the media. The slight baggage of his schoolboy dalliance with Colin Jordan can be passed over by the fact that it was half-a-century ago, when he was a schoolboy. Apart from this, Brons is an apparently normal man who held down a job as a schoolteacher for 35 years, not an overgrown adolescent who has never had a real job. You have to assume old hands like Brons, Martin Wingfield, Eddy Butler and Richard Edmonds are “not state”. Sorting out the coup to oust Griffin may be the most important thing they do. I would also add, that a more “respectable”, “moderate” BNP leadership need to seek some sort of alliance with UKIP, if only a tacit, arm’s-length agreement to to compete where one or the other is strong. This can only be to the benefit of both outfits. Anyway, the post from the possible senior BNP’er: http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=1436;sa=showPosts “The last few General Elections prior to this one coincided with the County Council elections and the BNP have never previously won any sort of council seat (including by-elections) held on the same day as the General Election. That being said it was perhaps unlikely that the BNP would have made many local gains or even holds. Although it is difficult for any small party to win a local seat on the same day as the General Election, it seems even more difficult for the BNP – even to the extent of being totally beyond them. Having said that I have heard that the BNP have retained a seat in Pendle. 125
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 20:29 | # GuessedWorker,
Yes. And as you say if it’s not enough to gain any actual power then it’s liable to collapse after it peaks. This is why i agree with LJB’s point that an organisation like the BNP needs to be more than a political party. It needs to also be a kind of social and community organisation. That way there’s a reason for people to be involved even if electoral success (in the current conditions) is always elusive. As it happens i think the conditions are about to become immensely more favourable so now the election is over i hope the BNP stops sprinting, slows down a bit, and takes care of the nuts and bolts. 126
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 08 May 2010 20:39 | # Now that Griffin has his Euro-sinecure to fall back on (with a generous pension to boot) I’d expect the probability of a Götterdämmerung scenario in the event of a leadership challenge to be somewhat lower than on previous occasions. 127
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 May 2010 20:47 | #
Which is strange in itself in that an earlier YouGov poll that asked what issues should be addressed that are not being addressed, the number one issue amongst Tories (72%) was immigration. England appears to be a Tory monolith with the exception of Greater London and the West Midlands so the Tories are able to run a Sammy Gumbo candidate in East Surrey, and tell their supporters to basically suck on it. It’s wild. The Tories are 30 seats short of Major’s victory in ‘92. Where are those seats? London? The Southwest? 128
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:03 | #
. I posted earlier that this thoroughly modern postmodern election had illustrated nothing is anchored in reality anymore, 5 years is a long time. We all knew the system was bust long before the election took place, like the way we live, we know instinctively it cannot continue. The media establishment and the country are apoplectic at the pace of which it is all unravelling and yet we have been discussing it here for how long? This is only the beginning, goodness knows what lies ahead, so many plates in the air to even start and guess. The big boys know all this and who knows are managing the decline to meet the third world coming up. Brown is desperate to remain at the controsl of the wrecking ball to prove he is up to the job. Cameron and Clegg are lightweights (unless you believe Sean Gabb’s revelation) and are glove puppets of the elites. Suddenly, outside the bubble , the real world is sensing things are becoming serious, as Blair once said, the kaleidoscope has been shaken - the pieces are in flux. I did say that the BNP should have kept a low profile in this election as things would be in such a mess there would be nothing in it for them. They should have watched and waited to see how things were shaping, kept their involvement to only what was thought doable - if you like, kept their powder dry and saved their money. I don’t believe the five year glass ceiling is relevant anymore - things are moving too fast. This PR nonsense is a joke, as if the elites will ever allow any meaningful say in their affairs. As the saying goes, if voting made any difference, they would have banned it years ago (LOL) 129
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:16 | # Desmond, This is the election when everything went missing. I still have not worked out how, in a turnout that wasn’t exactly shabby (65.5% in England), the electorate managed to punish everybody - not equally, of course, but nobody got left out. A propos Lee’s idea that people turn to nurse at times like this, in England only the <strike>Red Queen</strike> Green woman in Brighton Pavilion broke the stranglehold of the <strike>two</strike> three main parties. The undoubted widespread anger and contempt for the political class counted for precisely nothing in that regard. Yet the wisdom of the crowd somehow conspired to withhold from everybody the election laurels they, as always, craved. One has the feeling that something historic has happened, but it is impossible to put one’s finger on what, exactly. 130
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:26 | # @Desmond Jones
It is. @GuessedWorker
I agree. Something very weird just happened. @Leadership Challenge
The BNP is already moderate enough.
If Griffin is a liability it will be through an inability to pick lieutenants who can deal with the nuts and bolts of organising and/or his lack of emphasising the nuts and bolts. I don’t think the reasons given for him being a liability are correct, especially “baggage”. Or rather, those reasons may be true in themselves but i think there are some much more fundamental reasons why nationalist parties can’t break out beyond a certain point (under the current conditions). The question is to figure out what those reasons are. 131
Posted by Leadership challenge? on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:35 | # DanDare Now that Griffin has his Euro-sinecure to fall back on (with a generous pension to boot) I’d expect the probability of a Götterdämmerung scenario in the event of a leadership challenge to be somewhat lower than on previous occasions. We can only hope so, but I fear the above quoted source, apparently close to or part of the leadership, suggests it may be more difficult. We will have to see what Eddy Butler (hint, hint, hint) has to say if and when he goes public about his removal as national campaigns manager shortly before the election… On the positive side, even Griffin won’t have the Chutzpah to pass him off as a “Searchlight spy” 132
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:42 | #
I do think we’re in a pre-crisis situation where the natural tendency is for people to move towards the two main competing camps. All the smaller parties took a hit apart from the Green victory in Brighton but as Brighton has become the San Francisco of the the UK i don’t really count that.
I think you may be right however thinking through what causes the glass ceiling will help may help in a crisis situation also.
I disagree. The elites aren’t a single bloc. They are all hostile to us maybe but they’re hostile to each other too and their competing with each other might give us an advantage (or not). Part of what seems to be happening currently is the media led left-liberal elite organising a political coup aimed at preventing the Conservative elite getting into government by trying to force a system of PR that they believe will lead to a permanent coalition of the left-liberal parties. 133
Posted by Leadership challenge? on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:54 | # Wandrin Nick Griffin’s qualities in the past 11 years can be put down to not being John Tyndall, and a knack for pulling publicity stunts that puts the BNP in the public consciousness. This might be good enough when success is defined as winning the odd council ward, and scraping a couple of MEPs, but it isn’t going to get you any further. On the negative side, he appears to outsiders to be as dodgy as hell, living a comfortable middle-class existence despite never holding a proper job, is unconvincing at best as a media presence (Question Time performance was awful), makes unconvincing ideological leaps and strange alliances (the Sikh bloke, that black preacher, the election circular to ‘black Christians, the trip to see Gadaffi), has a history of having extremely dodgy people as political allies, a history of taking power and splitting up every group he has led. It all has to come out in the coming weeks. As well as Butler, I wonder what Emma Colgate (seen as the future face of the party) has to say. I note Martin Wingfield has not updated his blog for several months, is there anything significant in that? 134
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:56 | #
Fred would probably tell us that one of the principal reasons is that half the electorate is female. There’s at least a kernel of truth in that, and given that no more than around 40% of the electorate are not members of one self-styled oppressed group or another that probably represents the actual glass ceiling as things stand today. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: nationalists should closely study the electoral strategy and tactics employed by the NSDAP in the period 1928-32. 135
Posted by BGD on Sat, 08 May 2010 22:19 | # Is it not just that there will only ever be a minority of people who will vote for a parties not considered part of the mainstream for the rest there’s less chance of this unless the ground beneath their feet is shaking. Their limited horizons are limited to wages, infrastructure and those type of concerns. When they have marginally progressed their careers they move away from progressively uncomfortable areas to more comfortable locations, better schools, leafy, trade up across the board and carry on as normal (and still vote Labour or Conservative because they always did and so does mum and dad and..) They’re not likely to run out of places to run (or emigration options) until it’s too late anyway to significantly change things. 136
Posted by PF on Sat, 08 May 2010 22:41 | # Bill & GW, Thanks for the analysis of the situation in Britain, something otherwise nearly impossible to suss from afar. Wandrin,
Interesting thoughts! Also there is the question of how much longer, in an increasingly impoverished multi-ethnic society, having one’s hand on the levers of state power will even be meaningful. This is just a theory . But it seems like running ‘the state’ in certain countries (Iraq + middle east) is much less of a lucrative empowering thing than being at the head of a ‘mass membership organization’ which is in their case religious or tribal. The one guarantees a wealth of social capital in the form of a unified body of people. In our societies it seems like the state is morphing towards an outcome which is already achieved in Africa and the middle east, where the state is basically an organ for opportunistic self-advancement, its resources and ability to act or think continually hollowed out by the lack of common purpose and the absent raison d’etre of its existence. (States appear to me to only have a raison d’etre if they are serving the interests of a nation). So when the state is not an ethnostate, its a tool for the advancement of an upper class within an multi-racial state, but gradually these hundred individualist wills all united by feeding at the same trough, when confronted with increasingly large-scale problems, begin to fray and Moving away from the only possible raison d’etre (because we move away from being an ethnostate), we see the same ‘hollowing out’ of the state which is a necessary result (in my view) of its purposelessness. It cannot have a strategy because its strategy on the level at which it operates has to be either advancement of a group, or no strategy (individual self-enrichment). Having no strategy, it bumbles. Bumbling, it hollows out. It accumulates dependents, debts, fifth-column elements, spies, infighting, glib-tongued morons, obligations to watchfulness against its own former nation, and internal contradiction because the logic which would have to dictate its existence has flown. In the place of this rise the mass membership organizations which Wandrin is talking about. From these, obviously, new ethnostates are born. I think we have the requisite future economic/ecological/societal shocks in place, guaranteed by our thoughtless past policies, and we certainly have the ethnic rivalries which accelerate all this, now we watch the slow progress of the ‘hollowing out’ process. However as European-blooded people, we also have a massive body of thinking - including that problematic new child of western thought, Perspectivism, which makes the agreement on fundamental absolutes so problematic - in which all our beautiful western friends are mired and affixed, unsuspecting of the Homeric future that awaits them. They are trying to digest these difficult thought-kernels, formed artfully by our wily enemies into barbs which choke us and destroy our collective existence through discourse. Almost surely their misunderstandings of these things will cause them to put off joining the fray until the last possible minute (read: any type of mobilization, even the merely mental, not armed conflict), and many will perish as a result of this. In the end they too, being men, will have to stand and fight, and face the fact that man is man’s greatest competitor, and greatest threat, and human beings organize into things called groups, which have much more potential for creation and destruction than any individual man, cult of Leonardo Da Vinci and the exceptional individual be damned. Understanding Fourth Generation War by Bill Lind The conflicts described show opposing forces on either side of a dividing line between ontological motivation in conflict - i.e. the survival of peoples, such as the Viet-Cong and Iraqis - and teleological - i.e. Washington’s crusade in the ME & containment policy, as well as other ideational experiments of the West. 137
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 May 2010 23:02 | # Wandrin on May 08, 2010, 08:42 PM
I would agree with that. I characterise the elites for (brevity’s sake) as simply bankers, media and politicians. With an understanding that there is an absolute plethora of sub species which ultimately filter through the hierarchy of the principle three. Having said that, the three factions control the public spigot of influence that in turn controls our everyday lives. Money, psychological conditioning and functioning of the bureaucratic state. Combined, their matrix machine goes to extraordinary lengths to manipulate our actions and responses, from sending us to war to influencing who we vote for. From cradle to the grave, we humans accept what is, as is, when in actual fact we are just responding and reacting to Bernays type programming. (In which ever form and source it originates) It has taken me over 6o years and the wonders of the internet to discover this, although I had vague suspicions that forces were at work behind the curtain of reality that was. (sad man)
Just recently I was separated from my computer for an extended period. It was a salutary experience. I was forced into a life of computer celibacy and involuntarily joined the world of X Factor, Weakest Link and Corrie. To enter the maze of the BBC was a culture shock, I re-learnt the reason for lack of knowledge of ordinary people in regard to being left out of the information loop. If the media didn’t tell you it didn’t exist.
Spot on. Can’t we persuade them to have their own parallel political system where never the twain shall meet. BTW, what became of Enough is Enough? 138
Posted by BNP Forever on Sat, 08 May 2010 23:34 | # Fred Scrooby, The BNP needs an orator. Jonathan Bowden would be a good leader. 139
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 23:35 | # @BGD
I think that’s the root of it. The liberal-marxist mainstream culture defines certain ideas as being beyond the pale. Therefore the BNP isn’t just another democratic political party with a political platform it is a revolutionary party even if it is using democratic means. And the natural instincts of a majority of normal people will always fear a revolutionary party for simple risk minimizing reasons unless the ground is shaking beneath their feet. Looked at from that angle a 20% glass ceiling in the best areas is actually pretty good because it’s actually a vote for revolution - something that goes completely against the grain for most humans (unless the ground is shaking). If the above is true and given that any nationalist party worth having needs to be outside the genocidal liberal-marxist mainstream then that possibly implies the need to accept there will be a glass ceiling and therefore the aim of the party should simply be to grow to its glass ceiling, maximize the possible membership across the country, and then try and maintain it there so at least we’re ready if the conditions suddenly become revolutionary. Secondly if we accept that the psychological battle trumps the political battle and that the psychological battle is between the safety of the dominant culture and the fear of the revolutionary then the other thing that follows is propaganda must somehow focus on the psychology of those two forces - maybe through constantly attacking the dominant culture on the one hand and somehow reducing the fear of revolution on the other. The latter possibly though Bill’s point of outweighing the fear of revolution with fear of non-revolution i.e scaring people with what is going to happen if they don’t.
I’ll have to swot up on that. @Leadership Challenge
A million votes at the Euros and almost 600,000 at a general is no small feat. More importantly (to me anyway) 336 candidates at a general election and however many thousand members. Added to that are the vast amount of enemy attacks on him which show he must be doing something right. And last but not least he’s survived which on a site devoted to genetic ideas should count for something. I’m not arguing he doesn’t have flaws. The fact the website is still down proves it. And for all i know every single negative thing i’ve heard about him may be true. However i’m not convinced a change of leadership in itself is the critical thing or would change the situation dramatically. Maybe it would but i don’t know or care because i think there’s something much more important. I think the critical thing is there’s a natural psychological glass ceiling and strategy and tactics needs to be built around that: 140
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 08 May 2010 23:45 | # @PF
Completely agree. That is the other aspect. As balkanisation advances you’re thrown back on the tribe. It’s worth preparing for that in advance alongside the electoral politics in case we fail. 141
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 May 2010 00:22 | # Bill: It has taken me over 6o years and the wonders of the internet to discover this, although I had vague suspicions that forces were at work behind the curtain of reality that was. You have come a long way, Bill. We all have. If the media didn’t tell you it didn’t exist. There is a lesson in this for nationalists, insomuch as our connection to the spoken truths here, whilst it facilitates conversation between us, disconnects us from the world of other people. We very easily appear to be narrow and obsessive to the latter, whilst their narrowness of knowledge and pointless media-driven obsessions could not be clearer to us. But we know we are, in a certain quite shallow sense, emerging from a world of illusion, and we can never turn about and go back. Obviously, the onus is on nationalists to bridge the gap. But how much truth-speaking do we have to give up to get some truth spoken? What truth-speaking, for example, has Nick Griffin’s strategic silence on the JQ and the Holocaust facilitated? Perhaps this is a question for me to put to Lee Barnes tomorrow. Fred: I agree, now, that his only proper next step would be to offer to step down as party leader and let there be new leadership chosen in the normal way. Does that mean I am forgiven for writing the lead post to this thread eleven hours before the polls opened? PF, The phrase, “the wealth of social capital in the form of the unified body of people” can be reduced to the words “group awareness” or somesuch. If there is no awareness, there is nothing but individuals, whether they are related or not. People ask the question “why bother?” of Salterism, and even Salter himself makes a less than entirely convincing fist of replying. But the question indicates that the questioner is unaware, so the question itself is qualified ... shaped by ignorance against the possibility of a convincing reply. Where awareness is present, the question does not need to be asked. Liberalism’s hyper-individualism and liberal-democratic elitism’s “opportunistic self-advancement” are outcomes of ignorance. Teleologies which reach beyond purpose as it arises in the natural world are all expressions of ignorance, for their advocates are unable to distinguish between reality and illusion. 142
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 00:27 | # @Bill
Yes. My only quibble is i look at the Norman conquest where an alien elite took over, killed off the previous elite and settled down to rule…and then almost immediately started to fight each other. One of the things about the sort of people with the kind of egos neccessary to scrabble to the top of the greasy pole is they always want more. For the same reason i think a country having too many jews involved in its banking system is living on borrowed time. Sooner or later they’ll destroy the whole system because they always want more. Leadership
Looking at it from a military point of view i think the leader needs to be a field commander type - which Griffin is. Both Bowden and Brons strike me more as staff officers. I could see Bowden as a head of propaganda and Brons as more of a head of policy or something like that. To extend the analogy, if the reason the BNP doesn’t have a proper HQ staff is some flaw of Griffin’s then maybe people are right about the leadership. However if it’s because they’ve been sprinting for too long and leaving the nuts and bolts till later then i think now would be “later” and a good time to stop and fix the basics. 143
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 May 2010 00:29 | # BNP Forever, The party needs two leaders: the political and the managerial ... the party leader and the party chairman, the latter ranked below the former, of course. 144
Posted by Hijack The Media on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:12 | # Bill on May 08, 2010, 10:02 PM
On practically every nationalist website, you will get people moaning about the media, about how “the sheeple are addicted to the idiotbox”. They are correct, the media has a massive influence on people’s thoughts and it has been hijacked by the left. In the words of BBC drama commissioning controller Ben Stephenson, If you’re looking for reasons as to why Britain has become a left-of-centre country, this is why. The televisual media is where the influence over the hearts and minds of the nation lies. If nationalists want to save Britain, then this is where they must go. They must infiltrate the mass-media that the “sheeple” spend so much time watching and start using it to foster “right of centre, nationalist thinking”. Once nationalists have successfully hijacked the media and used it to foster the right kind of thinking, election results will naturally follow. BBC drama commissioning controller Ben Stephenson is only 32 years old. Just 10 years out of university. So theoretically, in 10 years time, we could have one of our own in a senior position at the BBC. That is what nationalists should be aiming for, they should be aiming to infiltrate and take control of the means of broadcasting. 145
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:35 | # GW wrote:
The awareness you’re referring to is the main divider between people on these issues. We should discuss it further, now and then again later. Somehow ‘unaware’ whites, take facts of the white sociobiological environment, which are in-and-of-themselves exceptions to the rule of human existence, as being a given. Example: fair treatment, running water, wanting what’s best for others, conflicts being resolved. Some of these things we have only been able to recently develop, with our assortative mating - some of them only hold true in high IQ white milieus. So they are a recent innovation, in some cases, even for us. You can see their absence among low IQ whites. Such as, for example, the sensitivity with which people of delicate sensibility consider one another’s feelings, and the possible consequences of what they say on the feelings of others - the “politeness” of polite society (which also corrupts us in certain respects as it beautifies social life). It doesn’t exist elsewhere, and not because of a choice, but at least partly because the fineness of perception is not to be found in these places. That fineness of perception would be something that we developed over time as a means of bettering cooperation (one speculates!). Being ‘unaware’, one takes these things as facets of the world, as just the way it is. They appear to be facets of human existence generally. This is why I dont think its possible to grow up as a minority in a nation dominated by another ethnic group, and be a multiculturalist. I don’t think its possible to leave your own culture and remain a dedicated multiculturalist. Awareness intrudes. It becomes clear that these ‘hidden variables’ of the sociobiological landscape are fixed at different values and that they have an acute bearing on the way human social life is experienced. If politeness in China is fixed at 0.4, and in England at 0.8, one is going to feel the lack sorely, even if one’s ideal level would have been 0.65. If the matrix of variables regulating the relationship between the sexes, or the relationship to one’s parents, are regulated at [0.2,0.4,0.1,0.7,0.9] for England (you decide what those variables represent) and [0.1,0.1,0.6,0.4,0.9] in Saudi Arabia, a huge portion of the energy channeled into social life will have to be dedicated to accustoming oneself to the newly shifted variables. The impossibility of this being realized on a grand scale becomes visible when one considers that even the best travellers - innately gifted, highly motivated, open-minded people who are determined to acclimate - only do so for a period before they return to the native matrix. Usually people who remain in social environments which are sociobiologically different from those they grew up in were some kind of freak case - I’m sure we can all think of examples. Some of these sociobiological variables will be fixed by ‘cultural momentum’ and can thus be normed by exposure to western culture. Some of them will arise spontaneously owing to the genetics of the people who create the sociobiology, who have evolved a specific way of interacting over millenia apart from us (in the case of foreign peoples). The ‘gear’ involved in human interfacing is as materialistically determined as arms and legs, like mirror neurons, empathy circuitry in the brain and its hormonal regulation, sexual appetites and communication style preferences, each of which must find some kind of expression in the social hierarchies and ways-of-relating which spring up among these peoples. If Pakistanis for example naturally spring anew with each generation a sociobiology that reflects fixed variable values of [0.1,0.6,0.25] for whatever traits we’re quantifying, and native British whites spring a sociobiology where those same variable values are [0.3,0.2,0.8], the resulting social worlds will look and feel different. If antipathy wasn’t generated by kin recognition mechanisms, it would almost certainly then result from this shock-of-the-perpetually-foreign. Which shock breeds awareness, that the sociobiological world we know doesn’t extend beyond our fellow whites. Go beyond the gates and be prepared for all sorts of interesting things - not merely the shocking, i.e. their weird sexual proclivities and aggression, rudeness, lying, crazy vestigial beliefs - but also the subtly alienating, which extends as far up the scale of fineness as our ability to perceive it will let us follow. Something like not being able to tolerate a specific smell, or thinking its perfectly normal to completely ignore you in some situation even though you’re (?) friends (of some sort?). Not sharing any of the subtler feelings - which most whites may lack the ability to express or perceive, but when experienced, register and resonate similarly in us and differently in them. We struggle enough to communicate with those nearest to us and consider moments of being close to another human being, as triumphs and high-points. Then we engineer a social outcome that guarantees perpetual distance. 146
Posted by notuswind on Sun, 09 May 2010 05:26 | # As others have hinted at, I think the major obstacle to revolutionary-minded nationalist politics is that our enemies have an overwhelming advantage in terms of propaganda. Thanks to the major organs of education and entertainment, the average Western mind is typically cluttered with many layers of leftist propaganda. I don’t think any of the [successful] political revolutionaries of the 20th century had to work under such hostile conditions (in terms of propaganda) as we do today. It’s hard to plant seed in a poisoned garden! Honestly I don’t think there’s a solution to this conundrum. The people who control the most important organs of propaganda are anything but indifferent to our politics, and our ruling class (so convinced of its own moral superiority) is not about to lose its nerve. The death of our society is practically a prerequisite for real change. 147
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 09 May 2010 06:07 | # Anything that chips away at that propaganda has to be good, so yet again I suggest that MR link to: 148
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 06:42 | # Late breaking news: a stand-up Comedian hoists nationalism on a rhetorical petard! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgnyBIRQN-Q Philosophical summary: Wait, he’s not done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4&feature=related Summary: Its kind of cute, actually. What does it mean that a Comedian is - pretty obviously in a nervous manner and towards a half-receptive audience - discussing the very same issues which are otherwise on the blogosphere and nowhere else? Would it indicate that these are becoming issues of universal concern? 149
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:04 | # Anglo-swedish dreamboat expresses her misgivings about politics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9calQuZHyZ0&feature=related She seems (1) liberally indoctrinated and (2) pitifully uninformed and (3) mistrustful of the whole political system. I can imagine this might be similar to the position of many british people. 150
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 08:01 | # notuswind wrote:
Really dead-on observation there.
Second that unfortunate conclusion. I imagine a man sealing himself into some kind of high-tech transportation device; fixing a number of harnesses and safety-belts, locking tinted-glass portals to the outside, placing a darkened polarized visor over his eyes to block the wind, and starting a noisy engine, all of which prevents him from hearing and seeing the screams and pounding of his technical staff outside who plead with him that the vehicle isn’t sound. At this point, when one is that walled-in, he’s going to have to take his chances and hope he hits something soft, and hope it happens before he gathers too much speed.. This is the common fate of all whose ‘gear’ is running Liberalism 2.0. The maps in that program are only accurate within the practice track, titled ‘affluent western anti-zero-sum reality’; outside of this, all the maps are inaccurate. 151
Posted by Bill on Sun, 09 May 2010 09:12 | # GW.
. My two- penneth. Hate to go banging on about this but it really is (IMO) at the core of what we are experiencing in our lives to-day. Liberalism tells us that there is no such thing as reality, it is all about personal perspective shaped by ones life experience. We live in a shimmering world and truth is a mirage. Reality, (truth) is a construct of the sum total of one’s life experience and is not set in stone, truth depends on from which platform (perspective) you are viewing. When this is translated into people’s everyday life, the only certaint result is uncertainty, dysfunction and chaos. When I first realised this - I called it my upside down world. A whole people, (civilisation - European man - whites) have had their culture stood on its head, this thinking has been foisted upon them by the movers and shakers (philosophers and opinion formers) of our time. This ruling hegemony has been foisted on a stunned populace (by duress, cohersion, hate legislation, political correctness, police state, surveillance etc.) and taken hold in time for the 21st century - the century of change. The overall effect of liberalism on our people has manifested in disorientation and loss of compass, they are adrift in an ocean of confusion where nothing is what it seems and used to be. What was once certain (true) is no longer. Take political correctness for example, the buzz words and phrases of the blogs and journals reflect this liberal thinking, it’s insane, it’s a joke, it’s sheer madness, you couldn’t make it up, what will they think up next? We have all said it ourselves. I think what happened last Thursday was desperate collective attempt by a desperate people to reconnect with the certainties they once knew and they voted in the only way they knew how - by putting their faith in the old political labels of red and blue. But what they found they got was, vote blue and get red liberalism - Vote red and get La La Land. It’s as Dorothy said, we don’t live in Kansas anymore. We are now approaching the interesting bit, the result of this election is also the result of what I’m talking about here, the direct result of modern liberalism thinking - chaos and confusion. No meaningful change will come from the voters efforts, in fact it will be more of the same with the pedal to floor. Note what’s happening across the pond under Obama. We are all rats in a laboratory experiment and you know what happens there, mankind has begun on a journey of fantasy. Somewhere - over the rainbow….. Footnote. 152
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 May 2010 11:22 | # Per the sociobiological discussion above: Such analyses are always stimulating and provocative, but not really very useful (and often filled with circular argumentation). The task is to save the white race, and then, I would hope, the specific historical ethnocultures comprising our common racial civilization. Sociobiology might help us to explain why our race has reached this suicidal impasse, though I doubt it. One does not derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Western Man is dying for very simple reasons, all of which can be explained relatively easily. First, we are heavily outnumbered as a percentage of the total human population (how this has come about is known, if convoluted, involving such past behaviors as the export of Western medicines, the development of birth control and its social acceptance and use in the West, the West’s earlier embrace of ‘modernity’, with all of its negative fertility ramifications, the Western-created “Green Revolution” in Third World agriculture, etc). Second, we have (we think) ethically discredited (white) racism - and we have ludicrously defined such racism in accordance with Western-only notions of individualism. Third, following from our cultural discrediting of racism (at least for the majority of Earth’s whites), we have lost the ability to exclude non-whites from our societies, at least on racial grounds (and increasingly on any grounds). This had the greatest and earliest impact in countries like the US and Australia which had indigenous non-white populations traditionally excluded from most areas of the host white societies. Fourth, the modern revolutions in transportation and communications have made it easy for strange peoples both to be aware of the superior living arrangements in white societies, and actually to physically move there. Fifth, there are certain greedy commercial interests which have tremendously economically benefitted from being able to employ cheap immigrant labor (which was heavily non-white, at least until the collapse of Eastern European communism, and the subsequent expansion of the EU Eastward), and these interests have successfully led the fight for immigration. This crisis really has little to do with matters in which a turn to biological explanations is helpful. Such explanations are useful when, for example, we use psychometrics to elucidate the black/white IQ gap, such information then to be used to discredit the leftist assertion that, eg, white racism is responsible for black scholastic failure. But empirical data cannot resolve ethical disputes. Western Man is dying because he has embraced ethically false principles, the first and relevant one being that it is somehow morally wrong to use the coercive power of governments to maintain racial homogeneity (ie first, to keep out non-white immigrants, second, and more ethically difficult, to expel or repatriate non-whites from white polities in order to return to antecedent conditions of racial homogeneity). The kinds of sociobiological discussions which have preceded these comments of mine in this thread are really utterly beside the point. The white man is dying, to repeat, because he has accepted a racially suicidal morality. Why he has accepted this morality is to be found not in analyses of “reproductive fitness”, genes, hormones, pheromones, kin ratios, or similar scientistic, deterministic claptrap, but in analyses of modern theology, philosophical ethics, as well as, of course, the sociology of contemporary media/propaganda. And the answers to our racial plight will likewise be found either in a) the development of a new ethics for racial survival, and its successful dissemination within the Western nations, or b) ideological emigration and our own white demographic conquest of some territory, as I envisioned in an earlier comment in this thread. 153
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:05 | #
The media is the most critical element. People naturally move towards the cultural normal and away from the cultural abnormal and the media get to define what is culturally normal and what is abnormal. Nationalism, patriotism and increasingly any form of ethno-centric behaviour at all is increasingly defined by the media as abnormal for white rabbits (but not anyone else). Therefore one of the single most important things a nationalist could do is either be involved in creating alternative media e.g this place, or infiltrating the mainstream media in a reverse form of cultural marxism. However i’m still struck by something. I’ve spent time in areas that were being cleansed like Barking is now. Remembering back the people in those areas were fundamentally opposed to what was happening, talked about it incessantly, and IIRC were almost entirely racial when talking about it, but they still didn’t vote NF (as it was at the time) past a certain percentage. The people in those areas were talking outside the box that was allowed at the time but not acting outside it. We’re in a situation now where a huge number of people support core planks of BNP type policies e.g a complete halt to immigration and with immigration as number two on the list of people’s concerns. So in private they are thinking outside the allowed box when they answer these opinion polls but not acting on it. So i’m thinking the politics is trumped by the psychology and the psychology basically comes down to a battle between the psychological pressure exerted by the media-created cultural hegemony versus the conditions on the ground and the balance between those forces decides the glass ceiling of votes. Max. Votes = 100% - strength of cultural hegemony + how bad things are The reason this is important, if it’s true, is nationalist politics will always grow to its glass ceiling, then, when it doesn’t break through that point, collpase in in-fighting and recrimination. However if it is true and people accept it as true beforehand then the collapse part can be averted. The primary aim in the second case wouldn’t be to break through the glass ceiling but to get to a situation where a party like the BNP was at its maximum for whatever level of glass ceiling there was for the conditions prevailing at the time e.g today in UK terms it might be something like 500 candidates at a general election getting 5-10% of the vote each and an average of 200 members per constituency. In 5 years time after the economy has nose-dived it might be 500 x 30%. 154
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:35 | # @PF,
Very interesting and basically where i think we’re headed as balkanization hollows out the state.
That may well be true but in the end everything comes down to numbers. An exodus of 3 people isn’t going to have effect. An exodus of 3 million might. An electoral strategy with 3 people won’t have much effect. An electoral strategy of 3 million might. A secession of 3 people won’t have much effect. A secession of 3 million might. So the critical question to my mind is how do you get and hold large numbers. Once you have the numbers then whatever happens and whatever strategy ends up being adopted you have enough people to make it work. I think an electoral strategy is the best way to recruit numbers. It might also be the best strategy for success or it might not but that’s a separate thing. However if there is a glass ceiling at any particular time depending on the conditions at that time but people aren’t expecting it then there’s a risk of the organisation collapsing and all that effort being wasted. If it’s true about the glass ceiling then it’s important for people involved in the electoral side to win that argument to prevent demoralization. 155
Posted by Frank on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:42 | # Bowden has different stances than Griffin though, right? This isn’t as simple as getting a leader out there. Griffin remade the party into what it is today, and whomever might take it over from him would similarly remake it. This remaking of the party could have eventual genetic impact even if it’s not immediately perceptible. Part of why I like Brons is the values he appears to espouse. 156
Posted by Frank on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:45 | # Why does Griffin need to step down now btw? I’m not following. He’s built a wonderful party. Third position is a wonderful ideology. 157
Posted by Frank on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:48 | # Reg fascism: the term can mean different things, among them the service of the state rather the race. This could include the dissolving of races within the state to unify them in service to the state - this could include too the importation of skilled foreigners (think Friedrich List) to fill holes in the state’s capabilities. 158
Posted by Frank on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:56 | # The BNP is merely an institution established to serve the British race(s). If it changes from this original mission, then it’s worthless. Service to a party that doesn’t serve the British race(s) is pointless. 159
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 May 2010 13:23 | # Regarding the suggestion for good propaganda with the suggested 20 minute video in my comments above some of you may be familiar with the ‘Muslim Demographics’ YouTube hit (10 million views apparently) that was thereafter attacked for its accuracy. If as suggested it uses official statistics to make it more bulletproof then perhaps it will be more difficult to gainsay and of course would have a wider remit than a purely anti-Islamic hit piece. The actual video 160
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 May 2010 13:32 | # Afterthought: one area might be (as Dan showed recently) the ethnic crime element in the UK. Think this would be an area for the BNP as an org to steer away from but if the video was produced independently and fed into the general milieu then of course it would be absorbed by potentially millions of people online. 161
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 May 2010 14:11 | # Wandrin: Anti-racism has infected the entire white world, even countries that have no history of white racial oppression, like, say, Finland. Why have they allowed non-whites to immigrate there? Are they such fools that they cannot see where those initial foreigners - the “wedge in the door” - must ultimately lead? But that cannot be right, for they had the vicarious experience of the US with its racial problems, the anti-European savagery of the decolonization period, more recently, race riots in the 70s in Britain (I remember those, dimly), the huge, continuing immigrant/Muslim crime wave in France and Belgium since the 90s, etc ... and yet those stupid Finns have continued to allow non-Europeans to settle there!! Why, for the love of God?? It seems to me that white communities everywhere must have had some sort of latent racial defect, which only required a certain set of circumstances, including ethical/ideological “development” (really, retrogression or devolution), to become operational. It is one thing for the US, with its slave history, to feel a desire to atone for racial guilt (ridiculous and incorrect, but understandable, perhaps, wrt generous but weak minds). But why can’t Finland tell the world that it wishes to remain Finnish, and thus refuse any immigration? Why must Finland allow itself to become “diverse” and multicultural? There is no answer. It has no such ethical duty. Yet the same forces allowing for the racial undermining of white colonialist powers, like Britain, France and America, seem to operate even in non-racist and non-imperialist countries. Hence this must be something ‘endogenous’ (ahh, now I resort to sociobiology) to the white race. My point wrt emigration/conquest is that EVERY white nation, at least in the West (but Eastern Europe will likely succumb eventually as well, in tandem with its ever greater economic integration with the West), is now either white-majoritarian race-suicidal (ie, the majority of whites either supports racial diversification, or is relatively indifferent to it), or white race-suicidal through a large number of white diversity supporters combined with increasing numbers of naturalized non-whites. What this British election proves, again (as in France in 02, America with Obama), is that few whites anywhere, as percentages of national populations, care passionately about saving our race, or even their own historic cultures. I happen to believe that there are, however, potentially significant minorities of whites, spread throughout the European world, who either are WNs, or could be, if they could be convinced that WN is ethically justifiable, which I think is possible (ie, WN IS ethically justifiable from a Christian perspective - I do not believe in atheistic morality, at least outside tribal bounds - and it is possible to persuade large numbers of our people of that ethical justification, though we obviously have not succeeded very well as yet). But, dispiriting as things are, we do know that there a lots of whites in absolute numbers scattered across the globe who are WNs, as well as much larger numbers who, if not actual WNs, nevertheless are in rough sympathy with our modest goals, and who, as physical conditions for whites objectively worsen in the coming decades, might be persuaded to emigrate to a welcoming WN nation, if a beachhead had been established somewhere. I don’t see how WNs are ever going to take over any major country, at least electorally, without population transferal. Even if we do it will be a modest WN. Immigration will be halted; but will non-Europeans be repatriated? I doubt it. Meanwhile, nation-killing multiculturalism will be the national ideology, with all it attendant pressures to erase historic cultures, lest the newcomers feel “discriminated” (eg Brits have to abandon Christmas so as not to offend the precious Muslim minority). WNs are not going to come to power through elections. Most whites not only do not think as we do, they never will. I say this even though I do expect WNs to make ever more conversions as time goes by, due to education on one hand, and worsening conditions on the other. But it will never be enough to achieve a governing majority, especially as the number of non-whites increases. The painstaking work of racial conversion cannot begin to equal the rapid increase in immigrants. But if the 5% of whites sprinkled across the white world who are pro-white were all to coalesce in one sovereign polity, especially if that country were numerically small, and already majority white (eg, Australia, Uruguay, Ireland, Finland, Estonia, etc), we could possibly “conquer” it, and instantiate, “sotto voce” of course (we don’t want some anti-white-racist America to invade or otherwise destroy us, as they did Rhodesia and SA), a white racial state, a place where traditional whites can “live white”, and thereby preserve our racial civilization. I see no other hope. If Brits, French, Dutch, etc, haven’t racially awakened by this time, when will they? When their nations are 60% foreign? And then what will they do about it? They will have awakened to a condition of servitude. They will have been peacefully conquered, as is the position of our racial kinsmen in South Africa. SA today, Britain, USA, etc tomorrow. 162
Posted by BGD on Sun, 09 May 2010 14:31 | # Leon, do you not include various US states that are evolving secession proposals and are frequently majority white as well? 163
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 16:06 | # @Frank
He has his opponents the same as any political figure i guess. They may be right for all i know although i’ve suddenly become more inclined to the view that the leader and the platform aren’t as critical as i thought e.g seeing the NF get 5% in Rochdale and the Stoke candidates banging up against 10% or so.
164
Posted by Bill on Sun, 09 May 2010 17:22 | # This election has finally nailed the idea that politicians and the political system has anything remotely to do with representing the people’s hopes and aspirations. There is no longer any pretense by the political establishment or parties that they have any vision or grand vision - other than to satisfy consumer choice. Both major parties have abandoned their respective client base and shaken off every vestige of loyalty and tradition. The whole system relentlessly presents and promotes diversity and multiculturalism as the future. And yet our people vote for their favoured tribal faction in their millions, even voting for minority candidates. Will our people ever realise what a dastardly trick is being played against them? The whole electoral system is clamped down in a vice-like grip of control by the cultural establishment, not even a chink of light escapes. And yet the illusion of choice is somehow skilfully maintained. Read my lips as they spin their lies. Is there anyone out there who will emerge and trumpet it as it is - and slay this NWO dragon? 165
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Sun, 09 May 2010 18:22 | # I don’t really wish to add yet more verbiage to the page after page of over-analysis of the apparent political failure of the BNP at what was, rightly, seen as the climactic and defining contest of the vain attempt to stymie by political means the inexorable certainty of a non-white majority Britain, nor do I wish to join in the ritual kicking in the bollocks of Griffo - whilst that particular wounded beast whimpers in his lonesomely in his cave - I maintain the position that Griffo put up a damn good effort, and despite the vainglorious pronouncements of the ‘fantasy-football’ strategists here of how their self-styled ‘intellectuallism’ would magically unlock the gate of EastEnders and Football induced fuckwittery amongst the Great British Public ‘if only the listen to me’, and the ghost chorus. 166
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 18:41 | #
Back in the 1950s something like 90% of voters voted for Labour or Conservative. This time it was 66% and many of those are voting against the party they hate least. It’s breaking down but slowly.
Maybe. I’d imagine a lot of people said that before the reconquista too and when King Alfred was hiding in a swamp with a handful of soldiers. Q: How did NSDAP get into power? It’s not over till the fat lady sings. 167
Posted by Leadership challenge? on Sun, 09 May 2010 19:26 | # Wandrin Quite. The coming years of austerity may change the level of the supposed glass ceilings, and mainstream pols might even tacitly acknowledge that the existing inhabitants should be the beneficiaries of an increasingly unaffordable welfare system, which may put some dampeners on immigration in the short term. Re: Griffin. I just want someone apparently ‘normal’ to be running the BNP. The media no longer sees them as “Nazis”, more as incoherent, inarticulate reactionaries, and the figurehead of a dodgy chancer pulling weird publicity stunts does nothing to allay that. That, and he the fact managed to piss off four very important and senior people in the party during an election campaign. If their is such dissent in senior ranks the buck has to stop somewhere. On a similar kicking them when they are down note, how about some comment on the UKIP campaign, quite literally a plane-crash. I know there will be few fans of the UKIP here, but they have at the least a “Tebbit-test” attitude to immigration, and the media portrayal of them as a “safe” alternative to the BNP could be exploited by both parties. 168
Posted by Leadership challenge? on Sun, 09 May 2010 19:34 | # Final note. >5% of votes cast in the General Election were for parties considerably to the “right” of the Tories on immigration and other social matters (UKIP, BNP + Eng Democrats and others). This despite very poor campaigns from UKIP and BNP, and the potential for their vote being squeezed by what was seen as a very close and important election. We can assume the majority of that 5% were from the traditional patriotic Tory mode. And not many of them will be going back to the blue team. Thus proper Conservatives have prevented the Coronation of Cameron as Blair mk2, indeed the loss of these voters may mean the Tories can never get an overall majority again. The necessary official bunk-up of the Conservative with the LibDems can only be an opportunity to tempt more across. 169
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Sun, 09 May 2010 19:41 | # You can all slag-off Griffin as much as you want, actually I’m not running a one-man Griffin fan-club here. 170
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 09 May 2010 19:49 | #
I don’t believe that is actually the case. Polls have confirmed that the BNP’s policy platform is considerably more popular than the party itself. 171
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 20:26 | # Leadership Challenge?
Possibly dramatically.
I understand this point of view. I just wonder if any successful leader of a far-right party can be normal? I think the critical thing is the staff officers behind the scenes.
I’m not hostile to UKIP at all as i see a potential opportunity for a good cop, bad cop routine developing with the BNP. I see potential for UKIP to gradually drift in the right direction and to gain support in areas that would be harder for the BNP to do well. However i do think Lord Pearson has proved himself incapable though. I think he’s conflicted through being too attached to the Conservative party and so can’t attack them hard enough. He seemed to spend most of his time trying to get UKIP candidates to stand down against hardcore euro-sceptic Conservatives.
Yes there’s a lot more latent support buried in there still.
I think they’re connected both in origin and unintended consequences. 172
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 09 May 2010 20:40 | #
That’s the critical point. If there was a referendum tomorrow on a complete halt to immigration for 25 years i think it would be won easily. I’d say the same if the question asked was should all illegals be removed. If it was a secret and away from the glaring eye of the left-liberal media i think people would vote with their instincts. In my view it’s not that the majority don’t have the instincts it’s that something overlaid on top stops them voting that way. 173
Posted by IAE on Sun, 09 May 2010 20:43 | # Trebling the votes from the last GE is not a failure; losing seats was, but that is politics and this is just one election. All indications are that there will be another election before the end of the year. Now that Liebour have been re-elected in B&D;by making promises on immigrants and housing forced upon them by the BNP, when they demonstrate that they lied about these promises solely to get re-elected the people will react. When this national coalition fails to take us through this economic crisis and spends more time fighting with each other then working for the people, another two mainstream parties will be thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the electorate along with the bankrupt labour party. And when international observers have condemned our electoral system as the most corrupt they have ever seen (and this is coming from Africans too) and that postal, proxy and ghost votes are routinely used to subvert true results, as well people genuine voters being barred from voting, people can start to see the charade of the results that proclaim such “victories” for the dying mainstream. 174
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 22:14 | # Leon Haller wrote: I always liked the clear-headedness and practicality of your posts Leon. I remember you popping in in ‘07 and ‘08, leaving insightful comments, and then leaving again.
I think people derive ‘oughts’ from ‘ises’ all the time. They think strategically, and a new map of reality results in different patterns of optimal action which need to be carried out. For example, if you thought that working really hard at your job would get you promoted, you would decide you ‘ought’ to do that. An ought from an is. If you later learned that your boss had a history of taking credit for all his employee’s accomplishments and never letting them progress in the company, you would shift your plan of action - the ‘ought’ - based on the new ‘is’. You would seek a job elsewhere. It is our inherited models of reality - the is-understandings we have about national life, group conflict and normative behavior - which decide the ‘ought’. Morality is always based in practical considerations although often these cannot be articulated and may be vestigial or unknown to the “user” - in the case of unconsciously inherited moralities, which drive the actions of those unable to evaluate whats going on inside them.
Our defect, also our strength, is that we adhere extremely well to group moralities based on abstract principles. That is, to some extent, what the core of being white is all about: increased reasoning ability, increased conscientiousness, better social syncing in the pursuit of large-scale goals. Being white is about following the plot laid down by the best knowledge of your brethren. This explanation I’ve just penned strikes me now as explaining two things: (1) why whites only monitor racial feelings of whites and ignore all the ethnocentrism of their new friends, because (2) they view adherence to these abstract principles as ‘the white thing to do’ because in some sense it is only white people who could strive so seriously against their own innate natures in the name of an abstract moral imperative, only white people who can bring this level of sacrifice in the name of what-needs-to-be-done. There is no doubt that people feel at their whitest while lauding and preaching this ideology. We know we are all much closer to brown people in the way we think, because we think parsimoniously about group-competition where whites think using moralized abstract models. I resolve the difficulties facing us differently than you do. I consider this whole ideology as an example of a ‘very good sell’. Something that, to the average white sheep of IQ 100 to 120, raised in relative comfort and socialized in a society controlled by television, proves simply to be an irresistible narrative. We have to understand how incredibly appealing this ideology is to its children. If you consider the limitations of liberal knowledge of the world - and of the sociobiology of other nations as I wrote about above, for a person with this knowledge base, multiculturalism is supremely plausible. It promises an end to historical conflict. It promises the absolution of guilt. It promises a world where man will never again have to stand against man, but will only make concessions. It takes our crumbling social consensuses, and slaps a label on them that “One thing is necessary.” It provides a reason for our world falling apart. It promises a future where competition doesn’t exist, only cooperation. It appeals to the heart-culture of western whites, which tends increasingly to seek accord and good feeling with one another and understanding. It has been rubber-stamped by our faux intelligensia - an entity whose hollow status-striving is transparent to us, but in some sense, we are quite elite in terms of the understandings we have access to. Everyone else has to bow and scrape to the tenured ape. Wandrin touched on this when he considered:
The salesmanship of this product was so good that the story still sticks, while our realities crumble around us. Therefore I see a purpose in analysis, which if it can produce accessible and refined argumentation about precisely why these understandings do not reflect reality, can articulate the misgivings of grumbling nativism which otherwise have no ideational point-of-attack, but are ideationally defensive merely, and can lead to this product being shown to actually not be the appealing thing that it was thought to be. My thoughts about another topic you mentioned are soon to follow. 175
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 22:55 | #
This is probably true for the next twenty years. However once we come beyond that time frame, emergent technologies will challenge the paradigm which you are extrapolating from pre-2000s national life to our future. Its important to examine paradigms because for example in warfare you can often see how outdated paradigms inform the strategy of combatants and cause them to perform suboptimally in the conflict. Everyone fights the next war as if it were the war they just got done fighting, and it proves to always be different in some important respect. (because we have arms races going on at all levels including ideational, organizational, technological and tactical). Cliques of government technocrats controlling bioweapons in the future might plausibly use these bioweapons (of which I can only guess what they might be) to engineer future Noah’s Ark scenarios for the purposes of population control. Its hard for me to ignore how this possibility sits fat-smack at the intersection between economic and political interests, and ease-of-implementation given the emerging technologies. How will they (whoever controls these things) resist the temptation to ‘clear out Africa’ - given that they could do this without even travelling there? This change in the balance of power is not fun to even speculate on, given the possible ripple effects, but also impossible to turn away from, given the trajectories that our world is on. A few things like this, even if they were less dramatic, would invalidate even the most meticulously laid out meta-strategy. Similarly, crashes in the supply chain of the kind that Soren has presaged, also result in devolution-to-the-local which would basically force the arising of new micronations within western territories - but I know you will have considered this possibility as well. Basically meta-strategizing based on what we’ve seen 1950-2000 is only valid if the core assumptions hold over time. These things fog up the crystal ball. 176
Posted by PF on Sun, 09 May 2010 23:18 | # the ‘gear’ bubbles on… PF wrote:
Oddly enough it now appears to me that this is a group-survival mechanism unique to whites. We use reasoning to derive the categorical imperative - how should I behave so that if everyone to behave like me, we would all thrive and succeed as a group. In order to reason like this you have to become a Cartesian ego, like Jim Kalb mentions, which is a glyph in the mind beholden to principles. Even Captain Chaos was doing this when he was being a tough-guy and lauding being a tough guy, because he had justified his behavior by reasoning about how ‘white soldiers’ (my term for his glyph, not his own) would need to behave to ‘take back the cities’. When asked about this he justified it in these terms of the categorical imperative. Kant articulated it, the Golden Rule is another version, but this thinking underlies a lot of white morality and group consensus. We do it unconsciously. I reason about how I behave, and according to what principles. Then I extrapolate it to others who use the same principles and imagine it played back again. Then I decide what I should do based on what outcome might come from that. Reasoning from the Cartesian ego is how whites sacrifice themselves for the good of the group. One postpones one’s own, grubby little self perspective - which is condemned as petty and small, until one grows later in life into the understanding that this is the real port through which one can self-interface. Whites disdain to adopt the grubby little selfish perspective. They will not give up the Cartesian dream of finding the perfect principles of social order - i.e “behaving correctly”, “doing what is right” - it appears to them genuinely as a step downward to do this. They would not be using the moral technology which whites developed and which has stood us in such good stead since forever. That may be acceptable in other groups, whose psychology we cannot penetrate, but not in the white man - he is upbraided for it. Funny that considering how you are negatively impacted by the results of Cartesian ego programming is imputed to be a ‘low’ consideration - how dare we consider our aesthetic preference for people of a certain skin tone? How dare we consider those inarticulate kinship feelings which make us want to stay amongst our own kind? We have no right!!! Can’t you see the goddamn reasoning calculations? We found out how to best coordinate our actions so that the public good is maximized. We use this anti-racist ideology. It prevents all conflict and resolves all dissonance caused by tensions stemming from the greater realities that exist below the surface of our abbreviated thought-world. Are you going to subordinate your laughable feelings to these reasoned-out facts of existence, the principles by which we are going to build something beautiful as a collective, or are you going to retreat into your own personal, low, mean method of considering what you want and feel is right? Be noble. Support the group. Stand for racial suicide. Its from the heart of our groupedness that we strive for self-immolation. A paradox! 177
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 10 May 2010 00:39 | # Good thread, this is as active as we’ve seen for months. An encouraging sign. Great commentary here, thanks fellows! Glad to see Leon Haller stops by occasionally, I remember him from Takimag. Leon, be sure to check out the sites MR links to as well, if you haven’t already. IIRC, you had lamented the lack of racialist websites in the past but there is in fact not a shortage of good quality examples. 178
Posted by PM on Mon, 10 May 2010 01:46 | # In my city the Labour candidate lost to the Tories by about a thousand votes. We got 1300 votes. I know this may not be a major point, but we are eating into the Labour vote, and costing them seats. We have to be a factor in their thinking. This is why they pursue us so mercilessly (or one of the main reasons). We always get a ‘we-are-doomed’ reaction after elections. But lets not forget the media profile the party has been given—racist, violent, neo-nazi holocaust-deniers. Yet we got half a million votes, a million in the Euros. There is a hardcore of people who will clearly vote for us, no matter what the media say. This is something. 179
Posted by Frank on Mon, 10 May 2010 01:49 | # I remember Leon from Chronicles years ago, lol. The point of political nationalism isn’t solely to win elections. Those who call for giving up are useless. Those who’ve nothing higher than selfish pleasure to live for, may they waste away in the opium dens with a broad smile. 180
Posted by Obrien aka barlow aka extended phenotype of south on Mon, 10 May 2010 04:29 | # I would like to issue an apology to Majority Rights as a mother’s day present (after all my biological race is still 80 to 95 percent Euro, 95% confidence). Special apology to GuessedWorker, JW Holliday, and Fred Scrooby. For better or worse, Asiatic peoples will always be my adoptive family; in a way, my parents put me up for adoption by Asians first by putting me in mostly Asian/Eastern day care (I am a bastard in the literal sense, I was conceived around Feb. 1983 and my parents married in May, by a peaceful form of “shotgun marriage”), then later when they finally decided that my sexuality was a bad influence on me, they dissociated from me like almost all parents do when their children become too fully enmeshed in lust. 181
Posted by Obrien aka barlow aka extended phenotype of south on Mon, 10 May 2010 04:34 | # As an aside, I seriously believe that I was conceived very close to 1259-0001 hours at or a little before the beginning of Chinese New Year “1982”/1983, between the Year of the Dog (loyal) and the year of the Pig/Boar (greedy) 182
Posted by Bill on Mon, 10 May 2010 05:31 | # People today for the most part do not know that there is a ruling elite and when you do expose this reality 95% reject the concept and slip into denial. We have been exposing these people for more than 50 years, so we know the difficulty of making people understand the facts of who really is in charge. These predators have been with us for over one thousand years trying to bring us their version of what is good for us. In this depraved process they have financed and equipt almost every war and conflict during that long period. Today it is control and the elimination of useless eaters. We can guarantee you one thing and that is if Americans are not successful using the ballot box and other legal avenues to retrieve their country and their freedom, what will take place will make the French Revolution look like a warm up that will last for years, as everyone of these monsters are brought to justice. Leadership not under elitist control for the most part does not know what is really going on. Most are shallow and do not understand real history. They only know the same dogma that has bee presented to them by the opposition. Yes, we have a Tea Party, an outward manifestation of rejection of our current system. The movement is noble and well intentioned, but they still do not understand, or are willing to accept, like most newsletter writers, that there is a cabal behind the scenes pulling all the strings. Many in government, banking and on Wall Street know what is going on, but they are terrified to speak out. They do not want to be thought ill of or perhaps lose their jobs. Those in power realize this, but they also know desperation brings revolution, something we may be seeing in the streets of Athens as we write. If you push the public far enough you will get a reaction, which you not going to like. Keep that in mind elitists, because if you do not attempt to reverse what you have created, it will destroy you. 183
Posted by obrien/barlow/extended on Mon, 10 May 2010 05:53 | # Via Rob Russell: QUOTE: MOTHER’S DAY!—“I am sure that if the mothers of the various nations could meet, there would be no more war.” E. M. Forster I actually sobered up about 2 weeks ago. Though this is not the first time—I have been clean and sober for up to 5 months before, from 7/12/2009 to 12/12/2009 (the 75th anniversary of Bill W.‘s sobriety date). Bill W.‘s (Bill Wilson is the founder of AA) sobriety date of 12/12/1934 is, in hindsight, not terribly surprising. 1934 marked the year that the Securities-Exchange Act, banning insider trading (Bill W.‘s main hustle) was passed. The mid 1930s is also often considered to be the peak of the Great Depression, when there was almost no money to hustle any more. Today’s economy is similar: it is a lot harder to hustle now than it was 4 or 5 years ago, believe me. I have experience in that realm. 184
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 10 May 2010 07:13 | # One salient fact about this election is non-White Gentile MP numbers. From 14 in the previous Commons, the number of these pests has almost doubled to 26. 185
Posted by obrien/barlow/extended on Mon, 10 May 2010 08:04 | # I am apologizing for being a jackass. Also I am grateful for this site b/c it gave me lots of new ideas. There are advantages to listening to people one disagrees with. 186
Posted by Bill on Mon, 10 May 2010 08:19 | # Immigration fast becoming Albatross for Obama.
More…. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/07/us-immigration-obama 187
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Mon, 10 May 2010 11:05 | # Enoch Powell, the greatest parliamentarian of his generation spent most of his later political life warning the GBP about two themes, and two themes only. The unintelligent and unimaginative haughtily scoffed at Powell at that time, calling his two twin preoccupations the ‘obsessions of a mad-man’, and airily brushing aside his predictions as ‘alarmist nonsense’. 188
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Mon, 10 May 2010 11:08 | # Al Ross, 189
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 00:11 | # That is rubbish. The minimum intellectual capability required for the Commons is around 125 IQ. The Niggers and Muslims who make up the majority of non-White Gentiles possess an average IQ of about 85 so the percentage of these interlopers who qualify in cerebral terms is much lower than their percentage representation in the general UK population. 190
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 May 2010 01:20 | # As always, the perspicacious and inimitable Mr. Ross is correct. Assuming a mean IQ of 85 and SD of 15 the percentage of N & Ms with an IQ above 125 is 0.003830. For 10 million this equates to ~38,300. Assuming a White British mean IQ of 100, SD 15, the percentage above 125 is 0.047790 or 2,389,500 (assuming 50 million White British). 38300/2389500 = ~0.016. 650 seats x 0.016 = 10.4 seats. The N & Ms, as my esteemed colleague suggest, are vastly over-represented. Not so very unusual for the politically expedient world of British politics . The stranger is question is why such a high IQ Briton, Mr. Gordon Brown, is such an idiot?
191
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 May 2010 01:28 | # Al, As part of an experiment, would you be so kind as to give an interpretation of this poem.
What does it tell you about the relationship? 192
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 01:51 | # Desmond, the fact that the author (whose name I do not know) refers to the father/son ‘conflict’ in dancing terms would lead me to believe that this poem is about an non - serious, family knockabout. 193
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 01:56 | # This is a pretty famous poem, or must be because I used to see it often in the schools. The child is beaten senseless by his drunken father, lol. 194
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 02:00 | # Desmond, a key to understanding the dichotomy of Brown’s high IQ and low, Marxist, political sense may be found in the fact that his father, A Church of Scotland minister (and, like GB, a PhD - holder) dinned the “social gospel” and “liberation theology” into his son’s heads, thus inducing Christian infantile paralysis of the cerebrum. 195
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 02:19 | # Al, I was laughing in good fun there, not at you - funny that you’d be called out on IQ and then fail the test. If you’re not a fan of poetry, you’re going to misinterpret it at first though. The father abuses the boy, works out his unrelated anger on him, and yet the boy still must rely on the father. It might have a reference to how children adapt readily - the child might not be unhappy despite the abuse, and might still adore his father. At the least the child must rely on his father. Not that it matters, just all in good fun *punch* 196
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 02:19 | # The Rev. Dr Brown had three sons, so “sons’ heads” , of course. 197
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 02:21 | # Frank, please wait for Desmond’s comments before gloating. 198
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 03:01 | # Oh, I don’t mind either way on the poetry - all in good fun. But, I’m not sure Brown’s being a Christian makes him blind to the world. There’s nothing more rational about serving one’s race than betraying it. One may serve the self ahead of nation, or the family ahead of nation, or friends ahead of nation. One may serve a cause (e.g. global warming) over nation or some religion (e.g. Islam) over nation. Putting race first is no more logical than not. Embracing a Eurostate or embracing a world state or embracing an independent UK: all potentially fully rational. Ask some of the rational transhumanists at this site how much they care about racial purity - none. They care about playing with genetics, working towards new wondrous creations that might be dreamed of or, if they’re lucky, might entertain them. The irrational might be absurd, but when you step outside the system you’re born into you really have no “rational” alternative. Brown’s merely working within a different system than are we. 199
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 03:03 | # I see 2 grammar errors in my post after the IQ discussion 200
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 03:26 | # Utterly fascinating worldview, Frank. I’m sure you will further enlighten the MR crowd with more of the same. 201
Posted by CS on Tue, 11 May 2010 03:57 | # As Leon Haller stated twice, there simply aren’t enough guys on board with the program in any one country to get the job done and there never will be until we are running the show which is the problem in the first place. The only way we will get enough guys in one (small) country to change things sufficiently is mass emmigration from all white countries. A country like Iceland with a population on “only” 300 000 would be a good place to start. Australia is far too big population wise to get anywhere. Another angle is to promote secession in already existing countries to get a slice of our own. In South Africa for example, the only worthwhile political acitvity for whites would be geared toward getting the blacks to grant whites their own ethnostate in the country (which probably won’t happen). 202
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 04:21 | # Apologies, Desmond. I was distracted by another matter and did not answer your question properly. 203
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 05:16 | # Al Ross, that’s not a worldview. There’s nothing stupid about betraying one’s race. Only from a religion or other-named set of ethics can one derive a standard. Otherwise this is all attachment. Are you familiar with Social Darwinism? We evolved from apes allegedly. I assume most here believe this to be true. A social Darwinist will argue that life’s purpose for each organism is to propagate genes. These genes battle each other, and the superior and lucky triumph over the inferior and unlucky. From this he might conclude a number of “rational” systems of value. I. An individual wishing to propagate his genes might seek to sire and support as many children as possible, with women from every race - leaving a larger genetic mark than Genghis Khan! II. Just as rationally, a race might agree to work together in order to propagate its genes either by seeking Lebensraum or by siring and supporting as many children as it can with all of the women of the world. III. Or just as “rationally”: an individual, let’s call him “the magician”, might undertake to mold genetics himself, surpassing nature’s “survival of the fittest” with “survival of what the magician likes”. IV. An individual or race might declare this all meaningless and pursue pleasure - including pursuit of meaning and purpose [which brings pleasure] which, if not found, will be replaced with forgetfulness and diversion [in an effort to fill the spiritual hole]. V. An individual might grow to believe modern war is too destructive and that in order to preserve humanity it must all be mixed into a global state. Etc. and the list goes on. - It’s a rather important point. Ignore it and be useless to your race if you will. 204
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 05:31 | # I’m not wanting to deconstruct racial ethics and deconstruction but rather to encourage the construction of such values. I’m making Daniel’s argument for theocracy more or less, though I think that ought to be understood from a more objective sense than it’s sometimes argued (Christianity is not the only religion by far). If folks want to reject Christ, I’m pointing them to what they’ll have to develop. Sacrifices and other BS aren’t needed, but children would need to be raised to value their race, and this requires a foundation. From some honest corner a justification would be needed (as opposed to manipulation and lies). I didn’t intend to make this, but I couldn’t resist after seeing someone dismiss Christianity and accuse Brown of blindness over a political disagreement. OK, kill Christ now what is to replace Him? An answer is needed (not something that can be easily found). 205
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 05:34 | # That first sentence should read:
206
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 May 2010 06:29 | # Thank you gentlemen for the responses.
For the life of me I can’t see how that interpretation arises from the poem. Obviously, however, it is there, for Frank is not the only one to suggest that interpretation. It’s by American poet Theodore Roethke . His father was a gardener and died of cancer when he was young. Roethke was an alcoholic. Is it the poem that elicits the duality or is it the reader. Re: Gordon Brown McCulloch, in his essay Separate or Die writes:
For either Roethke or Brown, is it really rational interpretations that vary or is it a pathology. Is it as rational to see the darkness in father and son as it is in man and his race? Allegedly Brown is a man, not only of genius but also of psychological flaws, apparently induced by the ‘cruel experiment’ at Kirkcaldy High. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1811255.ece 207
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 06:45 | # Of course, the ‘cruel experiment’ of which Brown was a tragic victim was standard operating procedure at The Glasgow Academy of my Sixties schooldays. I was also a victim of compulsory rugby and mandatory OTC attendance and, as competitive sports and the Military constitute Marxist betes noires par excellence, perhaps I should sue for child abuse. 208
Posted by 'Heigh-Ho' sings Andy Neather on Tue, 11 May 2010 07:59 | # Al Ross, 209
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 May 2010 11:23 | # I should respond to PF’s comments, although the thread seems to be petering out. I am just too busy, and tired right now to do so, unfortunately. Thanks to those who did notice what I had to say. A final serious thought: Emigration is never easy, but wouldn’t it be pretty damn cool to live in a white nation, or really, a WHITE nation?! A place where not only is the population overwhelmingly white, but where there are literally hundreds of thousands or millions of persons who more or less think as we do. Imagine meeting a new person, knowing that that person most likely shares your basic understanding of society, and certainly isn’t going to whine and be offended by your observations? Think of the sense of shared national purpose, made stronger, I assure all, by the guaranteed antagonism of the rest of the world, the easy friendships and general camaraderie, the sheer joie de vivre??!! Multiculturalism is profoundly psychologically alienating. The racial state would be liberating and exalting. 210
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 11:44 | # Desmond Jones,
The mother is clearly unhappy. This is not good fun.
The father had hit the child
He’s being punched.
Fighting for his dear life.
Father is drunk.
Father takes out his mistakes and troubles on the boy. I never paid much attention in English class, but surely I’m correct there. What interpretation do you derive? If there’s some deeper meaning, I love this sort of thing and would like to see it. 211
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 11 May 2010 11:45 | # PF
This is the key point. “What if everyone did that?” was a common refrain of the older people in my youth. They had a very strong concept of group morality - what behaviour was good for the group. This is a big difference between us and others who in my experience only extend that attitude to their family or clan. Perhaps it’s IQ related? We can see group-cooperation benefits further than they can. They can only see group-cooperation benefits out to a distnace of close relatives. This by definition makes them automatically racial but also explains why their countries are such a disaster. Everyone is looking out for their extended family and not the country as a whole. There’s a recent film called “Pathfinder”. In it some Vikings land in America and a boy gets left behind who is brought up by the Indians. Three guesses what happens? Yes, the Vikings come back when the boy is grown and the white “hero” sides with the non-white goodies against the white baddies - another installment in the same morality tale we’ve been fed for 60 years. They’ve managed to re-program white rabbits with “white ethno-centricity is bad for the group” and our group-morality trait has done the rest. We’ve been programmed to suicide. This programming goes against all the instincts of the blood so it doesn’t work on a percentage of our people but it does work on another percentage where those proportions are fixed on how bad things are or more importantly how bad things are percieved to be. PM
It’s a big something. Personally i was surprised at the lack of increase in the vote in places like Stoke but now i’m wondering if it actually makes sense. If the group-morality idea is correct and white people are wired up that way then it makes sense that if our group-morality had been rewired to “racism is bad for the group” then while that rewiring exists there’ll always be a glass ceiling of votes that varies from place to place depending on how bad things are (or are percieved to be) as it’s not a battle of policies it’s a psychological battle between our wiring versus how bad things are. CS
But that’s the point. If there is a psychological glass ceiling and people realise it then they won’t get disappointed and fall into internal squabbles when they hit that glass ceiling. The aim would be to fill up to that glass ceiling over the whole country - to maximize memberships, core voters, candidates etc. If the glass ceiling (currently) is 10% to make sure that all 10% are on board. If you’ve got an organisation that has fully expanded up to the limit - even if that limit is low - then you’re always ready for when the conditions change. Lastly, “enough” is enough. Who knows how many “enough” actually entails. It could be a lot less than you think. 212
Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 May 2010 11:54 | # Bah, according to this it is merely a dance.
I’m rather shocked this could possibly not be about child abuse and still read it as such… 213
Posted by danielj on Tue, 11 May 2010 15:26 | # Utterly fascinating worldview, Frank. I’m sure you will further enlighten the MR crowd with more of the same. We’re still waiting for the presentation of your worldview. Have you developed an epistemological system yet? Do you have a fully worked out ontology? My suspicion is that you picked up Bertrand Russell’s worthless little apology in your youth and ran with it. 214
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 May 2010 21:43 | # Please remember the words of that old fraud, Jesus, viz, “Salvation is from the Jews” when you recommence wearing out the knees of your trousers while jabbering your paltry thoughts at the stratosphere and communing with the Supernatural , oh holy one. I would have thought that by now, danielj would be a fully - fledged American TV evangelist huckster, gulling the poor saps from the double digit IQ population segment. After all, one only needs to master one book - and a tawdry work of fiction at that. 215
Posted by danielj on Tue, 11 May 2010 23:13 | # After all, one only needs to master one book - and a tawdry work of fiction at that. The key to mastering the book is mastery of self though Al, something of which, you are obviously incapable. The mere mention of anything even remotely connected to Judaism drives you to sputtering uncalculated, unreflective gibberish not worthy of a man of your level of intelligence. Nevertheless, I can’t help but love yeah my brother and sleep soundly knowing nobody could ever truthfully slander you as boring because that is the one thing you certainly aren’t. I’ll buy you a beer next time I’m on that shitty little island of yours. You’re definitely right about the interpretation of the poem. It just seems to be about a romp on an impromptu, domestic dance floor. 216
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 11 May 2010 23:29 | # All those calling for Griffo’s head need ask themselves if there is another man better suited to take his place right now. And if not, best wait then, uh? 217
Posted by Q on Tue, 11 May 2010 23:46 | # I’d be inclined to agree with Al’s POV except I can’t reconcile the notion of an orderly universe somehow creating itself out of nothing. My damned understanding of infinite regress and all that prevents me from becoming an atheist. 218
Posted by danielj on Tue, 11 May 2010 23:57 | # My damned understanding of infinite regress and all that prevents me from becoming an atheist. I’m not sure Al’s ever heard of the prima via unless he has somehow managed to get bored enough at Heathrow to buy a copy of a mindless screed of Christopher Hitchens. One thing Al is, is angry though! Mr. Ross can live and die by the sword and the maxim that a pinch of anger is worth a pound of logic if he wishes. Who can argue with that… mmmm… logic? 219
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 May 2010 00:14 | # The beer sounds good and thank you for the gracious offer, danielj. Fortunately, my addiction to alcohol, though much less damaging to my racial psyche than your addiction to Christianity is to yours, would require a more generous quantity of liquid bread. 220
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 May 2010 00:27 | # I should address your “shitty little island” jibe, danielj. Try this SLI for size : http://www.newsweek.com/id/234833 221
Posted by danielj on Wed, 12 May 2010 00:37 | # Fortunately, my addiction to alcohol, though much less damaging to my racial psyche than your addiction to Christianity is to yours, would require a more generous quantity of liquid bread. Well, it’s just that damn faith gene! Can’t seem to kick the habit… How bout we split a bottle of Dalwhinnie then, Al? Re: Rhode Island I live off the Island. The state isn’t entirely disconnected from contiguity. In fact, a majority of it isn’t an island. I’m actually from a much shittier place (even shittier than England) that might eventually be an island if the San Andreas cares to contribute to the purification of the States. If all goes according to plan, I’m on my way back there soon and hope to working closely with the American BNP. I should address your “shitty little island” jibe, danielj. I should clarify that it isn’t a real jibe. I plan to be a Londoner in around five to eight years. I love England and an English woman and my 1/2 English son and hope only for the best. 222
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 May 2010 00:44 | # Danielj, when a person as superstitious and myth - centred as you are makes mention of “logic” we know that we are down Lewis Carroll’s rabbit hole with Alice. Chuck it. 223
Posted by danielj on Wed, 12 May 2010 01:00 | # Chuck it. I will Al. The day you can provide me with a logical alternative. The day you can refute any of the arguments of the neo-Scholastics of the analytical Thomist school or presuppositionalists of the Van Tillian stripe. Your refusal to attribute rationality to someone who is demonstrably superior to you in that regard betrays your complete and utter incompetence to judge. So judge not friend. Sentiment is anterior to reason anyway Al and nobody is a more fitting example than you brother. 224
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 May 2010 01:58 | # The circular arguments of the Christian apologists you cite, danielj, might just as well apply to Judaism or Islam. If Jesus decided to repeat his party trick of suspending the laws of nature and swanning around on water, would His crucifixion - holed feet cause him to sink ignominiously, thus preventing a successful crowd - pleasing reprise? 225
Posted by PM on Wed, 12 May 2010 02:12 | # Like othe posters here, I feel in my bones that something of significance has happened on this shitty little island, but am still waiting for the killer article or eureka moment that nails it. Until then… -BNP and UKIP have eaten into the Labour and Tory vote, and these voters will probably not come back. Throughout the 80’s the Tories used to get 43% or more, this time they managed 36%. Maybe the watershed years like 1979/1997 when one of the two parties could be swept to power with commanding majorities have gone forever? -We will now have the Lisbon treaty. I have not read it so do not know what significance this may have, but I would not be surprised if, in the event of serious economic, political or social unrest, we find that the EU now has powers to intervene in national affairs in ways that few have yet considered. -I am starting to wonder if all this talk of electoral reform is not orchestrated. The Lib Dems have been getting this level of support for years, so why has it become an issue now? The current FPTP system has the potential to give parties that have geographically concentrated support—like Labour (or the BNP under the right circumstances), large majorities. Will the changes being proposed act as a safeguard for the establishment by ensuring that no party can ever have a majority, and others can always form a coalition against ‘extremist’ parties if need be? 226
Posted by danielj on Wed, 12 May 2010 02:14 | # The circular arguments of the Christian apologists you cite, danielj, might just as well apply to Judaism or Islam. Yeah, except they don’t and can’t. Judaism doesn’t satisfy the conditions for predication. Only Christianity does it. Consider ‘God’ in the following argument to refer to the triune God of the Christian faith.
Nothing circular there Al. Just a devastating pair of syllogisms. Although, if you really wanna discuss it, all (including yours, if you ever develop some) arguments are circular in that they presuppose axioms they utilize. 227
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 12 May 2010 03:09 | # No need to develop my arguments when there are people like ex - preacher, John W. Loftus, whose book, “Why I became an Atheist” does the job so well. Of course the fact that Loftus possesses tertiary qualifications in Christian Theology would not deter danielj’s ineffably superior autodidacticism from triumphing , by his own lights at least. Still, Christians will be Christians and it is charitable to hope that, in view of Christianity’s enthusiastic recruitment drive in the Third World, old Jesus will throw danielj a bone on judgment day in the form of a segregated Heaven in the style of the antebellum South. 228
Posted by Frank on Wed, 12 May 2010 03:40 | # My argument was based on the political necessity of a sort of religion, not that folks ought to convert. I might happen to believe that path leads to conversion, but I also happen to believe you need a foundation for anything to be built upon. A religion could develop on its own regardless, and it’s interesting how Griffin is warming to Christianity. If founding a racial state, you want all to put the race before themselves in certain occasions. You also want them to not be drunks or adulterers, because such creates inefficiency and broken families. I imagine you’d raise children on the command that they never miscegenate and perhaps never allow foreigners on their native soil - that it is theirs to defend based on some higher right or command. But if simultaneously teaching these children that all is BS, and life exists merely for pleasure… I find it difficult to believe the nationalism will hold up. Sacrifice is needed, and this must be justified. Once the white v. nonwhite pressures subside, whites will be back to pondering how much fun it’d be to sleep with aliens or to exploit society at their personal gain or to other “rational alternatives” I listed above. The desired societal order must be sanctified. Rather than manipulating society with mass media and education, perhaps running a siren as Israel does for its “Holocaust” for our holy times (we would not do this for the Holocaust obviously…), we could instead of this manipulation define our values and declare why they ought to be kept. People could then act in a more voluntary manner, though no I don’t mean anarchy. This could be as simple as: there is a God, He created our distinct race and gave it this land - we are to preserve it and honour those who’ve lived here before, this is ours to enjoy and to bring honour to Him and to our ancestors. Adultery is wrong because it leads to societal problems. We ought to seek honour in service to the race rather than monetary gain because the rest of society will acknowlege this and it will benefit descendants and those we care for (including the race), etc. I don’t think there’s need for hallucinogens and prophesy. Life itself can be analysed I think. But to continue teaching that we’re a disease of the dust that happened to develop, and even our particles are merely the result of some freakish Big Bang… that’s detrimental to any sort of societal entity. I’ll submit some quotes from Cicero shortly. His arguments reference “the gods” repeatedly. No civilisation yet has been built without some sort of religion. 230
Posted by Bill on Wed, 12 May 2010 08:30 | # It is clear the combined weight of the media and ruling elites have legitimised (in their eyes) something we already knew, the British political party system is but a one party state. The illusion that the people are able to influence political direction by voting is an illusion to fool the people of Britain. Politics is but a tool to serve the interests of the ruling elites, our people have nowhere to go. The insane antics of the media in the last few days have manufactured what is effectively a one party state. The disenfranchisement of the British people is official and complete. The world’s elite cabal of finance, media and corporatism rule - ok. But as I say, we already knew this. 231
Posted by danielj on Wed, 12 May 2010 13:39 | # Of course the fact that Loftus possesses tertiary qualifications in Christian Theology would not deter danielj’s ineffably superior autodidacticism from triumphing , by his own lights at least. Do you know who Anthony Flew is? You don’t have an argument. We should take an I.Q. test to settle the question Al. I’ll stop boasting if I lose and you stop bitching if you do. Sound good? Still, Christians will be Christians Pesky faith gene! 232
Posted by BGd on Wed, 12 May 2010 15:02 | # Current news suggests the LibDems amnesty policy is being put on the back burner for now… once this marriage of convenience is underway I guess we’ll find out for how long. I notice there will be a referendum for PR, I assume they won’t be keen to bring with this more of a Swiss system of referendums for major topics where suitable numbers of sponsors can be found. 233
Posted by Joshua on Thu, 13 May 2010 01:30 | # “danielj”, I am a Reformed Protestant Christian who is also a European/Occidental Nationalist, and I saw your mention of Van Tilian presuppositionalists (I would also basically be in that camp). I have enjoyed your dialogue with Al Ross, who is apparently ultra-anti-Christian; whether he likes it or not, vast numbers of Whites are some type of Christian. Why he wants so often to demonise us, and how he sees that as in any way productive and conducive to the survival of our race, I know not. But anyway, I am wondering if you are on Facebook. If you are, will you look for “Joshua Walter Seymour”, and request my friendship? Thank you sir. And yes, in the event of a racial conflagration, were Al Ross in the mix, I would gladly and eagerly fight to help and defend him, despite his boundless animosity for the Faith. 234
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 13 May 2010 01:32 | # I take it that danielj’s question is meant to read “Do you know who Anthony Flew was?” Do keep up, difficult though it doubtless is for an aspirant intellectual manque like you, danielj. Yes I do know. The poor old sap believed in Intelligent Design. Since you like to boast about your towering IQ, I’d like you to canvas Mensa opinion on the chances of the majority of their membership believing that risible canard. In a mini - poll of one Mensa member, I questioned my PhD - holding wife on ID and she gave me a dusty answer. 235
Posted by danielj on Thu, 13 May 2010 01:57 | # Do keep up, difficult though it doubtless is for an aspirant intellectual manque like you, danielj. He still very much “is” Al but not in the way we knew him. Nevertheless, you were right. I did mean it as you constructed it. Regardless, the story of Flew serves as a perfect counterpoint to your stupid Saul of Tarsus in reverse. Since you like to boast about your towering IQ, I’d like you to canvas Mensa opinion on the chances of the majority of their membership believing that risible canard. It towers over yours Al. There is a distinction there. I don’t believe in ID. I believe in special creation as it is relayed in the book of Genesis. I’m bored which means I’m done with you for now. It’s been real and it’s been fun… 236
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 13 May 2010 03:30 | # For this welcome relief, much thanks. My belief in thaumaturgy is restored. 237
Posted by Frank on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:30 | # I’ve often heard Mensa is where people go to feel special - who’d join that? What percent of Mensa members vote or otherwise support the BNP I wonder? And if they do vote, what percent actually care about their race rather than see it as good research material? The type of person who’d care about his race is going to have good friends, a family, and a community he cares for. A giant IQ, or more likely a giant ego, doesn’t necessarily grant such things. 238
Posted by Frank on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:35 | # An impressive IQ too in an unbalanced person won’t yield better conclusions. Most of the Asians I went to school with got in because they worked hard, not because they were so brilliant. No one should be taken in by this IQ mysticism. If there’s an argument for how a state might survive lacking a religion, it ought to be presented rather than declared too complex to explain. 239
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 May 2010 10:49 | # To “Al Ross et al”: We are not going to save Western civilization and the race which created it unless there is a mass return to TRADITIONAL Christianity on the part of whites - but also, an ethical revolution within the Church recognizing the rights of ALL indigenous peoples (ie, including us Europeans) to live their own communal lives free of unwanted immigration-imperialism. The problem with atheism, besides the fact that it may be empirically wrong, is that there can be no real ethics without religion, or at least theistic belief (a big allegation, but I stand my ground). I emphasize “real”, because of course there can be functional ethics (eg, I’m not a rapist not simply because rape is wrong, but because it doesn’t appeal to me). But real ethics involves self-sacrifice, and in a godless cosmos, there is no reason to be sacrificial. Perhaps one could be so towards one’s children, out of genetic instinct, but not towards strangers (unless one is stupid, and externally influenced). The old Christians were metaphysically and psychologically correct: without God and punishment, there is no point in being ethical. Morality is mere weakness. The relevance of this line of reasoning to our present race-replacement dilemma is twofold. First, Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheists always assert the possibility of human-created meaning, but that’s obviously idiotic. If there is no supernatural realm then humans are purely animalistic, as opposed to at least the Catholic view, which is (now) that we are evolved from animals, but have been “ensoulled”, and thus are no longer mere animals. With a meaningful, duty-bound cosmos, as is the traditional Christian one, tends to come a willingness and desire to bear children. It is probably no accident that European birthrates have collapsed in tandem with the rise of rampant secularism (yes, there are other causes, such as the welfare state, which reduced the economic value of children, and feminism, which allowed women to evade their social-reproductive duties - though both of these characteristically modern aspects of the West are also bound up with the decline of Christianity). If we don’t somehow get whites to increase their fertility, our race is doomed. Thus, even atheists should support a growth in traditional Christianity. Second, and more on the personal level, successful resistance to our dispossession is going to require a lot of individual hardship on the part of race patriots. Just look at the abuse Nick Griffin, Le Pen, David Duke, etc, have to put up with! Now perhaps some of these men do so for unusual psychological reasons, or because they lack other outlets for their talents, or whatever. But ultimately, to swim against the tide on race today requires a real willingness to bear negative consequences for a cause for which most individuals will only ever be “repaid” in diffuse benefits. I doubt many persons will prove willing to do so unless they are deeply ethical, inner-directed beings - and without God, what point is there to being ethical? If sacrifice for any good external to one’s selfish interests is pointless, then how many will sacrifice for a cause as impersonal and remote as the white race? The cost to me of being a race-patriot is far greater than the eventual benefit (assuming there ever is one!) of merely reducing ever-greater diversity. Of course, I resent that diversity. But I also resent redistributionary taxation, inflation, traffic, etc. What can I do about these things? And in a meaningless world, why bother? The benefits of racial activism, at least outside of a prison environment, are always lower, especially for the intelligent man with various life-options, than what can be obtained if one is selfishly quietist. The racial crisis of the West is first and foremost an ethical one. We are being colonized by those who are biologically incompatible with our nations and common civilization, and resistance to both that physical demographic invasion, and its domestic cultural effects, is hamstrung by the widespread but erroneous belief that such racial resistance on the part of whites is unethical. More precisely, the West is being strangled not by two forces, but three: 1) non-whites, either ones already present in the West before the 1960s egalitarian devolution in white racial consciousness (eg, in America, that meant blacks, Indians, many Jews), or outside immigrant-colonists; 2) white Judases, or “native aliens”, or self-hating whites, who obviously are afflicted with some psychological maladjustment (which is not meant as an excuse for their treason); and 3) the vast white majority who have been conditioned to believe that ‘diversity’ is either enriching, inevitable, or, as mentioned, if resented, at least morally irremediable. We must develop a new racial ethics for white survival, one solidly grounded (for practical, as well as, I believe, metaphysical, reasons) in Christian moral philosophy and natural law. I am working on this, though I have much still to do. 240
Posted by Anon on Thu, 13 May 2010 14:59 | # I’m surprised that you are a Christian, Leon Haller. You say that the white race is doomed unless the very few whites throughout the world who are pro-white all get together and take over a small country. What kind of God could allow whites to fall into such a hopeless situation? Furthermore, since you are a white nationalist you are aware of racial differences. You know that most of the world is filled with people who completely lack the ability to build or maintain a modern society; who inevitably destroy every stable society that they infest. What kind of God could create such a world? 241
Posted by notuswind on Thu, 13 May 2010 15:49 | # Leon Haller, That was an incredibly well-reasoned and articulate comment! Kudos to you sir! 242
Posted by danielj on Thu, 13 May 2010 20:47 | # What kind of God could create such a world? Go and learn what “theodicy” means please. However, I doubt you genuinely desire an answer for your query. Correct, and that’s exactly the principal understanding that brought me from atheism back to religion, a transition started in my late twenties, completed by my early thirties. Just as Leon Haller states: you cannot have real ethics without religion. Indeed. You cannot have properly grounded ethics or moral absolutes and so all of atheistic nationalism whining about ‘fairness’ and ‘principle’ and ‘morals’ is supremely ironic. 243
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 13 May 2010 22:03 | #
Assuming that what you would consider to be empirically ‘correct’ is the sensing of something that one senses enjoys an existence which is independent of one’s sensing it, I am at a loss to conceive of how one could prove the existence of God via an alleged experience of Him, that is empirically.
But is something ethical merely because God says it is? And if so, why?
I see, there is no point in being self-sacrificing unless God will hurt you if you don’t. Isn’t the ability of the strong to injure the weak for disobeying the former well within the human capacity as well; and by your stated reasoning for acting genuinely ethically, doesn’t that obviate the necessity of a transcendent God as enforcer of truly ethical behavior?
I take it you mean one would sacrifice one’s self for one’s children out of instinctive love for them, not because one would be punished if one didn’t - essentially the same motivation one would sacrifice one’s self to please God without regard to potential punishment by God - for love of God. But why would sacrificing one’s self for strangers, assuming one were internally, independently motivated to do it - out of genuine concern - be foolish but to do so for God motivated by nothing but love of God not be?
Yet if one acts in accordance with God’s wishes not out of love for Him but only to avoid His punishment then God-pleasing morality is in the end still a matter of strength and weakness. Your ‘reasoning’ is nothing I would not expect from an essentially conventional and status oriented personality. 244
Posted by Frank on Thu, 13 May 2010 22:45 | # CC, It is absolutely not only a fear of God that compels men to do right. Cicero in De Officiis:
However, even the alleged Viking prayer (recorded by a Muslim) speaks of a reward for service:
- The Christian sense seems to be that faith itself ought to compel men to do right, not necessarily a fear of Hell. This is arguably muddled, but regardless I prefer to focus on the voluntary service out of faith aspect rather than the fire and brimstone fearmongering. 245
Posted by notuswind on Thu, 13 May 2010 22:56 | # CC, Quoting you below:
These statements reveal that you do not understand not only the philosophical tension between materialism and ethics but also why God’s existence resolves that tension in the mind of the believer. The philosophical tension between materialism and ethics is metaphysical. If all that exists is a physical world that’s guided by natural forces then where are the moral truths of human experience to be found? The only answer that the materialist can give is that moral truths don’t exist and that our everyday moral convictions are merely a by-product of our species’ evolutionary development. Ergo, as previously implied, how can a [materialistic] atheist take ethics seriously when he doesn’t believe that moral truths exist! Now, how does God’s existence resolve this philosophical tension? What you are wrongly implying in the quoted statements is that, from the perspective of the believer, the source of moral goodness comes from pleasing God. Among other problems, this view still doesn’t explain where moral goodness comes from only that it is connected with God. The reason that God’s existence resolves the materialist’s ethical dilemma is that God becomes the source of moral goodness. In other words, moral goodness is not about pleasing God but about who God is! This is what it means for moral truths to be grounded in the transcendent.
And your reasoning is nothing that I would not expect from a person who has not seriously thought about these kinds of issues before. 246
Posted by PM on Thu, 13 May 2010 23:03 | # Now all the talk is of a ‘new politics’ in which co-operation replaces confrontation. In reality, for many years now this ‘confrontation’ has consisted of engineering arguments in a feeble attempt to mimic the cut-and-thrust and divergent views possible in pre-revolutionary Britain. The teasing out of the most tiny hair-splitting differences followed by a half-hearted debate on programmes like Question Time are only there to prop up the old, meaningless tribal divisions amongst the electorate. But they couldn’t keep it up forever. So as the public begins to say ‘you’re all the same’ they reply that the ‘old politics’ of confrontation (people’s views being represented) is dead, and has been replaced by the ‘new politics’ of consensus (hegemony). Imagine you have been charged with a crime, and when you got to court you are told that you are being tried under the ‘new justice’ system, which has replaced the old, macho adversarial style. You stand in the dock and watch the prosecution and defence lawyers sat in the corner, laughing, chatting and talking like old friends. You ask them, ‘what the Hell is going on’? They reply ‘shut up will you, we’re trying to come to agreement on whether or not you are guilty in a consensual, non-confrontational way.’ This is essentially the situation the British public find themselves in. We are spectators. Unless by a happy coincidence your views are the same as the ruling elite, you have no voice, and can only watch as they decide the fate of our people according to their whims. If Britain is better with a coalition Government, if this is a sign of maturity and harmony, then why stop at a two-part coalition? Why not have a three-party coalition with Labour as well? They may as well. Such is the scale of left-wing hegemony in Britain that even when the Left is thrown out of office, they are never out of power. 247
Posted by Frank on Thu, 13 May 2010 23:12 | # Machiavelli in Discourses:
248
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 May 2010 23:12 | # notuswind, Can you give me an example of a moral truth that is not also evolutionarily adaptive? how can a [materialistic] atheist take ethics seriously when he doesn’t believe that moral truths exist! Why should he not believe that moral truths exist? Without moral discrimination there would be no mammalian life, for all mammals appear to cognise rudimentary moral behaviour. This is what it means for moral truths to be grounded in the transcendent. What is the transcendent? Do you mean a state of concious function? In which case, what concern of consciousness of this quality is moral good or bad? Can you give me an example of a moral good (or truth) that is relevant to such consciousness? 249
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 13 May 2010 23:50 | # notus,
You make the unnecessary assumption that for moral truths to exist they must exist in a realm that transcends the physical. For moral truths to exist, why must they transcend the physical and not be merely and only instantiated in (physical) neurology?
Let’s say I don’t think Santa Claus exists. But you do. Yet I dedicate protracted contemplation to the hypothetical Santa, where as you merely breezily take his existence for granted. Which of us can it be said takes Santa the more “seriously?” 251
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 14 May 2010 00:06 | # Leon Haller Whether Christians like it or not, belief in God and religious rituals are products of evolution. Perhaps they should be more closely investigated by science in order to better understand their significance to human nature. Religious belief is not going to disappear but theology is withering due to the advances of science. Time will doubtless ensure that science will occasion further atrophy in traditional theology while (disappointingly for Dawkins) failing to eradicate the religious sentiment which that theology supposedly underpins. 252
Posted by danielj on Fri, 14 May 2010 00:24 | # You make the unnecessary assumption that for moral truths to exist they must exist in a realm that transcends the physical. You can create moral truths all the day long. The question is about their justification. 253
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 14 May 2010 01:20 | #
Yeah, those are “glyphs.” Anyone who buys into that shit is a bumpkin, according to PF.
Better to be an adaptive bumpkin than a maladaptive bumpkin. Even if PF don’t like it none. 254
Posted by notuswind on Fri, 14 May 2010 01:46 | # GW, It’s a real pleasure to engage you on these matters.
All of them. As a general rule we all understand that it is morally wrong when we lie, steal, or murder; however, from an evolutionary standpoint, the matter is a lot less clear. It is easy to imagine scenarios where committing any one of these acts (or refraining from them) will increase our chances of survival and/or our ability to reproduce. This is why our society has typically understood the natural world to be morally neutral, where the only rule is eat or be eaten.
Because there is no moral content in the truths revealed by physical science. Therefore, for the [materialistic] atheist who only accepts the reality of the physical, moral truths do not exist.
You are mistaken, generally accepted rules of mammalian behavior are not the same thing as morally binding truths. For example, we all understand that it is natural for a starving man to steal food in order to keep himself (and/or his family) alive while at the same time understanding that his act of stealing was still morally wrong.
The transcendent is that which is over and above the physical and from which the physical depends. Philosophers have typically understood that one of the metaphysical features of the physical world is that it is contingent (e.g. the facts of physical existence don’t explain the reality of physical existence). Therefore, they reasoned, there must be something over and above the physical and from which the physical depends, hence the invention of the human concept of transcendence. 255
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 14 May 2010 01:48 | # Are Catholics, Fred, really so well qualified to pontificate (unworthy pun intended) on Democracy and gender equality from a position of strength? After all, their own Church is surely an undemocratic as North Korea and about as sensibly unwelcoming to women clerics as the Garrick Club is to prospective female members. By the way, I like Jim Kalb’s work and thank you for introducing it to me. 256
Posted by notuswind on Fri, 14 May 2010 01:51 | # CC,
See my response to GW above. 258
Posted by Frank on Fri, 14 May 2010 09:57 | # Service to one’s race is fairly transcendent in a sense: why would an individual not serve himself after all? And similarly service to one’s Fuhrer. Serving any sort of idol like this is transcendent, and race, like Fuhrer, is transcendent. Divine Right of Kings is very much a religious claim. - Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, covet, etc. and shall honour father and mother and do not worship false idols, etc. : these all serve the social structures very well - makes for a decent society, which is why I think it’s the truth. Genesis admittedly gets very strange - I don’t find it necessary for absolute faith in this area (I believe we know what we’re meant to know). God doesn’t want glory taken from Him, so a social structure may I think be sanctified in His name, provided it serves His glory, including the preservation of His Creation which so many seem to dismiss. Depictions of heaven and of Him are unnecessary too: we know only that they are “good”, and we need only know this. To give this holy goodness meaning would be to bring it down to the material level. 259
Posted by Frank on Fri, 14 May 2010 10:02 | # Is democracy popular at the Mensa Club nowadays? Do the geniuses there honestly believe rule by the average man is best? Are the almighty elite following the herd then? What is ideal is a rule by the best: aristocracy, though one of the first requirements would be faith, the second perhaps that the elite not hold property (similar to monks) as Plato suggested, to prevent nepotism other regulations would be needed too. 260
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 14 May 2010 10:53 | # Faith is not a sine qua non of good governance. The advanced - liberalism eschewing Republic of Singapore is extremely well - run by intelligent Chinese Cabinet members drawn from an intellectual elite who never mention religion. The benign and omnipresent influence of Confucian philosophy is, of course, a different matter. Good governance requires men of intelligence, honour, virtue and talent and an excellent Special Branch to record any potentially compromising foibles of the political class. 261
Posted by Frank on Fri, 14 May 2010 11:11 | # Al Ross, Where does the honour and virtue come from then? Peer pressure and other manipulation, yes? The philosophy you mention would at best be used to direct and influence them as the mass media influences us. But this would be a peripheral control based on nothing substantive. You seem to have taken up with Eastern philosophy (Buddhism and now Singapore). As Richard Weaver (a Southerner Brits might not have heard of…) pointed out: religion provides a moral center, a foundation, from which one may derive moral truths and build upon. Mao was a brutal atheist who caused the death of millions. Some argue he was in some ways rooted in Eastern thinking, though I’m not all that familiar with it. I’ve ah read some on Mao but almost nothing on the philosophy you mention. I’m glad to read you’re an elitist. 262
Posted by Frank on Fri, 14 May 2010 12:04 | # Gandhi is often quoted:
And then another I found when searching for that just now:
However, I think there’s a dichotomy between true religion, the revealed truth of Christianity and also paganism that’s inspired by the Holy Spirit in absence of Christ - those on the one hand and other the other hand: religion that seeks to merely control. In other words: a dichotomy between true service to God and mere control by mere humans playing at God. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to grasp that it’s a choice between the one and the other. Outside religion, morality is merely a balance of power, and one is left with chaos. Even tradition is in a sense sanctifying if it merely defends what is established with the justification that it is established - there’s a spiritual connection to ancestors in that sense. - I don’t know much about Eastern philosophy and mysticism, and that puts me at a severe disadvantage. In Holy War, one ideally presents as the Jews do a mystical, fuzzy front that can’t be breached (e.g. we’re not supposed to read the Talmud) while simultaneously attacking those idols it sees clearly before it - deconstruct one’s opponent without being deconstructed oneself… We can see this in how Jews encourage the highest depravity among us while holding a double standard for themselves. And just the same is Eastern philosophy hidden from my eyes since I don’t know much about it. I do know many East Asians I speak with are atheist albeit highly superstitious… Philosophy, religion, whatever one wants to call it… without the sacred there is no morality and thus no order. We cannot preserve any of the things we wish to without the holy. Manipulation is not durable: it’s an order built on sand. The suspicion by those who prefer “philosophy” to “religion” seems to be that religion will always demand absurd things, and I don’t think this is true at all. With Christianity we do not worship golden altars, we do not sacrifice, we do not expect prayer alone to save us. It’s where philosophy inevitably leads one to, if one follows it to the end. Is it absurd to believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? Sure. And similarly there’s no need to believe men lived longer than 120 years. I don’t think faith in those things is necessary. However, we do have the commandments which are important and thus wouldn’t have been allowed to grow corrupted I think. 263
Posted by Frank on Fri, 14 May 2010 12:11 | # It amazes me how posters at this site, at the least CC, would conceivably lay down their lives for their race and yet don’t believe in God. That in itself is surely religion - that’s an unacknowledged belief that race is something high and worth serving and not merely a disease of the dust and random development from monkeys. CC would seemingly go to Hell and back for his race. How many of these limp wristed philosophers can say the same? All reason dictates that pleasure is the highest good - and higher than that it dictates that even pleasure is merely chemical reactions in our brains, nothing of much difference from pain (merely a means of the brain being told something is “good” or “bad” and not in the absolute sense of any real value). If a computer flashes blue screens at you, you reinstall it - no big deal. Yet with man we don’t merely shoot those who are defective - we value them. And likewise we value our race, etc. I’m not meaning to be overly praising to CC, but this one quality is praiseworthy. 264
Posted by danielj on Fri, 14 May 2010 12:12 | # As Richard Weaver (a Southerner Brits might not have heard of…) pointed out: religion provides a moral center, a foundation, from which one may derive moral truths and build upon. The concept of “race” is a universal and the reason GW has trouble defining the English is because his philosophy denies him the use of such. Universals are direct evidence for the transcendent though, so I can’t blame him for denying them. It would do everybody here a lot of good to read (or re-read) Richard Weaver’s trilogy. 265
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 May 2010 15:58 | # Notuswind, It is adaptive for evolutionary adaptive behaviours to become codified in morality. This adaptiveness consists in the gain of not living by constant serendipity and naivity, and avoiding experiential hardships. That is to say the hard, physical lesson of “once bitten, twice shy” is strategically inferior to an emotionally-seated lesson about not getting bitten at all. The only way to show with any degree of parsimony the hand of a supreme being at work in our lives and minds is to identify a moral imperative that is evolutionarily maladaptive. You cannot appeal to maladaptiveness to disprove evolutionary adaptiveness. Let’s have some logical consistency here. I will give you an example of what I mean. In the Christian faith, though not in the Jewish faith, universal love, whereby an equal value is attached to all regardless of their attachment to oneself, is a moral imperative. Now, you may not want to argue for that particular imperative, but the example serves. Through it you could develop an argument not for the maladaptiveness of evolutionary adaptiveness, but for the maladaptiveness of Christianity - God doesn’t care about adaptiveness. That’s got to be your schtick here, otherwise the evolutionary argument just winds along its cheery way unaffected. You write: there is no moral content in the truths revealed by physical science. Do you, then, maintain that no moral content abides in evolutionarily adaptive life choices demonstrated as such by science? If I live by such choices that science commends am I not living a moral life? I agree that the concern of science for truth is not a concern for morality. But truth and morality are not at all mutually exclusive. Indeed, “materialist atheists” can utilise the emotionally-seated lessons about not getting bitten just as well and as confidently as faithists, and with not a smidgeon of hypocrisy. They don’t have to conduct experiments each and every time they go out into life to arrive at the truths morality delivers to our doors. You are mistaken, generally accepted rules of mammalian behavior are not the same thing as morally binding truths. Well, I used the word “rudimentary”. But mammals most certainly have emotional faculties, and exhibit empathy and grief, and those living in more socially complex groups even exhibit a sense of justice. These moral traces are not “morally binding truths”, but then one must ask to what degree the Man animal lives out of “morally-binding truth” rather than evolved behavioural strategies in the first place (for example, “stealing is wrong”). A fundamental difficulty that empiricists have with Christian folk is that the latter’s model of Man as “made in the image of God” is not borne out by the truths which science reveals. The model is full of presumptions about the way the mind works, for example, especially the quality of its ordinary waking consciousness, and they are very often wrong. Now, it happens that there are metaphysical and even religious understandings of Mind which do substantially accord with scientific findings, but these are not Christian. The transcendent is that which is over and above the physical and from which the physical depends. With respect, the transcendent is presence in being now. It is a state, not a place. It is human not divine. It is the discovery of, and habitation in, what is and not what is not, and it is extant at the collective as well as individual level, albeit the collective experience has its own parameters. In whatever terms one couches it, there is nothing here of the Christian cosmological model of a hidden spiritual universe beyond the illusion of physical reality. It is not physical reality which is the illusion. It is ordinary waking consciousness which is illusory, or the maker of illusion. Physical reality does not, of course, depend on anything except physical laws. You could, at this point, make the case that physical laws depend on God’s will. But then you run the risk that God is not free to interfere in his own Creation, but is as bound by its symmetry as you or I. For the maintenance of it, including our formation, requires precisely that he not interfere (that would explain quite a bit, btw). But the Christian faith does not make that assertion. It is conflicted as a result, examples of which include the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, and quite a bit of what goes in between and which defies physical law. the facts of physical existence don’t explain the reality of physical existence Much less does faith explain physical reality. Consciousness and science, each after their fashion, are the explicators. The role of faith is elsewhere, in evolutionary terms. Therefore, they reasoned, there must be something over and above the physical and from which the physical depends, hence the invention of the human concept of transcendence. I’m sure they did reason that. 266
Posted by Bill on Fri, 14 May 2010 18:18 | # The real reason the bishop likes migrants
Read all…http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8879/ 267
Posted by PF on Fri, 14 May 2010 23:31 | # danielj wrote:
Moral absolutes? I take that as a contradiction in terms. Because morality is the screen of judgments set across human transactions - did he steal, did she commit adultery, did he beat another man senseless - and how could one find in any of these shifting realities a foothold for the absolute? If there are moral absolutes, I should like to hear and understand historical examples of actions and the moral judgments that were appended to them - and also hear the basis for the unchanging validity of these judgments. Certainly the existence of moral absolutes suggests that each act committed by man in the ‘theater’ of moral action can receive a fixed value representing the proportion of goodness or badness. Or if not a fixed proportion, at least some kind of summary judgment that is free from the shifting nature of human perspectives. Does God alone know these values? And if I am to recreate what they would be on the basis of the holy scriptures… a whole host of other logical inconsistencies arise. I can’t countenance the intellectual truth-search that doesn’t critically examine the nature of this thing called religion and how it came about. Its as human-all-too-human as yuppie sitcoms or whatever other commonplace thing you like. Why do I say that? Well, there are the traces of social order and levantine Sociobiology which are found in all its laws, many of which are explained from an evolutionary psychology paradigm such as the commandments against eating pork. The whole historicity of all the players involved in those dramas points to different competing currents struggling in the exact same way as men struggle today - simply wielding religious inspiration and old authority whereas we use science, for the purpose of consensus-building. The struggle and bubbling effervescence of all those people in the original scripts and also church histories are so obviously chained within the same realities as we ourselves, looking for something more, trying to deal with their own lives and yet find a common narrative with which to structure their cultures fraying on the basis of the same changes which now rock and disrupt our societies - and how do they resolve this conundrum, which is so inescapably also our own? Moral absolutes, I guess. And a story about God. It was the best they could do.
Its only ironic if you’re viewing it from a viewpoint which expects it to be absolute. You can them claim it has no legitimacy because it is relative. In reality, all these things have to be relative because they are sprung from the inherently morally meaningless human flux that is our being. Something that is beyond right and wrong, good and evil, because it precedes the development of judgments about the social and strategic ramifications of human acts. Just like the mating song of a bird is beyond morality, before morality, because evolutionarily it predates the mind which judges with its “how is this going to affect me and my group” questions. This mind, anthropomorphicising its survival-strategy in the dictates of a far-off humanesque creator, sets out to judge the practicality of human actions without even knowing that it is judging practicality. Because we in 20th/21st century are the first to develop an abstract transactional evo-psych understanding of the ramifications of human actions. Every other human, absent morality, had to learn about the consequences of e.g. promiscuity or stealing, through experiencing those consequences, and by then the human thought process had long been truncated and/or was not communicable. People could not develop and promulgate abstract understandings of this-is-what-happens-when-i-fuck-the-neighbors-wife, so we began to develop these things instinctively, emotively; slap a mythical basis personifying the distant effects of the proximate causes to which we are biologically driven, as Gods, and you have an instictive-emotive and mythical-religious understanding which is basically as good, to all intents and purposes, as the abstract analytical understanding of cause and effect that we have now. E.g. promiscuity causes infighting leads to destruction of group solidarity and that hinders us in warfare. How many human beings in the span of our evolution knew this, or even could have been able to think this or articulate this? This is another way of saying what GW said with not everyone being able to recreate the strategic rules of cause-and-effect in human social life through their own experience, therefore inheriting a hinted at framework which is apotheotic (i.e. promises rewards and punishments in a context where cause and effect cannot be known, hinting at divine influence). This is the “sham” component that is almost unique to morality. For some reason, morality is one area where one has to “hint” rather than “prove”, and hinting is enough, because we have powerful shame circuitry. There’s a whole lot of hinting going on in this thread! It arose because of this: people don’t have the ability to articulate and argue about mental models of reality. I tried to distill my experience talking with many hundreds of whites in the several countries I’ve lived in and universities I’ve attended, that Nazism will not be reborn. How could anyone build a mental model encompassing this data set unless they had had those experiences? Moreover, how I could argue with anyone about the possibilities for rebirth of Nazism, unless they had seen those data-sets? What data are they going to include, what facts are they going to reason from? You have to be well-networked to understand that Nazism is a non-starter. Yet I did *not* win the day for my mental model, I merely may have succeeded in insinuating some doubt into what were previously certainties. How am I going to argue with a paleolithic version of Captain Chaos that banging all the girls in the tribe is wrong, and he should focus on one? Talk about other tribes I’ve known where that didn’t work out well… you see the difficulty. None of these tools for argument existed, and how insufficient even are they in the face of competing experiential data-sets? Hence, morality, which shames people based on consensus and instinctive “no-nos”. It is a short-cut to prevent us from having to argue about the ramifications of actions based on complex mental models of the future. Fairness, principles, morals, - when I use them they are shorthand. They aren’t something I believe in the existence of; if they exist they are secondary and are mere patterns in a larger picture to which they are subordinate: which is self, people and nation. How much more austere must my worldview be, given that I refuse the acknowledgment of an ultimate basis for anything in this behavioral-judgment circuit of the human mind - it seems to me an admirable thing to live in the absence of pretend certainties. We certainly haven’t even scratched the surface of the whole body of thinking which points to the fact that religion and morality are pretend certainties. This misreading of my relation to these concepts (“you can’t adopt a relativist stance without being self contradictory because *I* can only fathom a philosophical framework in which these things to be declared absolutes”) strikes me as similar to the general misreading of English sentiment on the board vis-a-vis “Krauts” (you can’t adopt a disapproving viewpoint without slavishly jewishly moralizing and hand-wringing because *I* have only experienced these two poles of sentiment). 268
Posted by PF on Fri, 14 May 2010 23:49 | # “many hundreds” - an exaggeration. Driven by rhetoric! 269
Posted by danielj on Sat, 15 May 2010 02:05 | # Moral absolutes? Thou shalt nots. The eternal no. 270
Posted by PF on Sat, 15 May 2010 06:39 | # gear abubble… Human beings live estranged from themselves probably due to the fact that we became hyper-intelligent and then hyper-social, syncing this intelligence, which makes the world-constructing-device inside our heads that much more hypnotizing. The self-estrangement which constitutes the need to philosophize and seek meaning in life comes from emotional separation and being stranded in the world of thought. We can’t own ourselves and get the innate motivation to live that we would have if we had unfettered access to our old emotional circuitry - and to an emotional world where reasons-for-living are inherent in each step of the process, and the question of “why” would never occur. Just like it never occurs to children to ask what the purpose of living is. Such a question seems absurd when your emotional circuitry is not yet overwhelmed by socially-synced thought models. Philosophy seeks to explain the implicitly felt “why does this suck so much?” which comes from having an overdeveloped brain and cobbled-over emotions, by framing it in terms of “life has to justify itself by having a larger goal.” The emptiness of the individual non-emotional life is supposedly ameliorated by the achievement of some social good. This keeps the individual hustling between ‘shoulds’ and ‘duty’ and ‘imperatives’ long enough not to realize that their experience of life is as deep and resonant as a tin can dragging along the side of the road. We as philosophers and empty-men are supposed to create some kind of tracks for these poor idiots to run along, which if the tracks prevent race-suicide, we will have to judge them ‘good enough’. How to construct such a track and get your own idiots to start running down it? We can look at two examples of tracks being constructed: moral absolutes and heroic teleology.
We are attempting to posit a higher meaning of life and give guidance for a purer self-relation, based on our adaptive shame triggers. What is simply a functional development is taken as indicative of higher meaning. These are adaptive in the same way as eating large amounts of food and committing adultery are, but they are singled out as bringing us closer to God. Likewise, heroic teleology posits an apotheotic reward in the territoriality/defense/aggression instincts of man and their realization. Defending the collective gives value to man. The highest goal and accomplishment is supposedly collective defense. Yet what then is the value of man, if his primary value is in protecting a group… of men? None of these apotheotic goals allow man to experience himself. However it is that lacking experience which led him to inquire about the meaning of his existence in the first place. Where did he find the answer? What devil whispered in his ear about the track and the sumptuous rewards at the end of it? Well, hmm… both these things benefit the group at the relative expense of man (one more flagrantly than the other). So we are basing our attempted realization of the goal of existence on… hype. Brownie points. The indirect pursuit of praise through meritorious action. The rudderless man, hypnotized by his fellow man’s ceaseless thinking and speaking, imagines that the way to a deeper self-relation is this: to subordinate himself more ferociously to the interests of others. As it is, none of this is even articulated. One simply gestures dumbly towards moral commandments and militarism, signifying “this is the hype that i want to chase.” What happens after one becomes a pillar of moral behavior? When one is a hero? Is life glorified, does one achieve connection to oneself again? Oh… no. One simply lives. One can never make up in congratulatory social noise for the inner meaning that has always been lacking, and will always be lacking, and whose lack is especially evidenced by the unfreedom of perspective that posits its self-realization in the pursuit of brownie points. Meaning it doesn’t even have an idea of the good that is separate from “the good that is talked about by men.” 271
Posted by danielj on Sat, 15 May 2010 10:30 | # What is simply a functional development is taken as indicative of higher meaning. No. I get there from a whole other direction. I haven’t actually read your comments yet. Give me a chance to get back to them both. 272
Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 May 2010 13:44 | # PF, it’s not merely that people, especially young people full of energy and empty of experience, need a sanctified set of ethics out of a lack of ability to grasp the whole. It’s also that people, even grasping most of the whole, aren’t going to care about the whole unless it’s threatened or unless they’re otherwise manipulated into caring for it. Parasites thrive off developed societies. New mini-nations will spring up - families that leach off the rest. You can think of one man running at another, each with swords drawn. One yells out: “for God and country” the other “for my genetic interests” - before the two meet, the latter drops his sword saying “forget this, I don’t even want children”. Not only will the man not fight for his country, he’ll not work for it either. Religion creates an ensoulled man where mere cells of dust previously existed, and religion creates a social structure where mere individuals previously existed. It justifies what is otherwise unjustifiable - it allows for a social structure to be constructed and is itself as important as the genetic component. We are intelligent beings and more than genes are passed down to us - culture is also passed down. Clearly we were meant to abide by certain laws, which is why we were given (indirectly) the Bible we have today. It’s a part of man, and without it we fall. 273
Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 May 2010 13:55 | # The gospel by PF: A bacterium evolves into a dog, evolves into a monkey, human… The human’s brain grows until one day he looks around and realises: “this is all BS!” He then kills himself… Apparently this is supposed to have continued until one human invented religion and declared: “it is good”, and then perhaps informing the others of his tribe which gave all a purpose and a definition. Then PF was born and he torn it all down, freeing men to the reality. The tribe leaves work, takes to opium, and eventually all die out - freed from life. 274
Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 May 2010 14:14 | # There’s more to religion than brownie points - it grants man a sense of the transcendent. Devout men will do good where none see. The will act because it is right, not merely because others see. And it isn’t merely serving one’s own people that Christianity commands but also a serving of all the people on Earth - so that fallen man is happy. - Daniel, apologies if I’ve given you trouble by my taking an atheist’s approach earlier. It seems to have backfired. My intent: to build upon a solid racial attachment, though apparently that’s lacking. - Jews teach Gentiles in school and TV that religion is for the stupid. The religious children are unable to defend themselves, and the rest come away believing this is true. They then enjoy a sense of superiority over those who are religious - who against all evidence are assumed stupid because the Jews told them so. 275
Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 May 2010 14:20 | # “serving of all the people on Earth” - not that this entails racial suicide. Why would God create the races if we’re to later destroy them? - Regarding superiority, it’s interesting that religion is alleged to be an adaptation to allow man’s intelligence to accept the cold reality around him - a delusion that allows him to make sense of the world. And yet it’s somehow superior to lack this adaptation. And to top that, lacking a delusion makes one more intelligent, which is largely unrelated to the delusion itself. The devout man even points to “allowing himself to believe, allowing himself to have faith”, clearly having little or no correlation with intelligence to begin with. 276
Posted by PF on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:52 | # Hey Frank!
Meaning we had no souls nor social structure before the advent of religion. The implication of your argument bluntly stated. Lets piece out the resulting theoretical history bit by bit… so we go back to the most rudimentary religions .. and man has proportionately less soul, and less social cohesion, as he has less religion? Religion, this little piss-poor narrative of a few hundred stories, is what we have to thank our souls for? Certainly religion doesn’t have the ability to craft inner powers of man that didnt previously exist. It can be an expression of those powers, maybe. If man can pull himself up into higher echelons of meaning just by crafting stories around a pantheon of gods, we would be supermen, since we are awash in these explicatory narratives.
This certainly is how you imagine this playing out!
I was going to try to craft a reply to you Frank, but I have to shut down my truth search here and start believing lies because otherwise I might happen upon realizations that prevent me from having children. I’m afraid if we get any deeper into this I will lose the ability to impregnate women. Long live God, Country, The Bible, My Principles, Heroic Fighters of all Eras, Holy Moral Doctrines Which I Have Always Lived By, Aryan Racial Spirit, the Church of England and my Jewish Creator Myths! Also anything that O’Meara and Kurtagic happen to invent on the side!!!! With all this fun nonsense partying in my skull, I’m sure to be changing someone’s diapers in the near future… 277
Posted by Astrid on Sun, 16 May 2010 05:34 | # Humans invented the ideas of honesty, goodness, morality, decency, right and wrong, love, kindness, fairness, justice, etc., out of their hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years of experiencing life and their feelings about life without a mass media bothering them. It is no small thing to have invented these concepts. Why is there the need to look for an outside agent? 278
Posted by Astrid on Sun, 16 May 2010 06:22 | # Frank, here’s another interpretation.
That was mother’s face. She had a hard life and was not happy. The hand that held my wrist It was. And it made the child feel bad for him. The child feels sorry for his parents. You beat time on my head More of the same, with a bit of shame here too. Father was a bit low, waltzing with dirty hands. But I hung on like death: Father was careless what he did, beating time with a dirty hand, but the child was very careful. This is how sensitive children are. Desperate to connect with parents, to interact with them, and knowing very well when the parents are out of it.
At every step you missed With a palm caked hard by dirt, Father takes out his mistakes and troubles on the boy. Careless again. But not necessarily on purpose. Father is, first and foremost, living out his own wretched destiny, The boy, being a child, takes whatever he can get from him, even if it’s waltzing with him when he’s drunk. It pains him to see their wretchedess but still he can’t help longing for their love and attention. 279
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 03:34 | # GW, My apologies for the delay in this response.
First of all, you cannot with any degree of confidence claim that an emotionally-seated morality is necessarily evolutionary adaptive. There is just no scientific principle and/or body of evidence that you can use to come to this conclusion. At best you could argue that it is, a priori, reasonable to suppose that something like our sense of morality is evolutionary adaptive. Secondly, even if this claim could be scientifically demonstrated it would not serve as a basis for moral truths but only as a means of explaining the origins of our moral behavior.
Yes I do. Prof. Dawkins also happens to agree with me on this point as is revealed in the following quotation: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995)
It’s hard for me to respond to this question because scientific theory is descriptive and not prescriptive. Science doesn’t tell us how to live our lives.
I agree with this statement.
But lets be clear that on this latter view there are no moral truths pertaining to an immaterial moral order, there is only adaptive behavior.
You are mistaken. Jesus taught that Christians were to hate the world [of men] and not love it. The universal love that you are referring to is the love that God has for mankind (see John 3:16).
While I very much respect where you’re coming from here that doesn’t change the fact that much of this is just bald assertion. It is also tangential at best to our discussion about moral truths and moral behavior. Now, I am more than willing to deal with any one of the myriad topics touched upon here individually; however, I can’t [simultaneously] effectively respond to the many different arguments that you’re making in this commenting format. 280
Posted by danielj on Mon, 17 May 2010 18:35 | # PF, I am almost invariably reminded of that ol’ proverb bout answering fools according to their folly whenever I come into contact with you by way of your comments here. This bit of wisdom is precisely what has deterred me from responding thus far. I am concerned that my contribution and any further interaction will only increase the intensity of your already intolerable foolishness. Your desperate and dauntingly verbose pleas for answers to your rigged questions appear, to me, to sometimes be thinly veiled pleas for recognition and approval from the chorus. Well, I think you’re a real swell guy PF! Feel better? As an aside, I would suggest to you that in the multitude of words sin is not lacking. You seem hell bent on multiplying to infinity every minor point that you have which has the unpleasant side effect of obfuscating what could have been crystal clear. Because morality is the screen of judgments set across human transactions - did he steal, did she commit adultery, did he beat another man senseless - and how could one find in any of these shifting realities a foothold for the absolute? God says “Thou shalt not” so we don’t. If we do, we’ve sinned. Your “screen of judgment” is binary. I can’t countenance the intellectual truth-search that doesn’t critically examine the nature of this thing called religion and how it came about. Then you are lost in sin and destined for skepticism and we are forever at cross purposes since I presuppose what you are determined to criticize. Why even waste your time talking to me? Almost everything you say to me I take as complete and utter nonsense! We have entirely different presuppositions about the universe. Its only ironic if you’re viewing it from a viewpoint which expects it to be absolute. You can them claim it has no legitimacy because it is relative. Duh?! Who suggested otherwise? You and I have entirely different systems of rational inquiry. Mine, grounded in the nature of God Himself, is capable of true and proper predication and doesn’t result in skepticism, where yours, is a hopeless failure as far as epistemology is concerned. How many human beings in the span of our evolution knew this, or even could have been able to think this or articulate this? Don’t you realize the world view you have committed yourself to here bud? This is thoroughgoing Whiggism PF, which means that all your “truth” is subject to revision at any given moment. How could anyone build a mental model encompassing this data set unless they had had those experiences? Now, we add a heavy dressing of gross subjectivism to PF’s identity salad… The “truth” getting further away and more incommunicable as we move further into the vast recesses of his psyche. None of these tools for argument existed, and how insufficient even are they in the face of competing experiential data-sets? Hence, morality, which shames people based on consensus and instinctive “no-nos”. It is a short-cut to prevent us from having to argue about the ramifications of actions based on complex mental models of the future. Do you understand that I “get” what you’re saying? Do you understand that I just consider it a bunch of assertion and question begging? Do you understand that we have fundamentally different presuppositions about the nature of reality and what it reveals to us? We certainly haven’t even scratched the surface of the whole body of thinking which points to the fact that religion and morality are pretend certainties. You have, however, admitted that you are a Whigger and admitted thereby that you aren’t “certain” of anything because time can overthrow truth. This misreading of my relation to these concepts (“you can’t adopt a relativist stance without being self contradictory because *I* can only fathom a philosophical framework in which these things to be declared absolutes”) I haven’t misread you. I disagree with you. From within my framework, your framework fails to adequately account for reality. Just like it never occurs to children to ask what the purpose of living is. This is just laughable. Children only ask why. which if the tracks prevent race-suicide, we will have to judge them ‘good enough’. Why? What does it matter? I’m afraid if we get any deeper into this I will lose the ability to impregnate women. If you have the ability, then why haven’t you? Frank is talking about the drive to have children (not the “ability”), which your world view tends to exorcise from its adherents. Seriously, come hang out when you aren’t working. You’ll enjoy the time with me and my family and maybe we can correct some of the errors of your thinking while validating you at the same time! It’ll be a very productive trip. Golf, sun, grass-fed beef, R&R;, etc. 281
Posted by Guest on Mon, 17 May 2010 20:39 | #
One can feel fairly certain that Big Brother will have them in gaol sooner or later, along with NF and BNP, that is if BNP attempts to restore England to Englishmen. I was glad to see one of the NF candidates getting nearly 500 votes, I forget where, watching that very odd BBC screen with the fellow all hunched ovr and pointing at things that weren’t really there, most confusing. In any event, maybe if the Tories down their extremist rhetoric they can get a majority next election, or maybe the SNP. Gordon Brown, who did not shed a tear… 282
Posted by Selous Scout on Tue, 18 May 2010 03:02 | # Our liberation will not be won at the ballot box, but at the point of a rifle. I have said it before, but it bears repeating: War is the answer. VIOLENCE WORKS! 283
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 18 May 2010 04:40 | #
Have you done any violence yourself lately? And how did it work out for you? Please share with us. We need to know as much as possible about strategies that work. 284
Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:51 | # Post democracy. When people don’t get what they vote for.
In some small way, this article is about the relationship between politics and the Internet and how one affects the other. This a potentially fascinating subject that gets little attention here in the blogosphere. We have just witnessed here in Britain (July 2010) a glimpse of the future of the power of the Internet. A lone gunman named Moat. Briefly, it is a story of a lone gunman being hunted down by the full might of the police state the West has become. (Sort of British Waco) Spearheading the public face of this manhunt was the BBC (media) who throughout, lambasted the lone pariah that made a BBC attack against the BNP look like a message of goodwill from Mother Terese. The climax witnessed the gunman lying dead clutching a sawn off shotgun. And that, was that, thought the BBC, justice had been seen to be done. Let’s move on. The following day of the death, floral tributes were being laid on the shrine that had become Moat’s legacy. Furthermore, tens of thousands of messages of support appeared on face book, the public and the Internet were airing their total disgust at the mighty police state and all that it augered. There for the grace of god go I. The Media establishment were incandescent with rage, how could these people (plebs) react in such a way - what an earth possessed them? There are two analysis accounts I’ve seen that give a much better than I can give here. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/ http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/ The moral of this story, the Internet is beginning to fight back. For how much longer is the Power Elite going to tolerate this? 285
Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:07 | # Re- above July 17, 2010, 10:51 AM. Augered - Augured. Damn spellcheck! Post a comment:
Next entry: The Enthymeme Of Jewish History
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Constructive leadership discussion has its place, and that would be AFTER elections.
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 06 May 2010 02:32 | #
I’d suggest we defer the inquest until Friday.