|
|
|
British nationalism on St George’s Day As nationalism is rising across continental Europe it is in meltdown in Britain thanks to a long litany of disastrous management errors and political and legal misjudgements by Nick Griffin. Below the fold is a news piece that appeared on the Guardian site this morning. It is written by Matthew Taylor, who has form, and quotes the usual hostile sources. But it has no need of mischaracterisation. It can and does fairly and accurately describe the crisis in political nationalism in Britain. There is no doubt about where our only viable political brand is heading. And there is no silver lining to this political tragedy. The Reform 2011 initiative is in limbo. Eddy Butler, among others, is now a civic nationalist at the English Democrats. Lee’s British Freedom Party appears not to have made it to the start line. Only the National Front has stuck to the racial nationalist faith, even while that faith has been declared illegal as a result of Griffin’s defiance of the EHRC last year. In fact, so keen on racial nationalism is the present generation of NF folk, they call themselves a White Nationalist party. The gainer in all this has been UKIP, a party which takes anti-nationalism to the extreme of anti-racism. It is very likely to score a significant victory in next month’s local authority elections, and may now have the kind of momentum and financial backing that will facilitate a serious General Election campaign two years from now. Where the BNP will be in two years’ time doesn’t bear thinking about. Griffin said at one point that he will stand down in 2013. He may not get the chance if the current legal actions against the party and its officers for recovery of commercial debt succeed.
Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:33 | # You are Nordicist, Barnesy? No, not the same thing as being a Nazi, dufus. 3
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:42 | # I am a British Nationalist. I an anti-EU Federalism, not anti-European 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:11 | # Good for you, Barnesy. That’s talking like a true statesman and man of the world. Now, I’d like to enquire as to what the British Freedom Party’s position is on (genetically via intermarriage) assimilating all ethnic Poles who presently reside in the United Kingdom. It would be a tad churlish to suggest that in any form or fashion Poles resident in the United Kingdom be kept at arms length, what with the historic debt Britain clearly owes Poles for turning them over to the Bolsheviks without so much as batting an eyelid. Wouldn’t you say? 5
Posted by fellist on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:13 | #
British First Party? But I think the political process is really only open to independent candidates, formally linked if at all only by registering approval of a certain idea or document. I had hoped that the BNP would initiate this rather than roll over and renounce nationalism when the Barneses in power made nationalist parties illegal. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:22 | # fellist, Are they any more than seven blokes and a website? A national party has a national membership and financial backing, or it is an aspiration and not a party at all. 7
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:49 | # I have a different view on this as i always thought the only way to get round the power of the media was in a UKIP / BNP two-step. While the media was focused on attacking the BNP, UKIP could quietly progress. The media will have to switch to UKIP now giving the BNP, *if* they can cling on, a chance to recover. What i was hoping for was something like start: ukip 2%, BNP 1%, media attacks bnp I won’t get into the pros and cons of the BNP leadership because any leadership will have flaws and when you have the pressure of the whole weight of the state on you those flaws will come out. The important thing for me is that the BNP have a brand that acts as a pebble in the shoe of the multicult. As long as they can survive they can recover. I hope they do. 8
Posted by Bill on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:59 | # Thanks for that. In no particular order. I wondered when you would get around to an overview of the current state of British nationalism and the BNP’s position within. Trouble is, the picture within BNP environs has been so idiotic in recent times as to defy explanation. (or Perhaps not) When I first ‘discovered’ the BNP, I embraced it as the solution to our nation’s dreadful plight, alas my hopes evaporated rapidly as I became more informed, suffice to say my interest waned to irrelevance a long time ago. Perhaps this state of affairs comes as a surprise to our visitors across the pond as I often read how the Americans wished they had such a party as the BNP. I cannot find anything to disagree with in your take of how things are, logically UKIP should harvest the low hanging fruit handily presented before them. On the face it the BNP should disappear - I dunno. I suspect the British electorate are mostly unaware of the tragic farce that the BNP has become, however, most do not partake of the Internet so will remain ignorant of the dire situation the BNP is in. The press reports the BNP have shot themselves in the foot. So that’s what they’re calling it! Just a thought, what irony, if the years of media/establishment vilification of the BNP backfires and the British public, (at least those who are getting pretty fed up) begin to see the BNP as someone who will do something about it and give it a punt. It could happen. I think the current overall political situation in Britain is so unreal as to be unpredictable. The only known unknown is what is to replace it? I notice that even now at this late stage none of the aspiring nationalist parties are telling it as it is. So how are people going to find out? The more I learn about what is happening around us and the years of investment made by the PE toward their end game - if there is ever any chance of change or influence to be had through the democratic process? With the election of Cameron I predicted Britain would enter uncharted waters, already the coalition is aground as it has no ideological course to chart, (other than globalism) Cameron is already on his way out, sooner rather than later. The idiocy is, the electorate will file dutifully through the revolving door and turn to the same people who, (more than anyone) got us into this mess. Will Britain become a combination of coalition governments by musical chairs or will nationalism really rear its head? Perchance to dream. 9
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:17 | # The upcoming local elections come at the time of a seismic ideological shift in British Nationalism.
Whilst the British National Party and the National Front are still at the vanguard of promoting the ideologies of Ethno-Nationalism and Racial Nationalism to the British public, it appears that the British public have themselves moved on from any concerns on the issue of race to becoming concerned primarily with the issue of Culture. This has been confirmed by an extensive survey undertaken by the Searchlight organisation. ( 4 ) (5)
This survey reveals that the ideology of Cultural Nationalism which is the basis of the British Freedom Party’s politics is the foundation of a new Nationalist Populism.
This survey from Searchlight validates our ideological position and also our strategy to appeal to four of the five primary demographic groups identified in the survey who together equate to 75 % of the potential voters in Britain ;
A) Identity Ambivalents (28%) These people are less financially secure and less optimistic about the future. They are more likely to be working class, to live in social housing and to view immigration through the prism of its economic impact on their opportunities and the social impact on their communities. Muslims and other BME (Black Minority Ethnic) groups are more prevalent here as are the largest single segment of those who identify with Labour. ? b) Culturally Concerned (24%) Generally older and more prosperous than other groups, many are (or have been) professionals and managers. They are more likely to view immigration as a cultural issue with concerns about the impact of immigration on national identity and about immigrants’ willingness to integrate. This group forms the largest segment of those identifying with the Conservative Party. ? c) Latent Hostiles (10%) More likely to be older, not university-educated, and more than likely working class. They view their own future with uncertainty and Britain’s future with pessimism. For them, immigration has undermined British culture, public services and their own economic prospects. They would support political forces that stood-up for their identity and way of life, but are less confrontational than those in Active Enmity. ? d) Active Enmity (13%) Drawing more support from the unskilled and the unemployed, these people are the most disengaged from traditional political processes and the most hostile to immigrants and what they think immigration represents. Opposed to all ethnicities or religions other than their own, many believe that violence is acceptable if it is a consequence of standing up for what is ‘right’.
The ideology of cultural nationalism appeals to all these political and social demographics.
For the Identity Ambivalents of all racial groups opposed to further immigration due to its impact on social housing, public services and crime we offer an immediate end to all further immigration and the deportation of all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants regardless of their race or religion.
For the Culturally Concerned who fear the cultural disintegration of Britain via mass immigration, political correctness and state enforced Multi-culturalism, we offer a rebirth of British Cultural Nationalism and the preservation of our national culture, heritage and way of life.
For the Latent Hostiles we offer better public services, more jobs, higher wages, more access to social housing, shorter waiting lists for the NHS and less immigrants who do not speak English in schools. This is because we intend to not just end immigration, but because we also intend to deport all those we define as Colonists, who are those who refuse to integrate into British society and who seek to impose their way of life on our society.
For the Active Enmity group we offer an end to Muslim Paedophile gangs who will be deported or be given capital punishment, we offer them the death penalty for Islamist and Real IRA terrorists, death penalty for hard drugs importers and for foreign criminals involved in sex slavery and people trafficking. By offering these people security in their own communities from foreign criminals and colonists, we can also defuse the simmering tensions in our country that threaten to erupt into communal violence.
Over the last few weeks The British Freedom Party have also had massive publicity in The Independent and The Guardian newspapers which has also massively raised our profile with the British public. ( 1) (2) (3)
This has allowed our ideology of Cultural Nationalism to become known to the British public.
In order for the British Nationalist movement to grow and progress we need only to do two things, the first is concentrating on what we are good at.
The British National Party must concentrate on recruiting and promoting Ethno-Nationalists and the ideology of Ethno-nationalism, the National Front must concentrate on recruiting Racial Nationalists and promoting the ideology of Racial Nationalism and the British Freedom Party will concentrate on promoting Cultural Nationalism and recruiting Cultural Nationalists into our ranks.
The other requirement is that nationalists stop attacking other nationalists and other nationalist parties. We must concentrate our collective fire on our common enemies, and not on attacking each other.
There is no conflict or competition between the different ideological strands of British Nationalism, simply as we appeal to different ideological demographics and groups.
The British Freedom Party aims to become the vanguard of a new Nationalist Populism, that like our sister parties in Europe like the Dutch Freedom Party and the True Finns, will allow us to take British Nationalism back into the mainstream of British politics. ? ? ? ? ? 1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/22/bnp-faces-local-election-meltdown
2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cashstrapped-bnp-turns-to-racist-hardcore-2269628.html
4) http://www.fearandhope.org.uk/executive-summary/
10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:21 | # The BFP will work within the European Union to assist European nations to ‘re-nationalise’ their nation states and also to ensure we have a new EU model based on a Europe of Nations, not a Nation of Europe. We are anti-European Federalism, not anti-European. (LJB)
But understand the True Sequence: 1. Expel illegal aliens. 2. End (nonwhite) immigration. 3. Work to restore British pride and a correct understanding of national history and tradition. Some years later, 4. Restore anti-miscegenationist legislation. Some years later still, begin the period of ‘tightening the vise’, beginning with 5. the disenfranchisement of nonwhites in Britain; followed by 6. the stripping of nonwhites of UK citizenship; to be concluded with 7. the physical removal of nonwhites from British soil. #7 is the final goal of any real British Nationalism. I don’t expect an actual political leader like LJB to admit this on a public site, but he had better be clear about what is wanted. The British are white. Only whites should be considered “British”. ONLY A WHITE BRITAIN (or France, Germany, etc) is acceptable to nationalists. I do agree, however, that, absent an unforeseen cataclysm providing an unexpected ‘opening’ in the usual historical process, Cultural Nationalism probably must precede and pave the way for Racial Nationalism. But Racial Nationalism is the only true nationalism. 11
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:25 | # Now, I’d like to enquire as to what the British Freedom Party’s position is on (genetically via intermarriage) assimilating all ethnic Poles who presently reside in the United Kingdom. It would be a tad churlish to suggest that in any form or fashion Poles resident in the United Kingdom be kept at arms length, what with the historic debt Britain clearly owes Poles for turning them over to the Bolsheviks without so much as batting an eyelid. Wouldn’t you say?
All those economic migrants from the EU who came here since the EU allowed economic migrants to enter the UK. They will be required to return home, along with all economic mgrants from anywhere in the world in the UK. Those who have married British citizens will be allowed to remain. The poles are a people I admire immensely, in fact Witold Pilecki is one of my role models - a Polish Nationalist who fought the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto for Polish Nationalism and who then fought the Communists for Polish Nationalism until the Communists executed him ; 12
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:30 | # The aim of cultural Nationalism is to act as the antidote to the pernicious ideology of Cultural Marxism, which has facilitated the destruction of our nations and society. The growth of cultural nationalism as a political ideology will ‘re-nationalise’ the masses and allow other nationalist memes to grow in society due to the opening up of the political space in the media and academia. All nationalist memes benefit from cultural nationalism removing cultural marxism. Once cultural nationalism replaces cultural marxism as the dominant ideology in our society, then all forms of nationalism will grow as society itself becomes more tolerant of nationalist ideas, ideologies and discourses. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:31 | # “Racial Nationalists” - “Ethnonationalists” - “Cultural Nationalists” - “Civic Nationalists”. Could someone please provide definitions of these terms as they are being bandied about here? I understand the differences between them as political scientists do. But I want to see what you all mean by them. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:40 | # Leon,
Racial nationalism: the preservation of the European race. Ethno-nationalism: the preservation of a given European people. White Nationalism: the unifying and preservation of European-descended Americans. Cultural nationalism: the preservation of specific European cultures, principally but not necessarily as a proxy for the preservation of their creator peoples. Civic nationalism: the unifying of any population around the signifiers of state-hood. 15
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:52 | # A brief explanation as per my working definitions 1) Racial Nationalism - National Socialism / White Nationalism = Supra-National Pan Aryanism. The slogan of racial nationalism is ‘Our race is our nation’. 2) Ethno-Nationalism - the political representation of the indigenous folk communities in the national political system. Ethno-Nationalists support regional parliaments. Ethno-nationalists are against cultural integration of immigrants into indigenous cultures. Ethno-nationalists do not believe or want immigrants to integrate into cultures but to all be deported. 3) Cultural Nationalism - the promotion / preservation of indigenous folk communities and indigenous national cultures in the context of the British state and British national culture. Cultural Nationalists believe that cultures derive from ethnic groups, not racial groups and hence the indigenous people must remain the dominant demographic in society in order to preserve the culture of the nation. Also that in order to be a citizen of the nation all immigrants must fully integrate into the national culture or they are colonists and not citizens and hence will be deported. Cultural Nationalists do not support regional Parliaments and support instead the political union of Britain as a way to preserve British Culture which is a mixture of all the indigenous folk cultures of Britain. Only the fully integrated immigrants are regarded as British citizens, colonists are not citizens. Cultural Nationalists accept fully integrated immigrants as British citizens, but also demand that immigrant numbers must never threaten the demographic superiority of the indigenous British people in perpetuity. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:56 | # I don’t actually favor Britain genetically assimilating their Polish labor (that Englishmen hire in lieu of employing their fellow Englishmen as Poles will work for lower pay), Barnesy. Just having a bit of fun needling the English for their bloated sense of moral superiority as against those they call “Krauts” is all. 17
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:03 | # I dont sneer at any European people , such petty xenophobia repulses me. My brothers wife is half german and my great uncle married a German lady as a soldier in Berlin after WW2. Those ‘nationalists’ who sneer at any of the European peoples are idiots, especially the Nordic Aryan supremacist nutters who sneer at Slavs and Russians. They are just total fucking idiots. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:18 | #
But that’s taking from the rich and giving to the poor(er), so to speak. Besides, “the English” are really just an amalgamation of various kinds of Germanics anyway, so it’s keeping it in the family.
You oppose Northern European preservation? Get with the program. 19
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:22 | # Of course I support the preservation of the Nordic people, just as I support the preservation of all indigenous peoples of Europe and around the world. But those nationalists who regard slavs and Russians as racial inferiors are idiots. The inner racist of racial nationalism who hates slavs as they are not Aryans or Nordics is the biggest idiot of all. 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:39 | # GW + LJB, Thank you for the nationalist taxonomies. Need they be mutually exclusive? I would seem to be a racial/ethno/White/cultural nationalist (I am not a civic nationalist, however). GW (and others), You do agree, however, with this: 7. the physical removal of nonwhites from British soil. #7 is the final goal of any real British Nationalism. I don’t expect an actual political leader like LJB to admit this on a public site, but he had better be clear about what is wanted. The British are white. Only whites should be considered “British”. ONLY A WHITE BRITAIN (or France, Germany, etc) is acceptable to nationalists. (LH) I am correct that this is your nationalism? 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:47 | # Yes, Leon, of course. Lee, This is a legal question, not a political one, certainly not a realpolitik one. Would it be within the law for a British nationalist party to state in all formal reference to official policy: In accordance with current statute, the so-and-so party is obliged to promote the equal rights of all non-native colonies in Britain. ... but (perhaps only in its spoken outreach) drive home the message that the native people of Britain are denied fundamental equality because the lands from which the colonisers come are not being subjected to foreign colonisation, and this freedom from colonisation is the equality it will seek to codify. 22
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:51 | # All nationalisms share similarities, but are also differentiated by the differences in their ideologies. A cultural nationalist my nationalism is that as long as the indigenous British people remain in perpetuity the demographic then we can preserve British culture. Regardless if the immigrant is white german or black african, if both became the demographic majority in Britain then Britidsh culture would die as the ethnic British people would be a minority in their own lands. Ethnic replacement, either intra-racial or extra-racial, destroys indigenous ethnic cultures. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:53 | # Cultural Nationalists believe that cultures derive from ethnic groups, not racial groups and hence the indigenous people must remain the dominant demographic in society in order to preserve the culture of the nation. (LJB) I agree with this. And with this, with one rather large exception: Also that in order to be a citizen of the nation all immigrants must fully integrate into the national culture or they are colonists and not citizens and hence will be deported. Cultural Nationalists do not support regional Parliaments and support instead the political union of Britain as a way to preserve British Culture which is a mixture of all the indigenous folk cultures of Britain. Only the fully integrated immigrants are regarded as British citizens, colonists are not citizens. Cultural Nationalists accept fully integrated immigrants as British citizens, but also demand that immigrant numbers must never threaten the demographic superiority of the indigenous British people in perpetuity. (LJB) The exception concerns the weasel phrase “fully integrated”. The American WN Jared Taylor is completely fluent in Japanese, and deeply conversant with Japan and its culture. But his race precludes his ever being considered “Japanese” by the Japanese. Can a member of one race ever really be “fully integrated” into an ethnoculture of another race? As an empirical matter (and speaking as a Southern Californian with great experience of multicultural realities), I think not. Ethnicity is a part of an ethnoculture, and ethnicity cannot be divorced from race. A Pakistani or Nigerian simply cannot ever be ‘fully integrated’ into the British cultural nation. His visible distinctiveness alone triggers a biological ‘friend/enemy’ awareness which precludes full integration. Cultural Nationalism thus only applies intra-racially (say, to those Poles CC keeps mentioning). 24
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:59 | # GW, thats fine, its simply a statement of the existing law. Remember that culture is not one of the 7 protected catergories under the RRA and the Equality Act, therefore cultural nationalism cannot be classified as ‘racist’ and therefore political parties that espouse it cannot be shut down or bankrupted by the EHRC taking legal action against them. Theres no point fighting a war on a battlefield occupied by the enemy and where the enemy is able to shoot you down before you can take a single step forwards. Regroup, reorganise and seek a brand new new battlefield to fight upon where the battle and the war can still be won. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:00 | # Ethnic replacement, either intra-racial or extra-racial, destroys indigenous ethnic cultures. But how do you demonstrate that to white liberals who argue for the tabula rasa, social construction, and fundamental human sameness, and who believe in self-authoriality, in the breaking of all bounds, and see “the group” and any kind of non-chosen affiliation as oppression? In the end, you are relying on belief to challenge other beliefs. It does not seem robust enough to support an intellectual case for our preservation. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:05 | # Lee, But if it is legal to seek to codify in law the equality of native peoples based on freedom from colonisation, it is legal to pursue ethno-nationalism. Perhaps, it has to be carefully packaged. But the package need not be cultural. If that is correct we are really only discussing whether cultural politics is a more fly approach to political reality than ethno-politics. 27
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:12 | # The exception concerns the weasel phrase “fully integrated”. The American WN Jared Taylor is completely fluent in Japanese, and deeply conversant with Japan and its culture. But his race precludes his ever being considered “Japanese” by the Japanese. Can a member of one race ever really be “fully integrated” into an ethnoculture of another race? As an empirical matter (and speaking as a Southern Californian with great experience of multicultural realities), I think not. Ethnicity is a part of an ethnoculture, and ethnicity cannot be divorced from race. A Pakistani or Nigerian simply cannot ever be ‘fully integrated’ into the British cultural nation. His visible distinctiveness alone triggers a biological ‘friend/enemy’ awareness which precludes full integration. Cultural Nationalism thus only applies intra-racially (say, to those Poles CC keeps mentioning). = Anyone if they take the time to do so can become fully Japanese by culture by adopting all aspects of Japanese culture eg language / traditions etc etc. That makes them japanese by culture but not japanese by race / ethnicity. But in order to preserve Japanese culture then the indigenous Japanese must be preserved as the dominant majority in Japan. The innnate recognition of racial differences is designed to ensure the racial group is preserved and the culture sustained. http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/discriminating-babies.html The definition of totally assimilated does not mean ‘racially or ethnically assimilated’ via miscegination it means simply adopting the language, way of life, traditions of the nation state they reside in and not seeking to impose the way of life / traditions they left behind to emigrate to the new nation. One can retain ones religion and aspects of ones ethnic / racial ancestral heritage without seeking to impose that in the public sphere and hence become a colonist in the host nation. When in Rome one must become a Roman, regardless if one is a Kelt or Hun. And by the way - this is the best blog on the internet ; 28
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:27 | # Posted by Guessedworker on April 23, 2011, 01:00 PM | # Ethnic replacement, either intra-racial or extra-racial, destroys indigenous ethnic cultures. But how do you demonstrate that to white liberals who argue for the tabula rasa, social construction, and fundamental human sameness, and who believe in self-authoriality, in the breaking of all bounds, and see “the group” and any kind of non-chosen affiliation as oppression? In the end, you are relying on belief to challenge other beliefs. It does not seem robust enough to support an intellectual case for our preservation. = You use science and the latest reserach on race / ethnicity to undermine the arguments of the enemy as being bogus examples of ‘false consciousness’ to use the Marxist phrase and at the same time create a new language to explain the natural differences between people in a way that cannot be defined as racist. The liberals have already lost the arguments on race / ethnicity - its just they are too stupid to know it yet. ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— But if it is legal to seek to codify in law the equality of native peoples based on freedom from colonisation, it is legal to pursue ethno-nationalism. Perhaps, it has to be carefully packaged. But the package need not be cultural. If that is correct we are really only discussing whether cultural politics is a more fly approach to political reality than ethno-politics.
= No, because ethnicity / race are expressly defined as one of the 7 catergories. The war has been lost on those battlefields. The enemy has the advantage. They are many, we are few - they have the strategic advantage - therefore the Art Of War says ‘retreat, regroup and seek a new front where we have the advantage’. A tactical retreat is far prefferable to a total rout and the loss of the war itself. Culture is the new front in the war. In politics what matters is solely attaining power to apply power - anything that gets in the way of that goal must be jettisoned. Without taking power - we lose. As simple as that. 29
Posted by DRS on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:29 | # Guessedworker, two points: 1) The Reform 2011 initiative is not in limbo. There will be a leadership challenge conference on Sunday 15 May in the Midlands: http://www.bnpreform2011.co.uk/?p=1789 2) Griffin never defied the EHRC. First he allowed the case to come on top of us and then asked for the membership to vote for what the EHRC wanted as well as requesting the power to rewrite the constitution “on the fly”. The second case came about because he did not comply with court order from the first case. This he was aquitted because he belatedly complied with the court order and the judges bent over backwards to accept the fact he had trouble understanding the court order in the first place. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:42 | # DRS, Thanks for the update on the leadership challenge. Are their enough reformers in the surviving membership to get the required signatures? If not, the initiative is in limbo, isn’t it? On the EHRC issue, NG need not have fought the first case. But did he really have any choice - by which I mean, was Eddy Butler’s diagnosis correct. Anyone sufficiently impulsive to put that Marmite jar in the ppb could very well be a psychopath. The two leading characteristics of psychopathy are absence of empathy and impulsiveness (and behind them manipulativeness and attention-seeking). One wonders. 31
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:08 | # Griffin could have avoided the case, I told him how too. He ignored me as he was interested in one thing only - using the case as a pretext to impose his idiotic stalinist joke of a constitution designed to keep him as party dictator forever. Removing Griffin with that constitution in operation is impossible. He is a psychopth with meglomaniac tendencies who doesnt care less about the party, just getting his pay day. 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:15 | # The liberals have already lost the arguments on race / ethnicity - its just they are too stupid to know it yet Obviously the case for human difference is there. We know that. Even scientific Jewry has stopped throwing up race-denial artistes. But it does not follow that the liberal belief that cultural goods can be held in common among assimilated or integrated populations is also disproved. The central argument of cultural nationalism is not proven by the genetic evidence for human difference. On the question of ethno-nationalist argument, if it is legal to protest the inequality of freedom from colonisation at the party level - and I am not saying that it is - then the aspiration of a native people for such freedom must be legal in party politics also. It’s about where the line really has to be drawn. 33
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:41 | # I get it now - you want to have your cake and eat it. Its not enough that race / ethnicity have been proven to exist in spite of four decades of cultural marxist lies, but now you also want to demand that people cannot integrate into cultures. Well sorry GW, but the latter is demonstrably a false assertion. If cultures were as closed and isolated and eugenicist as the Spartans were then yes, cultural integration could be impossible - but nearly all cultures now use the same technologies and hence every year they move towards a norm which assists integration. The argument for cultural nationalism is everywhere - the fact that most cultures have been globalised and afflicted by the same consumerism, means cultural assimilation is now easier than any time in history. Even Zulu tribes people carry AK47’s, use mobile phones, watch Hollywood movies on satellite TV’s in their huts and have access to the same mdeicines we do and also aspire to buy a car. The fact that western technology and western global capitalism dominate the planet ensure cultural integration into the west is easy, if you want to integrate that is. Re the law - the law on political parties is clear they cannot serve just one part of the community, allow just one part of the community to join and they must not be racially ( or any of the other 6 ) discrminatory in any way either directly or indirectly. Protesting an injustice is not the same as having a party constitution that breaches the law. 34
Posted by DRS on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:57 | #
Only a handful of people have actually been expelled. Most of the ones suspended last year have had their suspensions lifted. The bulk of the nomination signatures will come from ordinary disgruntled members, not those organising the leadership challenge. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:00 | # Lee, I am not at all sure that you get it. On the culture issue I am simply saying that the other side has been forced into a retreat from its assertion that race does not exist. It has not retreated from its belief that white people are morally illegitimate for distinguishing between individuals on the basis of race. It can skip around the facticity of race precisely because it holds Man to be a cultural product. It does not accept that culture is dependent in any way on race, because, as it would say, “genes for this” and “genes for that” have not been identified. So, from the liberal-left’s point of view cultural nationalism as an argument for ethnic survivalism for the cultural progenator is just racism. You have given up blood and in the process removed our victory on its proof, and entered upon another area of argument with the left. Protesting an injustice is not the same as having a party constitution that breaches the law. Thank you. That’s what I thought. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:05 | # Monkey wrench time ... Look, God save the Queen and all that. I’d very much like the Mother Country to survive, and I support the work of all British national patriots, whatever their internecine squabbles. But we all know that Britain (and France, Germany, America, etc) are goners, don’t we? Speaking really pragmatically? As I’ve said many times, whites will only survive in racially exclusive, racially willed, sovereign territories. Racial States. That is, force will have to be applied to ensure our survival - and applied on a continuing, generation by generation basis (unless of course a gene for racial sexual repulsion could be bred into future generations; this does not exist, however, and our racial bottleneck is here and now). As far as I can determine, no white nation today possesses even an expatriationist majority (ie, a white majority willing to forcibly remove lawfully resident nonwhites from its territory) - let alone one willing to instantiate a teleological regime dedicated to permanent racial purity/preservation. Every exogenous (I mean, extra-racial) trend is tending towards white extinction. Only an act of racial/political willcan save us. But even as the dark multitudes pour in, only tiny percentages of whites can fairly be called WNs. Our recruitment is glacial; our colonization, torrential. Yes, solid majorities oppose immigration, considered non-ordinally. But when do those majorities ever actually base their electoral decisions on immigration first and foremost? Never. That is, nationalist parties never garner in actual elections anything like the same percentage of their nations’ populations as express opposition to immigration, considered abstractly. So it can be said that while most whites oppose their majoritarian dispossession, they don’t get too riled up about it - certainly not enough to actually elect ‘extremists’ willing to end it, let alone to trigger the violence that will erupt if we ever try to reverse it. It seems that at our present course, whites will simply be further dispossessed in perpetuity, or unto extinction (or, for the last holdouts, extermination). I’ve said all this for years now, and now I reiterate the sole hope. WNs must establish a Racial State beachhead somewhere, preferably in a mostly white, demographically conquerable sovereign polity (Australia, Uruguay come to mind). Foreign conquest through immigration, and the subsequent building of a WN state dedicated to white preservation, is all that can resist the juggernaut of liberalism/capitalism/globalism leading to the One World of mongrelized proletarians/consumers. Dispiriting, no doubt. But can we say I’m wrong? 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:11 | # It can skip around the facticity of race precisely because it holds Man to be a cultural product. It does not accept that culture is dependent in any way on race, because, as it would say, “genes for this” and “genes for that” have not been identified. So, from the liberal-left’s point of view cultural nationalism as an argument for ethnic survivalism for the cultural progenator is just racism. You have given up blood and in the process removed our victory on its proof, and entered upon another area of argument with the left. (GW)
38
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:20 | # But I and cultural nationalists do no assert that races create cultures, we say ethnic groups do - eg the Zulu, Bantu, Russian, Germans, English et etc To deny that is to deny reality - the left demands indigenous cultures like the bantu, rainforest tribes people etc are preserved- all we need to do is highlight their hypocrisy if they seek to deny us the right to preserve our indigenous cultures. Exploring the genetic basis of culture is already an established scientific field of research. The genetic basis of culture is a a new science, but a a growing one ; CULTURAL NEURO-SCIENCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_neuroscience http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/17/west-brain-east-brain.html v=1FVQZxs1Rnghttp://culturalneuro.psych.northwestern.edu/ChiaoetalJOCN.pdf
I suspect that as this field develops it will grow to be as ground breaking as the science of Pharmacogenomics and change the entire basis of our ideas on culture. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:23 | #
Barnesy is solid in his personal conviction for the necessity of Nordic preservation (that was like pulling teeth, but he finally got his mind right). Where it goes all wrong is that he believes the game is rigged against him to such a degree that he needs to disseminate bullshit (that he doesn’t actually believe) to the lemmings in order to make a go of it politically. What he fails to understand is that there is a permanent glass ceiling on nationalist (cultural “nationalism” as well - “they” will just point out the obvious and say it is crypto-racism) electoral viability unless and until the meta-discourse is shifted significantly enough so that the lemmings will listen and vote for his pissant party. He needs to change out his gormless talking points for ones that are capable of shifting the meta-discourse. His party must function, indeed can only function for the time being, as a vehicle to that end. To do as such is an investment in future electoral viability. Why does a Kraut have to explain these things to a decidedly British concern? (Hint: The seemingly inexorable drift towards what Barnesy will surely interpret as esoteric mumbo-jumbo is not helpful. Got to make it real fucking simple.) 40
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:38 | # The left can only attack cultural nationalism by dropping he pretence that they care about the indigenous peoples of the world. If they do that then the left is eviscerated and exposed morally as liars and hypocrites, as to attack us for fighting to presrve our people, land and culture, but to support the people of the rain forest and Africa who figh to preserve their land, people anc culture, is to destroy their integrity totally. Cultural nationalism is the key to destroying the left and liberal world views in the eyes of the public, for to have a racial double standard that says whites must be denied the same rights as everyone who do not have a white skin, is to destroy the left in the eyes of the public. Give me the chance to show you on an interview with a leftist or liberal and I will show you how its done. Its easy. As for the issue of culture - Genes create a culture, but cultures can also affect genes. Its that simple - and that is what science will discover soon enough, when it gets past the PC language barrier of talking about ‘Americans ’ ( code word for anglo-saxon wasps) and ‘easterners’ as code words for Chinese people. 41
Posted by Mr Voight on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:59 | # demographically conquerable sovereign polity (Australia, Uruguay come to mind). With the exception of Tasmania, you can forget Australia. There is no long term future for Europeans here. The immigration rate is huge and the whites only care about cultural assimilation. The major cities are already gone. 42
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:02 | #
LOL Once that line of argument makes too much of an inroad the Tories will just appropriate it along with your votes, lull the lemmings back to sleep, and proceed with race replacement immigration. Dumbass. 43
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:13 | # Only an idiot would think the Tories would seek to appropriate a cultural nationalist political discourse that reveals the double standards of the left as regards race / culture / immigration, that validates the racial and cultural preservation of the indigenous British folk, that acts as a critique to mas immigration in such a way as to allow that discuorse to become publically aaceptable and that would also mainstream cultural nationalism as an ideology. It is simply bullshit to even propose the idea that the Tories would seek to use that cultural nationalist discourse to vlidate the struggle for ‘white racial / ethnic and cultural rights’ and that they would use that ideology to promote themselves. If the Tories did steal that discourse from us and made it a manistream discourse, then I would be delighted - and plotting how to use that discourse to create a new one to further strengthen our cause. Captain Chaos, I know its hard to accept that you have been owned mate, but owned you have been. 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:24 | # Non-discriminatory equality before the law is hardly “cultural nationalism”, you dolt. Cameron will pull a “Sarkozy” on your bumpkin ass if it comes to it. Wait and see. You’ve been warned. 45
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:31 | # What the fuck are you talking about you idiot ’ Non-discriminatory equality before the law is hardly “cultural nationalism ’ - ?????????????????????
There is also no ‘non-discriminatory equality before the law’ as regards ideologies or political discourses !!!! You need to shut up now, you are making yourself look a total twat. The idea Cameron would do a ‘sarkozy’ and steal the ideology of cultural nationalism for the Tory party is fucking science fiction. Get a grip. Even if cameron did do a sarkozy and steal the cultural nationalist ideology, then that would be a massive succcess as at that point cultural nationalism would become a mainstream political ideology and discourse and hence allow other nationalist memes to move close to being mainstream memes in the political environment. Captain chaos, you have been owned. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:50 | # It is truly fruitless to attempt a discourse with you, Barnesy, as you are too dumb to even follow along with what you yourself said a second ago. You did say, essentially, that the fulcrum of injecting your “cultural nationalism” onto the big stage of the national consciousness would be to point out that White Britons are discriminated against in favor of non-Whites per British law. Pointing this out, you allege, will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of the Left as it is not fair in that it is discriminatory and hence shows all the Left’s talk of “equality” to be a sham. Cameron can simply do away with discrimination before the law (or at least give lip service to it) and proceed with race replacement immigration all the while giving White Britons to believe that even if they become a minority they will yet enjoy equal rights in all the senses that implies. There is nothing you will be able to say to steal his thunder which does not expose your underlying racialist sentiments. My God you are fucking blind! And dangerously stupid. 47
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:07 | # Actually CC I said that would expose the hypocrisy of the left / liberals - not the tories dumbass. That is just one way to undermine the left / liberals when they sought to attack the ideology of cultural nationalism. Its not the only fulcrum, its one of many. As for cameron (again - sigh ) in order to adopt or mainstream cultural nationalism he would have to admit that culture comes from genes / ethnic groups, and hence in order to absorb cultural nationalism he would have to end mass immigration in order to ensure the indigenous folk do not become minorities in Britain and hence destroy those indigenous cutlures that create British culture. He cannot absorb the cultural nationalist ideology and still allow mass immigration, as that undermines the entire basis of cultural nationalism which is that ethnic groups create cultures and if you change the ethnic group you change the culture. That wouldnt be cultural nationalism if he did that, would it. Sigh. As for the idea that cultual nationalism is based on ‘equality before the law’ and that it is a form of cultural relativism, then you do not understand that cultural nationalism is not about racial equality or racial superiority - it is about defending indigenous British culture, not politically correct social engineering. That means the interests of the ethnic folk as a community come first - and that government must act to ensure they remain at all times the demographic majority in Britain. Nor is cultural nationalism marked by ‘racialist undercurrents’, the only racialist undercurrents are the ones in your mind. Cultural Nationalism is as ‘racialist’ as Greenpeace and the other green groups who also seek to preserve the land, culture and people of the Amazon and various African tribes threatened by the advance of modernity. It appears you neither understand cultural nationalism or even simple politics. 48
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:44 | #
No. Race is real and it matters. This applies to all ethnic groups and not just White people and the monkey on their back. It will get very ugly but it ain’t over till the fat goddess sings. 49
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:08 | # I’m the one who added the Cameron/Tory dimension (not you - you do remember that, don’t you?) to give you a precise and concrete example of why your “strategy” (if one could even call it that) is doomed to fail. Cameron and the Tories are not in the political equation in your world (Mars?)?
Cameron doesn’t have to “absorb the cultural nationalist ideology” in order to appropriate the gimmick by which you intend to put your “cultural nationalism” in the public eye. This is pretty simple: If your party and the Tories both say they will end anti-White discrimination per law who do you think the lemmings will vote for? The Tories with their long-standing, name-brand appeal or a rump party preaching the disconcertingly kooky line of “cultural nationalism”? Remember, it will be brainwashed lemmings doing the voting.
You are saying that the genetic survival as a demographic majority of indigenous Britons is indispensable to the preservation of British culture as no other people of a different genetic makeup could have created, or could maintain, British culture. This is ipso facto a racialist argument. A cheap sophistry that will fool no one, except maybe yourself. There is no plausible deniability for your crypto-racialism to be had there. So, instead of voting for the creepy crypto-racialists, er, “cultural nationalists”, the lemmings will vote for the Tories who will also promise to end anti-White discrimination per law. Am I conversing with a brick wall? 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:37 | #
Yeah, I think we got that already. But thanks for the update! Point is that with terminally inept dipsticks at the helm of political nationalism in Britain, who steadfastly refuse to alter their discourse so as to raise racial consciousness in the long view (and if said discourse is not in the political arena, and hence not on the tube, then the lemmings will not be exposed to it), the lemmings in Britain won’t wake up, if at all, until they are so hopelessly swamped by the Third World that the only option left will be to start the shooting. P.S. Why is it that I consistently pile-drive every BS argument I come in contact with yet the beat goes on? Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone has their preferred brain-dead talking points. I’m beginning to think I’m wasting my time. 51
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:51 | # Why is it that I consistently pile-drive every BS argument I come in contact with yet the beat goes on? Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone has their preferred brain-dead talking points. I’m beginning to think I’m wasting my time. You’ve go to remember that every one of us, even the attention-seeker, has pieced together this political puzzle in isolation. We were only able to do so, or even wanted to, because in some respects we are a tougher proposition than the average. Only the tough-minded can shout down the wind that blows right through every other mind. It is inevitable that when we disagree, the disagreement will be felt deeply. It goes with the territory, then, and we have to make an effort not to annihilate our opponents but to find common ground from which their errors or ours might be viewable. If not, well, no surprise. The disagreement will keep for another time. 52
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:58 | # GW, 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:11 | # I think they have no need to lie. I think it is that bad. 54
Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:04 | # LJB: “Once cultural nationalism replaces cultural marxism as the dominant ideology in our society, then all forms of nationalism will grow as society itself becomes more tolerant of nationalist ideas, ideologies and discourses.” I hope so, but I have my doubts. I suspect that all American readers, and a fair number of our European kinsmen, will be familiar with the “culture wars” meme, best exemplified by Pat Buchanan’s famous speech at the 92 Republican convention. Learn from what has happened to us on this side of the pond. The “It’s culture, not race” meme has killed us over here. It has utterly disarmed us in the face of a massive third world invasion that is actively dispossessing us, and it has disarmed us against the miscegenation that is destroying us. And guess what? In the name of “culture, not race” we lost the culture too. Of course, if what matters is “culture, not race” then why shouldn’t most immigration be non-white? After all, most of the world is non-white, so it only makes sense. And what of miscegenation? Why should that matter either? You’d think that the rising level of environmental consciousness alone would have created pressure to halt immigration. Nope. Not a bit. The so called environmental groups are often the biggest proponents of non-white immigration (Sierra Club). Point is, we’re not going to slick our way out of this under the guise of culture, or environmentalism, or anything else. Don’t get me wrong, I think culture and environmentalism (and other issues as well) can be very, very powerful tools in the defense of our people…but only if we are actually defending our people. The Left insists that we never defend whites (or a subset of whites, as in the English) as a people. That’s the one thing they will never compromise on. They know that if they win on that point, they will win all in time. If they lose on that point, they will lose all in time. They understand the vital importance of race, too bad so many of their opponents don’t. The irony is that, as one’s people is being literally destroyed, you don’t even get the trifle of cultural victory. What it boils down to is a constant exercise in alchemy, trying to turn non-whites into whites. Of course, it fails, just as turning iron into gold failed. The traditional culture is systematically cleansed as the traditional people that upheld it are eclipsed. With apologies to Ben Franklin, a people who care more about culture than blood deserve neither, and in the end will retain neither. Now, if you’ve got a strategy that clearly recognizes and avoids the pitfalls that we’ve experienced here, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I’ve seen this movie before and trust me, it doesn’t end well. The real tragedy is that it could divert British nationalism down a dead end street for a generation or more (as it has done here), and by the time the mistake is realized, it will be too late. And if nationalism means nothing more than so long as a Paki enjoys fish n’ chips and knows how to take his tea, he therefore gets unfettered sexual access to white English girls…then why exactly is this battle worth fighting? What would we gain, even if we were victorious? Is that an England worth fighting for? The anti-whites don’t care whether the third worlder who destroys your family line takes his tea and crumpets or wears a ceremonial dagger or prays to Allah three times daily. He just wants your line to turn non-white, period. He wants you, and anything resembling you, gone. It really doesn’t matter how. The anti-whites want a situation where all roads lead to the end of the white English. Become a Leftist and actively pursue white destruction, or play the “culture, not race” game and get the same result. Again, all roads. Sort of reminds me of a conversation I had with a buddy, actually a black guy, back in college. Very, very bright guy. Yes, you heard that from a radical white nationalist. I was a libertarian then, and he was a Democrat (later turned Republican, believe it or not). We always ribbed one another in a good natured way. In any event, our state had just enacted a lottery. My buddy asked me what I thought about the lottery, and I babbled some libertarian gospel about how I thought it was a good thing, since it was voluntary and not a coercive tax. He then grinned and said, “You know what I think? I think the government just figured out yet another way to get your money!” LOL! How right he was. Moral of the story: don’t be too clever by half. 56
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:19 | # Cultural Nationalism is fine, as long as it is understood as a brick in the road to Racial Nationalism. Captainchaos’s ‘lemmings’ cannot be expected to move as we would wish them to merely by “slamming their faces against the windowpanes of history”, as a great nationalist once said. Commonsense (of the old school) would suggest otherwise, but recent history bears this out. Whites in the West today can only assimilate so much reality, if too divergent from current hegemonic narratives. Indeed, I think even CN may be too tough, though I would back it if British (I’m not sure about it’s viability in America, where I favor Middle American Nationalism; this would certainly have a cultural as opposed to racial orientation, but the main emphasis would be on engendering a proper sense of victimization among whites, based on an explicit awareness of how the ruling regime dispossesses us and treats us as second class citizens, even according to its own hopelessly confused norms of justice). As I’ve suggested before, what is wrong with a single issue anti-immigration party which acts as a protest vote with the potential to drive the Tories into sanity on immigration? BNP, BFP, NF, etc - none of you will ever acquire real political power at the Parliamentary level (care to wager?). I GUARANTEE Downing St will never be occupied by Lee John Barnes. If BFP really started to make gains, the Tories would simply adjust themselves accordingly, coopting and moderating the CN agenda. Humans en masse are not by nature ideological conservatives (as, say, I myself am), but they are dispositional or ‘inertial’ ones. Really radical change rarely happens under stable regimes, unless under subterfuge (as with Lyndon Johnson’s changing of America’s pro-white immigration laws, done with extensive public mendacity as to their likely effects). One doesn’t need to publicly embrace WN or even CN simply to demand an end to immigration, the sine qua non of both white and British (French, German, etc) preservation. Given the magnitude of the immigration invasion-catastrophe, a party running on that platform alone (perhaps as UKIP, in my limited understanding of it, is based around opposition to EU issues) could be a thorn in the side of the Tories, driving them to be better on immigration - perhaps all the way to pursuing a complete non-EU moratorium. That in itself would be a huge victory, which could then be followed by new nationalist demands. But first things first. Keep the message simple. Immigration: yes or no? Stay away from race (for now). There is plenty wrong with immigration apart from race - especially in this era of austerity and high unemployment. Such a party could really go somewhere. More comprehensive nationalist programmes and parties will only continue to get their 1-2%. 57
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:24 | # PS - I most certainly am not abandoning race as the ultimate concern. But in the practical world of democratic politics, advances are mostly slow and marginal. Merely stopping nonwhite immigration is as much as we can fight for now. When victories are achieved, new and more radical aspirations become realistic. 58
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:03 | # CC
You don’t get it though. It’s not just about White people. The future will be shaped by the actions of all the various ethnic groups acting according to their natures. Jews can’t escape their nature, nor can Africans nor Pakistanis nor etc. I expect big changes in America in the run-up to 2012. I expect big changes in Scandinavia. I expect Britain to have a hot summer.
I think survival while remaining big enough to be worth attacking is the glass ceiling in the current circumstances. Achieving that means you become the rallying point when the circumstances change. The circumstances will change so the critical thing (imo) is to have an organisation* with a known brand which is in as good a shape as possible to grow with the change. * (or organisations) 59
Posted by CS on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:06 | # Leon is correct that the best course of action is to demographically take over (one at first) country through WN immigration. We simply do not have the numbers in any one country to win power and probably never will unless events beyond our control help us out and we can’t count on that happening. Leon suggested Australia but I think it is too big population wise to influence, it is being flooded with non-whites, our enemies control it, and not enough white people there are sympathetic enough to our views. We have to pick a smaller country where a relatively larger percent of the population is sympathetic to our views. Perhaps we make a deal with the government. We wil support them 100% as long as they exclude non-whites and only let people like us in. That gives the government over there the motivation and incentive to do this. Countries I have considered are Hungary, Austria or Croatia. 60
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:45 | # *sigh* I have conversed with dozens of average White folk, those who are frankly simpletons and have no ideological investment either way, over the last few years and have never, not once, had much trouble eliciting an opinion from them that the survival of their race matters. Would you like your house to burn down? Nope. Would you like your race to go extinct? Nope. That level of ease. Problem is…I don’t own a billion dollar media company. And in America, due to the setup of the political system (and the kikes who own the media) we are pretty much SOL in getting our message mainstream exposure. Not so in Britain. The message could be disseminated effectively in Britain via mainstream media exposure (Griffo got on Question Time but fumbled the ball, something he apparently excels at) under the pretext of a political party if only the dumbasses could be cleansed from Britain’s political nationalism. Or maybe, just maybe, if some of the dumbasses (I mean you, Barnesy) would clean the wax out of their ears. 61
Posted by CS on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:56 | # One thing I think some of us shoud do is try to make some serious money so we can afford to buy mainstream media exposure. Imagine if one us had created Facebook instead of who basically stole it as far as I can tell. And I’ve talked to plenty of white retards on internet discussion boards who couldn’t care less if whites went extinct in a hundred years. 62
Posted by Silver on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:11 | # I have conversed with dozens of average White folk, those who are frankly simpletons and have no ideological investment either way, over the last few years and have never, not once, had much trouble eliciting an opinion from them that the survival of their race matters. Would you like your house to burn down? Nope. Would you like your race to go extinct? Nope. That level of ease. “Would you like a yacht?” “Would you like a trip around the world?” “Would you like a million dollars?” “Well…yeah. Sure.” It doesn’t mean he’s going to do anything to achieve any of those things. Leon is correct that the best course of action is to demographically take over (one at first) country through WN immigration. We simply do not have the numbers in any one country to win power and probably never will unless events beyond our control help us out and we can’t count on that happening. Here are some folks one step ahead of you: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=47159 63
Posted by CS on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:36 | # Thanks Silver. I know you aren’t the most popular guy with some posters but I’ve never had a problem with your views. I support preserving Nordics and Meds and we should work together to do so. I saw this before but wasn’t sure if this place was for real. This would probably be the best place to start if it is. 64
Posted by Armor on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:59 | # Trainspotter: “if nationalism means nothing more than so long as a Paki enjoys fish n’ chips and knows how to take his tea, he therefore gets unfettered sexual access to white English girls…then… “ The idea of a cultural nation is little better than the idea of a proposition nation. No one has any idea what the proposition is, and no one knows exactly what we mean by “culture”. In any case, the English have nothing in common with their African and Pakistani immigrants. 65
Posted by Trainspotter on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 05:51 | # Armor: “The idea of a cultural nation is little better than the idea of a proposition nation. No one has any idea what the proposition is, and no one knows exactly what we mean by “culture”.” That’s about the size of it. Sure, you can get the occasional African to wrap himself in the Union Jack and “embrace” British values - but mostly what he’ll be embracing are white females. Ultimately, the masses of non-whites will transform the culture in ways that suit them. You’ll have to rewrite the history books when the classes are mostly non-white, your heroes will change, etc. Just in my not terribly old lifetime, I’ve seen great white luminaries such as Washington and Jefferson eclipsed by Martin Luther King. Of course, this is inevitable in a multiracial society. To expect non-whites to sit idly by and not transform the culture, the landmarks, etc., is naive. Of course they will, it’s in the nature of things. Whether or not a few of them closely ape the British is utterly irrelevant, except for propaganda value by the anti-whites: “See! You aren’t special. Anybody can be you. It doesn’t matter if you disappear. Just look at how “British” ol Apu here is.” Are we a people, or merely fungible commodities? Having said all of that, I don’t really have a problem with a single issue anti-immigration party. But if defense of a particular people, our people, is jettisoned in favor of a broader proposition or vague “cultural” nation (which will amount to the same thing, more or less), then the anti-whites have indeed won, and won completely. A single issue party is one thing, but it only makes sense within a broader context of promoting the ethnostate. If the idea of the ethnostate is spreading and expanding, then we can rightly expect an improvement in our situation at some point down the line, when more becomes possible. But if the idea dies, the last real hope of our people (or any subset thereof) dies with it. If whites can’t even make a case for their own defense, then they are doomed. Yoo many people think that we’re going to slick our way out of this, but it’s not gonna happen. I’ve witnessed part of this process myself, and the rest I’ve learned in study. In America, the idea that whites had a right to protect themselves as a people pretty much died around 1968. Up until that time, even outright segregationist candidates were running…and winning, at least in some parts of the country. But after that, explicit advocacy of white interests ended. What followed was a lot of talking in code, appealing to whites without calling them whites. This did indeed work for awhile, and it allowed the Republicans to transform a solid Democratic South into a solid Republican region (that is now filling up with non-whites - and Democrats -with breathtaking speed). So sure, it did win a lot of elections, but it lost us our country. Eventually, people begin to believe the propaganda, and they no longer understand the code. The adult electorate of the 1970’s and 80’s had grown up in a world of fairly explicit racial consciousness. They were the ones that were receptive to the “code.” But now, the code is gone. The sons and daughters of those voters do not know the code. They do not care about it, and in fact were taught that any racial consciousness on the part of whites was evil. The result? A quick look at the video documenting Jamie Kelso’s experience with young “conservative” activists tells the tale. These kids have been entirely deracinated (though there is a glimmer of hope, perhaps, in a couple). They are ready to give up their country in a heartbeat, to any and all comers. Miscegenation? That’s fine too -one particularly creepy guy seemed quite proud to bring that issue up. Their worldview, their supposedly “conservative” worldview, is actually further to the left than many campus radicals of the 60’s. The “conservative” ideas are straight out of the Frankfurt School, something that likely none of them have even heard of. That video is where it ends - “conservatives” utterly indifferent to their own dispossession, feeling no empathy for their kinsmen. P.S. Thank you Leon. I won’t be posting much for the time being, but hopefully that will change later in the year. 66
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:01 | # On the issue of culture and genes ;
What the data didn’t say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence. While acknowledging that the evidence doesn’t permit a firm conclusion, Dr. Lahn favors the idea that the advantage conferred by the mutations was a bigger and smarter brain. He found ways to suggest that in his papers. One mutation, which according to his estimates arose some 40,000 years ago, coincided with the first art found in caves, the paper observed. The other mutation, present mostly in people from the Middle East and Europe, and estimated to be 5,800 years old, coincided with the “development of cities and written language.” That suggested brain evolution might have occurred in tandem with important cultural changes. Yet because neither variant is common in sub-Saharan Africa, there was another potential implication: Some groups had been left out.
Re CC - The idea the tories will even admit that anti-white discrmination exists, let alone end it, can only come from someone with zero understanding of the British political system or the Tories. The very muting of the idea that the Tories will ; 1) accept that antiwhite discrimination exists Is the drivel of an iduiot who knows fuck all about the British political system or the Tories as a political party. The Tories are not ‘opponents’ of the system, they are the pseudo-right wing of the system itself. In order to adopt cultural nationalism the tories would have to move outside the system, and that will nevber happen simply as the Tories ARE THE SYSTEM YOU IDIOT. As for the issue of cultural nationalism is racist - more bollocks. Races do not produce cultures. Ethnic groups create cultures. Ethnic replacement from either intra-racial immigration or extra-racial immigration into the territory of an ethnic group = the end of the culture created by that ethnic group. Regardless of whether its German immigrants who bring their indigenous German culture which is an expression of the genotype and phenotype of individual Germans which manifests as German culture. A movement of indigenous Germans to Wales where the Germans became the majority in Wales, would lead to the removal and replacement of Welsh culture as the Germans impose their culture on Welsh territory. Thats obvious to anyone with a brain, except of course for archaic Nazis like yourself who can only think in terms of race. Cultural Nationalism is not a RACIALIST argument, you dumbass, as RACE has nothing to do with the creation of ethnic cultures. Ethnic groups create cultures not races. Races exist as a scientific reality - BUT NOT AS CULTURALLY CREATING FORCES - as ethnic groups create cultures not racial groups ; http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/10/whites-reluctance-to-talk-about-race.html
The statement that it “doesn’t accurately describe human variation” is flawed. The totality of human variation can’t be described by race—and no one has ever claimed it can be. What race does describe is a part of human variation. Knowing a person’s race tells you something about their genotype and phenotype: for a single trait and a single individual often not much; for the combination of many traits or many individuals a lot. Today, we know a lot about human genetic variation and all evidence points to clinical [sic] variation through a series of bottle necks. All the evidence points to mankind being distinguished to many genetically distinguishable races and subraces. “Bottlenecks” are a way in which existing human variation may have come about. Accepting that bottlenecks happened in human evolution is not in any way inconsistent with the idea that mankind is divided into races. Nothing from the past (even educational models) is so holy we can’t discard in lieu of new data and even newer models reflect that data. The newer data is perfectly consistent with the five races of traditional physical anthropology, and is indeed beginning to reveal unsuspected depth of substructure within the major races.
The statement that it “doesn’t accurately describe human variation” is flawed. The totality of human variation can’t be described by race—and no one has ever claimed it can be. What race does describe is a part of human variation. Knowing a person’s race tells you something about their genotype and phenotype: for a single trait and a single individual often not much; for the combination of many traits or many individuals a lot.Today, we know a lot about human genetic variation and all evidence points to clinical [sic] variation through a series of bottle necks. All the evidence points to mankind being distinguished to many genetically distinguishable races and subraces. “Bottlenecks” are a way in which existing human variation may have come about. Accepting that bottlenecks happened in human evolution is not in any way inconsistent with the idea that mankind is divided into races. Nothing from the past (even educational models) is so holy we can’t discard in lieu of new data and even newer models reflect that data. The newer data is perfectly consistent with the five races of traditional physical anthropology, and is indeed beginning to reveal unsuspected depth of substructure within the major races. “
It seems there are people who overthink race and fall into the trap of the fallacy of the corrupt continuum: that the observation that the concept is fuzzy means it should be discarded entirely. Race doesn’t have to be rigidly definable in order to be scientifically valid. ”
As Americans that should have been easy for you - all you needed to do was mention the Hopi, Navajho, Apache and others as examples of ethnic groups who created ethnic cultures. The fact you also failed to realise that all immigration affects the culture of the nation, as the more immigrants pour in the more the cculture is marginalised and destablised as the ethnic groups that created that culture are minimised in relation to their numbers. But all this is academic. Cultural nationalism cannot work in America as America is a nation and a culture where the culture arises from a dominant ethnic group - whites in America cannot be split into ethnic groups and their cultures protected as we can in Britain, all America can embrace is White Nationalism where all whites come together into one racial grouping to protect their racial interests not their ethnic and cultural interests. Cultural Nationalism is solely for European nations where the indigenous ethnic groups reside in the nations they created and whose cultures they created America. That is not the situation in America, therefore you need White Nationalism based on race to unify whites into a cohesive block to protect your racial interests as a racial community. 67
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:11 | # Slight revision as missed a couple of words out.
It once had a culture based on a dominant group, the white anglo-saxon protestants who founded America and who developed its constitution and laws, but they as an ethnic group are now a minority amongst the multi-racial herd of Americans. Whites in America therefore cannot be split into ethnic groups and their cultures protected as as we can in Britain, for all white Americans can do is embrace is the ideology of White Nationalism where all whites come together into one organisation based on race in order to protect their racial interests in American society. Cultural Nationalism is solely for European nations where the indigenous ethnic groups still reside in the nations they created, whose cultures they created in those nations still exist and where they are still the dominant majority in terms of demographics. That is not the situation in America, therefore you need to embrace White Nationalism based on race to unify whites into a cohesive tracial block to protect your racial interests as a racial community. 68
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:41 | # Well, just a few short months ago we were all singing the praises of the BNP here with their outstandingly successful wins at the Euro elections (conducted, of course, under proportional representation). Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons became MEPs (something people here tend to forget), and everything was on a roll.The BNP vote was up, the establishment parties liquidated and UKIP (love them or hate them) scored very well - a deliberate poke in the eye to the EU from ‘the peasants’. 69
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:03 | # DB, We have not begun to fight. For a brief moment it looked as though we had, but that proved to be a cruel illusion. It also proved that progress is possible even when CC’s dumbasses are running the effort. As present, everyone is running off in different directions, looking for the one direction that will take us forward. We are in an intellectual and political maize, certainly. This is the darkest hour. But we have not “lost”. Everything is possible. 70
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:12 | # You just dont get it do you GW. Its the dumbasses like CC, with their failed, obsolete, unwanted and despised addiction to the opiate of racial politics that has caused the crisis in nationalism. They are the problem, the crisis is the symptom. Nationalism becamse marginalised and despised as a political force in our society, as it became polluted with the poision of race hate peddled by the likes of CC and which people such as yourself tolerated within the nationalist political movement. All the rhetoric and politics of race, race hate and racialism has failed decade after decade after decade, and you now need to get over it. Bellowing like angry dinsaours aint gonna make racialism populist and the voters vote for it. CC and his ilk poisoned nationalism and people like you GW you tolerated his bullshit and hence allowed nationalism to be discredited and equated qwith hate. Its all your fault. The public simply did not want to vote for parties who espoused racial politics whilst tolerating nazi race haters in their ranks. FFS its not rocket science is it. 71
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:55 | # Lee, Elsewhere, I answered the following question:
... as follows: 1) We are living in a time of hyper-individualism and plenitude, the former of which, both by its original liberal nature and by its Judaised “refinement”, is the main author of our sorrows. The two combined, however, act like a powerful somnambulant. Most nationalists understand this, and understand that it leaves all too open to us the descent into a life of near concerns and passing pleasures, moral confusion, and so on. I happen to see this as an issue of mass self-estrangement. Individually and collectively, we are living the wrong life. And to change it we have also to change the broadly liberal social influences from which it is made to something very different and life-affirming. Or we wait for “collapse”, a state of belief I have called Inevitablism. The problem with Inevitablism is that it’s a “get lucky” thing. It councils fundamental inaction in favour of waiting for the people turn to nationalism. It assumes not only that they will, but that the rottenness and anomie of modernity is only a temporal covering beneath which the eternal characteristics of our people are waiting to recover position, like land recovering isostatically after the ice has withdrawn. It’s not that this is untrue in and of itself and could never happen. It’s that waiting and relying on other forces is dangerous and an abdication. 2) Nationalism has no clear image of what it is, without which we can never speak clearly, never be clearly seen. There are perfectly good reasons for this uncertainty. The global default model for nationalism remains if not fascistic then certainly teleological in character. I am no longer surprised to find that nationalist thinkers in and beyond Britain, whose writing we have read and who have been writing and speaking for decades in some cases, are really quite Nietzschean in their outlook, and often unashamedly fascistic. In Britain, and in the Anglosphere generally, this model of nationalism is not a live enquiry. But the alternative seems to be some kind of stout working-class British patriotism of warm ale, Enoch and Old Labour - the well from which you draw your culturism and NG drew his profoundly irrelevant Churchillian WW2 imagery. Into this empties the racialist internet: Amren, VNN and Stormfront, MacDonald, Rushton, TOQ and OO, Alternative Right, MR, OD, the COCC, and all the blogs and bloggers of White Nationalism. This, too, is a world that cannot quite forsake the fascistic, even though it is the empiricist hearth of the new science of race that speaks of psychometry and gene maps, genetic interests, ethnic nepotism and evolutionary strategies. So where are we in Britain in all this? All issues of law and “acceptable” discourse aside, what is our nationalism? Is our highest value to save the life of our people? Would we really walk that hard political road, if called upon? Or if we are focussed on other, cultural and even civic measures of salvation, do we really mean it or are we just saying it to get under the left’s radar? 3) The third impediment is the war of discourse which nationalism has been losing since the Battle of Cable Street, to be honest. The sharp end of this is the vast mismatch between the Establishment parties and the BNP, so clearly stated in Laura Fairie’s documentary. But the real war is not at the electoral campaigning phase, by which time it’s all too late, but all the rest of the time when the resources of the media and the political, media, cultural academic, and legal Establishments are defining the issues - and us too - in their own terms. If apathy, anomie and self-estrangement are fruits of the liberal totus, then the labelling and smearing and misrepresenting of nationalism and nationalists are the fruits of our ongoing defeat in the war of discourse. It is a war we just have to win, for we cannot win the war of electoral resources. The battle has to be settled in our favour well before anyone steps on to a hustings platform. In this moment we are hardly fighting it at all. That’s how I see it, Lee. 72
Posted by "Ho, Ho, Ho" on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:40 | # “We are in an economical and political maize” Well, tins of ‘Green Giant’ sweetcorn (my favourite) are very reasoanbly priced at Sainsbury’s. 73
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:49 | # Must have been the Easter Punny that typed that one. 74
Posted by Armor on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:36 | # Trainspotter: “the occasional African to wrap himself in the Union Jack and “embrace” British values - but mostly what he’ll be embracing are white females.” The discourse about values is empty talk. There is no actual policy associated with it. The government has never tried to define English values in order to check that only African and Chinese people who already have “English values” are admitted in England. Maybe immigrants are supposed to absorb “English values” by osmosis once they already are in England, by breathing the English air and rubbing elbows with English people. But it doesn’t work. Non-whites who live in England do not behave like English people. It’s not in their genes. In fact, non-whites who are born in white countries are more aggressive, have more grievances, and cause more trouble than their immigrant parents. Government and the media have no coherent discourse. Sometimes they will say that African immigrants are going to become English clones by embracing English values and girls. Sometimes, on the contrary, they will say that the English men and girls need to embrace African diversity to make the country stronger and more vibrant. The only thing that doesn’t change is their support for race-replacement. Of course, what matters to us and our enemies is race. Sometimes, the government and the media will explicitly say they want to destroy white people. But usually, they will claim they are in favor of diversity or assimilation. If I have to defend my race without being racially explicit, and if I can only use the rhetoric of diversity and assimilation, I’ll choose diversity. I can try to defend my existence in the name of cultural diversity. But I don’t see how I can defend myself by arguing in favor of assimilating the non-whites. I think it is slightly more difficult for my enemies to destroy me in the name of racial diversity than in the name of racial equality. Of course, there isn’t much difference. Both policies are enforced by mass replacement, and by forcing non-whites into every white group. In the end, we have to be racially explicit. We have to defend our existence as white people, or as a national subgroup of white people. 75
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:52 | # CS
1. Go for the Officers and NCOs (depending on your background). I don’t like to use the analogy for fear of stupid arguments but when Martin Luther was preaching do you think he focused on esoteric theological arguments first or did he focus on indulgences first?
Sure but you’re missing one thing. All nationalist parties will be riddled with state and marxist wreckers. Guaranteed. The British security services completely penetrated the IRA and other NI para-militaries. A political party is a cake-walk compared to that. (UKIP will be penetrated too). And the people running those operations will be PC-conditioned trance-people the same as everyone else (or consciously anti-white wreckers). So even if you got rid of the honest dumb-asses you still have the problem of the dishonest ones. So people need to acept that is inevitable. Now why didn’t the total penetration of the IRA stop it? 1) Cover. To get into positions of trust where they can wreck or inform the individuals involved have to do a good job for the organisation. They are useful to the organisation. They may do a lot of damage when they finally betray but to get into that position they have to do a lot of good too. 2) Popular support. Pretty much the entire active IRA could have been picked up in a long weekend but it would have grown back again. In the long-run penetration and containment i.e trying to stop the worst attacks , was preferred. State agents and marxist wreckers in a political organisation will work the same way. They have to do a lot of good to get into a position where they can do a lot of bad. Secondly they’ll try and wreck the big attacks (elections in this case) and they’ll largely succeed. You can’t stop that. The critical thing is the EXPECTATIONS MANAGEMENT. Make sure when you’re coming up to a big election that everyone expects MASSIVE and probably successful wrecking so they don’t get too disheartened when it happens. At the end of the day what matters is the number of woken-up people because whatever happens, if you have enough of them then you bounce back.
Ditto what i said to CC but also bear in mind London is both PC and immigration central.
I think there needs to be a two-step, a party for people convinced by implicitly ethno-nationalist BNP type arguments (however reasonably expressed) and a civic nationalist (culturalist and pragmatically anti-immigration) party. This second party also serves as a half-way house for people who have been convinced by ethno-nationalist arguments but who for personal psychological reasons can’t quite break free of their conditioning yet. To me UKIP serves that function. (And for anyone who’s immediate response to that is “controlled opposition blah blah.” I know. I don’t care. I’m talking about psychology.) To me your thing would fall between those two stools *except* the emphasis on a kind of white civil rights as the core, which i think has a lot of mileage, so i don’t particularly want to criticize. The BNP retains the brand however.
My take on inevitablism is as a cure for defeatism. The circumstances will and are inevitably changing every day. Those circumstances on their own are inert and useless unless there are people actively taking advantage of them. The other point is that WNs mostly talk about White people and Jews as the only actors in this with the other groups merely passive weapons in the hands of our enemies but what’s actually happening is our enemy is trying to stab us with snakes. It *will* go wrong. However it won’t matter unless we are prepared for it.
. 76
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:46 | # As an addendum to my point about race is real and it matters. http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/are-blacks-losing-it/ Are blacks (in America) losing it? 77
Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:56 | # LJB: “Cultural Nationalism is solely for European nations where the indigenous ethnic groups still reside in the nations they created, whose cultures they created in those nations still exist and where they are still the dominant majority in terms of demographics.” Fair enough, but here is my simple yes or no question: under cultural nationalism, if a non-white appears to embrace English culture, does he get to mate with white English girls? LJB: “That is not the situation in America, therefore you need to embrace White Nationalism based on race to unify whites into a cohesive tracial block to protect your racial interests as a racial community.” Granted, our circumstances are different in important ways. But they are also the same in crucial respects, not the least being that all of our peoples, whether in Sweden or England or America, are being attacked on the basis of race. It’s not just the English derived peoples, or the slavic, or what have you. It is no particular subset of whites. Rather, it is all white people, everywhere. “All white nations and only white nations.” The attack upon us, the desire to destroy us, is not limited to ex-colonial powers (where are Sweden’s former non-white colonies?). We aren’t being attacked because of our culture or various subcultures, but because of our race. That is what the enemy seeks to destroy. He is not trying to eradicate the English language, or English cuisine, or anything English per se, save one thing - he is looking to eradicate the white English themselves. That is what he hates. That is what he longs to destroy. If the non-whites that inherit England continue to speak English, our opponents won’t care. He only goes after those symbols that tend to foster racial/ethnic identity and therefore preservation amongst whites, but once the whites are gone, it’s mission accomplished. Who cares if some half breeds a century from now are running around with the St. George’s Cross? Why can’t we face up to this, without being naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews? We are being attacked on the basis of our race, not our culture. We are being attacked on the basis of our race, not on any particular subculture or ethnicity. LJB” “Its the dumbasses like CC, with their failed, obsolete, unwanted and despised addiction to the opiate of racial politics that has caused the crisis in nationalism.” The battle was forced upon us. Whites did not choose to be attacked, in all white countries and only white countries, on the basis of our race. Racial politics isn’t an opiate, it is simply the struggle of our time. The victim doesn’t choose whether the attacker comes at him with a gun, or a knife, or just a knuckle sandwich. He has to deal with the opponent that he has. The attack against us is a racial one. You are being unreasonable in attacking people who recognize it for what it is. LJB: “Nationalism becamse marginalised and despised as a political force in our society, as it became polluted with the poision of race hate peddled by the likes of CC and which people such as yourself tolerated within the nationalist political movement.” Let’s be crystal clear about this: our views, more or less dominant for centuries, became marginalized for one reason and one reason only: a deliberate and massive system/mass media/indoctrination campaign that has villified us at every turn, that has denied the very right of our people to exist. Literally trillions of dollars in propaganda, combined with numerous other methods of punishment and sanction, have been employed against us. Our opponents can reduce to a bread crumb anyone who gets out of line, if not actually jailing or killing them. Having said that, you are absolutely correct that hateful and malevolent people have not done our cause any favors. The kooks should be kicked to the curb, so far as it is possible to do so. But to expect honest people to deny what they know to be true, to ignore the real nature of the attack against us, does not solve any problems and will not provide a sustainable path forward for our people. The challenge of our times is how we can reach our people with an honest and positive vision of our future, without the kooks and cranks mucking it all up. I agree with you that appeals to race alone will not save us. There must be more to the appeal than that. But denying race and playing by our opponent’s rules and adopting his memes isn’t the answer either. Again, I’ve already seen that movie, and no man of good will could be happy about how it ends. I think a lot of us would like to know exactly what, if any, importance race has in “cultural nationalism.” And I would say that if the goal of cultural nationalism is not the preservation of our people, or a particular subset of our people, then it has no value. See the first question at the top of this post. If the ansywer to that is yes, then clearly cultural nationalism is meaningless, a mere surrender to our enemies. On the other hand, if the answer is no, then cultural nationalism might have a purpose, so long as it avoids various pitfalls…and those pitfalls are legion. 78
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:26 | #
This is assimilation which was tried and failed in the Anglo-Saxon diaspora because isn’t culture, (help me out here Cap’t with this philosophy stuff) the “full “expression” of the unique “authentic” self”. Culture is not of the race or the ethny. It is of the individual, thus Cleese’s sense of Englishness is an expression of his authentic self.
R.B. Bennett 79
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:54 | # Fair enough, but here is my simple yes or no question: under cultural nationalism, if a non-white appears to embrace English culture, does he get to mate with white English girls? = Any political party that seeks to enforce racial breeding policies is one that will never become a mainstream party. Nor is it the role of governments to tell us who too, or who not too, breed with. The ones that do, like Israel, are not Nationalists - they are National Socialist governments, and nationalism is about ethnicity, culture and national territory whilst national socialism is about race, racial supremacism and imperialism such as Greater Israel, the chosen people and Zionism. Cultural Nationalism seeks the preservation of the indigenous folk by ending all immigration, deporting all colonists, removing illegal immigrants, economic migrants and foreign criminals with naturalised citzenship status who will have their cituizenship revoked when they commit a crime. The less there are in the country, the less miscegination will occur as a result naturally. At the same time Cultural Nationalism will allow the indigenous folk to reclaim their culture, identity and to form communities based around their ethnicity - all of which will ensure they remain the demographic majority in perpetuity in the country. The ending of state enforced multi-culturalism will allow people to form organic communities based on their own natural tendency to live amongst their own kind. Cultural Marxism arose as a response to the Nazis and was founded in the west by those fleeing the Nazis. You are being myopic in not realising that what matters is not defining the problem but solving it. Nazis and nazism damage the cause of nationalism and delay its getting into power. Any idiot knows we are despised as a race, but it takes thinkers to realise that the solution to that attack is not to engage the enemy on the grounds they want to fight - on the issue of race - which is the battlefield they want us try and fight on, but to outflank them.
3) The main weapon to use against nationalists is when the enemy equates nationalism with nazism. Nationalism cannot defend the racial interests and ethnic interests and cultural interests of our people whilst it harbours nazis in its ranks who do the enemys work for them and who wilfully seek to associate nationalism with nazism. The fact is that most of the most vociferous Nazis, from Ray Hill in the UK to Hal Turner, the NPD in Germany and the Canadian Equality Commission who funded, ran and organised the largest nazi group in Canada, have been exposed as working for the system itself.
If they do not respect those principles, then their citizenship will be revoked regardless of their race or religion. The melting pot wanted a misceginated, culturally mixed American society bound only by the symbol of the American flag and citizenship of the state - and this is the exact opposite of what cultural nationalism stands for. Nationalism is not patriotism. Nationalists want to preserve the indigenous people of their nation as they realise that the culture of that nation comes from the people. Nationalism is about the people and their culture. The melting pot is based on plastic patriotism - patiotism is about the flag and the state. We do not want a melting pot that mixes all the people into a homogenous porridge with a fake plastic culture based on multi-culturalism, consumerism and plastic patriotism - we want our British national culture returned and the ethnic folk to be preserved as the dominant demographic majority in perpetuity in order to sustain our ethnic cultures. 80
Posted by PM on Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:48 | # LBJ “Any idiot knows we are despised as a race, but it takes thinkers to realise that the solution to that attack is not to engage the enemy on the grounds they want to fight - on the issue of race - which is the battlefield they want us try and fight on, but to outflank them.” Why do they want race to be the battleground? “Any political party that seeks to enforce racial breeding policies is one that will never become a mainstream party” Didn’t Sarkozy say that enforced interbreeding may be necessary in France if the races will not mix by themselves? This basically raises the possibility of enforced breeding policies in a European nation, and I do not recall anyone that matters saying that Sarkozy’s remarks put him or his party outside the mainstream. 82
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:31 | # 1) because they can win the debate due to the debate being rigged in their favour and because nationalists have handed them the ammuntion to use against nationalism by tolerating nazis and race haters in the nationalist movement thereby allowing to equate nationalism with nazism 2) as for sarkozy - the french public are about to show sarkozy how much they love his idiotic rhetoric on issues like multi-culturalism when they vote for the FN in the forthcoming French elections. 83
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 03:29 | #
“Culture” as commonly understood is artifacts (physical and notional) held in common by a particular group or society; there is an indispensable element of the collective to it. We do not typically say each individual has his own “culture”. Now, if what you mean to say is that individuals are the requisite vessels and progenitors of “culture”, then point taken. 84
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:27 | #
Is anyone who is explicit about intrinsic racial differences and explicitly advocates preservation of the White race a “nazi” and a “race hater” in your opinion, Barnesy? Is Jared Taylor a “nazi”? 85
Posted by Geoff Davies on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:49 | # As for Griffin being a psychopath this study was once on the Refom blog. 86
Posted by Trainspotter on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:06 | # Lee, in some respects we aren’t that far apart. In others, the differences are fundamental. No one post can possibly address all of the issues that have surfaced, but I’ll do what I can on a few points. LJB: “Any political party that seeks to enforce racial breeding policies is one that will never become a mainstream party. Nor is it the role of governments to tell us who too, or who not too, breed with.” Here, with “racial breeding policies,” you are buying into the terminology of the enemy. We seek to restore our homelands for our people. Yes, there is a critical racial component in what constitutes “our people,” or any subpart thereof. We believe that each people should have this right, and each people should be able to control its own destiny, however they may define themselves. I genuinely support this for the non-white peoples of the world, but I reserve it for myself and my people as well. Further, there are already plenty of mixed nations/communities, and those who wish to miscegenate should be able to live in such places. If someone breaks with the organic community in terms of their choice of mate, that is fine. That is their choice. However, they do not have the right to impose their personal choice on the organic community, thereby changing the community in ways that are contrary to the wishes of the membership and the very basis of the community itself. How is it fair to the mixed child to grow up in a society that is geared toward the non-mixed? It most assuredly won’t be “fair” at all. On the other hand, if we transform our history books, our icons, our very cultural narrative to accomodate the non-white, we have seen the results: a deracinated, often miserable and abused white population. That’s not fair either. What this has done to white children in particular is not fair at all. Why should some wayward white with a desire to miscegenate be able to impose all of these problems on other people? That’s not freedom of choice, it is the freedom to impose one’s will on others, and put them in a dreadful spot. Separate national communities solve this problem. No other approach does. In short, Lee, your way - in the event that it worked - will lead to ongoing unfairness and strife in perpetuity. Our way, while it will obviously involve short term strife, offers a sustainable solution that could endure over the long term. Ironically, it is your way that would require ongoing “dominance,” while our way can evolve into a genuine mutual respect over time. LJB: “The less there are in the country, the less miscegination will occur as a result naturally.” That would be a wonderful thing. However, our enemies will recognize this, and come at you just as hard as they come at our more hardcore bretheren. Only if they are certain that non-whites will become the majority in our homelands, and that the white race (and its subparts) will in time be bred out of existence, will they be satisfied. They are not going to settle for anything else. The attack against us is a racial one , in all white countries and only white countries, and there is no getting around it. Until we can gain some intellectual, and then broader societal traction for the simple idea that we want to exist as a people, and that yes race is part of our identity, our enemies will remain dominant. Apparently, you think that we can dispense with this task. I don’t. LJB: “At the same time Cultural Nationalism will allow the indigenous folk to reclaim their culture, identity and to form communities based around their ethnicity - all of which will ensure they remain the demographic majority in perpetuity in the country.” Our enemy will fight this tooth and nail, every bit as much as he fights my viewpoint. And, as I explained above, such a situation would involve ongoing unfairness in a way that the more pure form does not. That ongoing unfairness will grate on the natural good nature and sense of fair play that characterize our people, and the non-white invaders will serve as a tool for the unscrupulous whites who seek to damage their own people. I’m looking for a more sustainable outcome. LJB: “Cultural Marxism arose as a response to the Nazis and was founded in the west by those fleeing the Nazis. You are being myopic in not realising that what matters is not defining the problem but solving it.” Cultural Marxism predates World War II. I’m not being myopic either, but seek a solution that is viable for the long term. I think an approach of mutual respect between homelands is, ultimately, a better way to go than trying to have one’s cake and eat it too. I’ll also note that, as disastrous as World War II was for the cause, it certainly did not lead directly to support for multiculturalism or miscegenation on the part of the broad white masses. I can tell you that, as late as the 1980’s, the normal reaction to miscegenation on the part of the vast majority of white female teenagers and young women in America was one of revulsion. What changed? A massive, top down propaganda assault against our people the likes of which the world has never seen. Again, the operative phrase here is top down. That’s what we face, and the people at the top aren’t idiots. That’s why I say we can’t trick our way out of this. However, we may be able to “outflank” our opponents in the sense of developing a compelling vision of the future. That’s our challenge. I am in full agreement with you that cranks and kooks, and simple haters, are not assets in our cause. But to ignore the overwhelming role of the top down assault against us, to imagine that this was a fair debate, and we simply lost it fair and square due to kooks, is absurd. It’s just not true. Here is a key point: as long as we accept our opponent’s demand that white people must be displaced, and that whites do not have the right to exist as a people (or subpart thereof) then we hamstring ourselves. We have bought into our opponent’s key premise. You think this liberates us, but I disagree. If preserving whites as a people is accepted as illegitimate, then any approach that accomplishes that de facto will also be attacked as illegitimate, and just as viciously. Perhaps it’s still worth a try until we can better spread the idea that the continued existence of whites is legitimate, fair and important. But as long as we accept the key premise of those who seek to destroy us, any de facto endeavor is just as vulnerable as a more de jure one. If preserving whites is wrong, then it’s wrong. One might be able to get some short term traction on the Muslim issue, or something similar. But if that issue truly takes off (hard to when preserving whites is seen as evil) the System will simply import non-whites that aren’t Muslim. But if maintaining whites as a people is increasingly seen as legitimate, then all sorts of opportunities open up. In other words, our way can support your way, and your way ours. LJB: “We do not want a melting pot that mixes all the people into a homogenous porridge with a fake plastic culture based on multi-culturalism, consumerism and plastic patriotism - we want our British national culture returned and the ethnic folk to be preserved as the dominant demographic majority in perpetuity in order to sustain our ethnic cultures.” Well, we can certainly agree on that much. Again, your approach may well be worth a try for now. But it shouldn’t take the form of attacking men of good will who seek to develop and spread the idea that racial issues are important, and that our people and various supgroups have a right to exist. That isn’t hate or kookiness. It’s simply a precondition for our long term survival, and the spread of our ideas on race will only help your endeavors, not hurt them, even if they can’t win elections under the current System. 87
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:25 | # Is anyone who is explicit about intrinsic racial differences and explicitly advocates preservation of the White race a “nazi” and a “race hater” in your opinion, Barnesy? Is Jared Taylor a “nazi”?
Jareds ideology is an aspect of American real politic. America is not Britain is it idiot. No, Taylor is not a Nazi. He is an American White Nationalist. Those who talk about ‘whites’ and race are White Nationalists. Those who espouse National Socialism are Nazis. ————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Not a good record is it. People in democracies do not vote for parties that advocate apartheid. Nazis in democratic nations are so small in relation to their numbers that any attempt to use terrorism to create such a scenario would be crushed in an instant. Therefore only those who have rejected common sense espouse such nonsense. Those of us who live in the real world, seek a way forwards - we are not trapped in historical ghettoes that are never going to go anywhere.
Cultural Marxism existed before the war but came into the West with the refugees that fled the Nazis ; The German prewar contextThe political turmoil of Germany’s troubled interwar years greatly affected the School’s development. Its thinkers were particularly influenced by the failure of the working-class revolution in Western Europe (precisely where Marx had predicted that a communist revolution would take place) and by the rise of Nazism in such an economically and technologically advanced nation as Germany. This led many of them to take up the task of choosing what parts of Marx’s thought might serve to clarify contemporary social conditions which Marx himself had never seen. Another key influence also came from the publication in the 1930s of Marx’s Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts and The German Ideology, which showed the continuity with Hegelianism that underlay Marx’s thought. As the growing influence of National Socialism became ever more threatening, its founders decided to prepare to move the Institute out of the country.[11] Following Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Institute left Germany for Geneva, before moving to New York City in 1935, where it became affiliated with Columbia University. Its journal Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was accordingly renamed Studies in Philosophy and Social Science. It was at this moment that much of its important work began to emerge, having gained a favorable reception within American and English academia. Horkheimer, Adorno and Pollock eventually resettled in West Germany in the early 1950s, although Marcuse, Lowenthal, Kirchheimer and others chose to remain in the United States. It was only in 1953 that the Institute was formally re-established in Frankfurt.[12] “
Thats the legacy of Nazism - that by driving the cultural marxists out of Germany they ensured its growth to power in the West. ———————————————————————————————————————
Its not part of my identity. I am British. I am also English. I am also European. Race is an assumed identity, one we chooose to assert in defiance of the political realities of the societies we live in. Those three above are the political contexts that matter in the world of real politics in Britain as opposed to the fantasy world of racial politics. The issue of race matters only to a minscule number of political cultists with about 0.1 % of the total vote in Britain. Those cultists have tried to repckage that cultism in a hundred different ways since WW2 across Europe in order to take power and failed every time. How many times do you have to be sold a pup by the Nazis before you recognise that the public wont buy the Nazi pups you are trying to peddle to them ?
Politics is about political realities, and in the real world of politics people do not vote on racial issues. Any political rhetoric of ‘protecting whites’ appeals only to 0.1 % of the voting base and only draws support from the Nazis, whose presence further alienates the public. Its a dead end. 88
Posted by Bill on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:59 | # The people’s Royal Wedding. Since the announcement of this weeks royal wedding, I have been watching the media with more than usual interest. There seems to be a genuine air of disquiet among the ruling establishment ranging from outright concern to eyebrow raising puzzlement of how the British public are responding to this weeks royal wedding. According to Frank Furedi of Spiked Magazine, such a celebratory occasion is an opportunity to gauge the mood of the nation, a sort of instant feedback of the feelgood factor of the nation’s pulse. The perceived air of puzzlement by the nation’s elite is triggered by the question why the people are so unsure (indifferent?) of how they should respond to such a momentous British occasion? From where does this confusion of response by the varying strata’s of the British public to this flag waving event come from? The turned up volume by the establishment in recent years of anti English white sentiment in the form of hatred of Britain’s past, of denigrating British tradition, patriotism, racism, slavery, non inclusiveness and the whole gamut of years of in your face multiculturalism - has taken its toll. The public are genuinely confused, they are disorientated, they be damned if they do or damned if they don’t? Liberal unintended consequences strike again. I have noticed for some time (and posted here) how our elites use nationalism to suit their own purpose. If the herd proclaim their nationalism in what is considered (by the media) as supremacy then the plebs are jumped on and branded as racist. However, if the herd do not display the correct zeal for a tub thumping traditional flag waving royal occasion, then they are viewed with suspicion and raised elite eyebrow. Why are they (English) responding in this way - enquire the bewildered establishment? These double standards are brought into play without a second thought by our betters. Looks like the people notice after all - at least intuitively. 89
Posted by Marlowe on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:05 | # TRAINSPOTTER:
A Jewish billionaire has determined what will be the Sierra Club’s immigration position. 90
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:20 | # The royal wedding flag waving is not about nationalism, but patriotism and flag waving. 91
Posted by Foundation on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:04 | # This is the one of the best threads I’ve seen on here. Developing ideas that will help secure a future for our kinfolk is one of the greatest acts of kindness any man, or woman, can do. I would liken it to Alexander Fleming and antibiotics - one idea leads to something completely different, and of greater benefit. The MR community is a force for good. It is rational, it promotes ideas that are free of prejudice. I can see the day when ethnocultural philosophy is taught to the gifted of our nations, and they will council our future leaders on what they can, and cannot do. Thus preserving the rights and dignities of our peoples, in perpetuity. 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:11 | #
If we moved you to South Africa would you be Zulu, South African and African? Genetically you’d still be of the Anglo-Saxon/Nordic race. Sikhs in the UK are claiming they are both English and British. They may claim those mantles by citizenship but they can never be Anglo-Saxon. “Race is consciousness of self and its extended ecology.” 93
Posted by Christian M on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:29 | # Lee John Barnes: “Cultural Marxism arose as a response to the Nazis” Jewdar is flashing, beeping, and smoking!!! 94
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:26 | # I hate it when people attribute omnipotence to Hitler. 95
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:12 | # Christian M = keep taking the meds. Desmond Jones = If I went to South Africa I would be a British male of English and Irish ethnic background in South Africa. To the Boers I would be a Brit. To the blacks I would be a white Brit. I would also be seen as White British by the ANC. To assert ones racial identity in such circumstances is entirely understandable, as South Africa is a race based society - though of course intra-racial racism is endemic as British Whites are despised by many White Boers. But in Britain and Europe asserting a race based identity is to abandon ones ethnicity, culture and nationhood for a racial catergory that ensures one becomes politically and socially marginalised. The political path to power is only achievable via the politics of culture, ethnicity and nationhood - not race. 96
Posted by Trainspotter on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:09 | # LJB: “Re - white only communities - only two regimes have ever tried such a plan, the Nazis and apartheid South Africa…” Uh..we aren’t seeking to create New South Africa. The entire point of the ethnostate is to avoid messes like that. You know this perfectly well, so why are you trying to pin that on us? Further, there is a long tradition among European (and derived) nations of maintaining their racial basis, from the immigration and naturalization laws of America limiting citizenship to whites, to the White Australia policy, to literally dozens of other examples. It has not been uncommon at all to protect the white racial basis of a society. In fact, historically speaking, it has been pretty much the norm. Unfortunately, some of these societies ended up “cheating,” as it were, most tragically in the practice of slavery in the American South. They cheated again by not repatriating all non-whites, thus leaving a servile class under white domination. Again, the point of the ethnostate is precisely to not allow the cheating, and therefore to avoid the enormous human misery that inevitably results from such practices. In the ethnostate, no longer will a tiny few be able to import non-white labor for their own exploitative gain, while inflicting the rapes, murders, environmental degradation, cultural destruction and dispossession on the broad white population. No more cheating! In other words, on one level we are very much in line with the history of our people. We simply want to end the cheating and the misery. Each people will have their own homeland, with no group disenfranchising, exploiting or mistreating another. A clear conception of the ethnostate does just that. We offer a better world than you do. The evidence is overwhelming that multiracial societies generate strife and misery. LJB: “Those of us who live in the real world, seek a way forwards - we are not trapped in historical ghettoes that are never going to go anywhere.” In fact, your vision is very much trapped in a historical ghetto. It’s the same old “We’re dominant, but…” routine. Nothing new under that particular sun. Only one problem: history shows it doesn’t work, it’s not sustainable. The historical verdict is already in, and I can’t see people supporting such an approach for any length of time. LJB: “You say ‘race is part of my identity’. Its not part of my identity. I am British. I am also English. It’s funny that you claim race is an assumed identity, when it is the only thing on your list that can actually be seen under a microscope. DNA is real. Blood is real. Some Paki aping an Englishmen, on the other hand…talk about an “assumed” identity. If you stopped identifying as English, you would still be white. If you stopped identifying as British, you would still be white. You could, with effort, lose your accent, and nobody would be the wiser…but you can’t drop your race. It’s the one thing that you will carry to the grave. LJB: ” Any political rhetoric of ‘protecting whites’ appeals only to 0.1 % of the voting base and only draws support from the Nazis, whose presence further alienates the public. Its a dead end.” Nah. The sustainable ethnostate - sustainable in all ways: racially, culturally, environmentally, economically, etc., is the future. Your thinking is the past. The only reason your way might, and I emphasize might, have any value at all is precisely because it is the past, and therefore isn’t going to be seen as nearly so revolutionary. Unfortunately, your way just doesn’t work. Your way is all about telling people that they can have their cake and eat it too…but the truth is that they can’t. Reality bats last. Therefore, your way would be, at best, an interim stage. It’s not sustainable. At worse, a trip down a blind alley that the British can scarcely afford. The real future is the sustainable ethnostate, not the endless squabbling, cultural destruction, and exploitation that is an inevitable part of the multiracial socieities that you still can’t let go of. We offer real solutions, at all levels, not just slapping a St. George’s Cross on a half breed and calling it an Englishman. Look around you, Lee. The evidence is mounting with each passing year that the current system is heading for the dustbin. This has to happen, again for the simple reason that it is not sustainable. The future belongs to the vision that offers a real way out. The fact that it can’t win elections at the present time is tragic, but not surprising. Therefore, if you can make electoral headway with your approach for as long as the current order creaks along, then fine. I have no ill will, and in fact wish you the best. But if the only way that you guys can make progress is by attacking men of good faith that are working to protect their people, then you might ask why that is. In any event, unless something new comes up that I see as requiring a comment, I shall endeavor to give you the last word. 97
Posted by PM on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:10 | # Although you claim, Lee, that your brand of cultural nationalism need not come into conflict with race-conscious nationialism, but rather they shoud each work to attract their own natural support, the fact is that if your party was to get anywhere it would be forced to denounce racial nationalism as the minimum requirement for being allowed into the mainstream—even more so, given your own past with the BNP. You would be compelled at every turn to spell out how much you disagree with (white) racism, the concept of race, the thought of whites having their own group interests, etc. In other words, having hoped to avoid the ‘battleground’ of race your party would become a tool of those on the left in that very battleground. Your party would be sending out the message that race does not exist, that people who believe in it are bad people, and that it is possible to have European civilisation without European people. Your party would make itself the enemy of parties like the BNP whether it wanted to or not, and it would do so without the BNP even trying to make an enemy out of you. 98
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:05 | # Trainspotter - we shall agree to dsagree, and I can respect your opinion as you do not descend into the gutter and drag the debate down into the usual abuse / race hate PM - Why would I deny race - that would be idiotic seeing as race exists as a reality ? Cultural Nationalism does not deny the existence of race, it just doent politicise it. Denying reality is what the left do - not nationalists. Race exists - ethnic groups exist - to deny that is idiotic as it is to deny reality. 99
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:04 | # Mr. Barnes in the short term you would get much more traction political with JB’s Citizen’s Dividend programme especially considering Cameron’s present focus on “a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work”... 100
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:17 | # Britain, a white nationalist’s dream. LOL, Britain expecting huge immigrant flood from Europe as restrictions on benefits for immigrants are eliminated http://www.express.co.uk/printer/view/242791/
Slavs may be English, and British by citizenship and European by nature, but will their authentic self ever be Anglo-Saxon even if they speak the Queen’s English with a mouth full of marbles?
101
Posted by CL on Thu, 28 Apr 2011 04:51 | #
The logical position for WNs to take toward the immigration of Europeans to European countries would be neutrality. When Poles immigrate to England they make England have more Whites, but by the same token it makes Poland have less Whites. It’s therefore pretty much a wash and there’s no reason to assume that WNs should be any great boosters of England letting in European immigrants.
Desmond, if you were in charge of the BNP, what policy or policies would you advocate to address this issue that seems to trouble you? Would you just seek to cut off further Slavic immigration into England? There’s no reason why WNs would oppose that policy. On the other hand if you think Slavs already in England should be sent back, WNs would have call to oppose you, as such an idea would lead to preventable conflict between Whites, only serving to help the non-Whites. Why push the Poles already in England toward having an especially strong reason to oppose the BNP? A lot of them have invested a lot into jobs and relationships in England, and obviously they would strongly oppose anyone out to force them out of the country against their will. Couldn’t the Anglo-Saxons in England be preserved against being Slavisized to the point of not being Anglo-Saxon merely by cutting off further non-Anglo immigration? That’s what I think. 102
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:16 | # CL, The population in Poland may reduce because of immigration, however, unlike England, Poland will still be 99% Polish. However, the “English” proportion of the “British” population will continue to decline. I’ll bet dollars to donuts, because the Canadian example has shown it time and again, that the Poles will ally themselves with those who oppose the preservation of the indigenous culture, to use Mr. Barnes term, simply because it serves their interest. It is not a wash. It is a net loss to the English, even using Salter’s mathematical method of calculating child equivalents. Reducing conflicts between whites, in your opinion, rises above the displacement of the indigenous English, a race-replacement the WNs proclaim shall not be named. You must be Polish/Slavic because every position you but forth is supportive of them remaining in England. The poor Poles will face an assault upon their proximate interests, their standard of living, jobs, etc., however, the ultimate interest of the English/Anglo-Saxon, their genetic continuity, may be dismissed with the wave of a hand. If the Pole, and WNs were really truly conscious of ethnic genetic interests, they would oppose Polish migration to England in the same manner in which they opposed Russification of Poland, but they won’t because these Slavs, like the alleged Silveric only are motivated by self-interest. Policy suggestions were outlined in the comment above the one which generated your comment. 103
Posted by PM on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:53 | # Lee, if you are still reading this could I just ask you what you mean by this- “Also that in order to be a citizen of the nation all immigrants must fully integrate into the national culture or they are colonists and not citizens and hence will be deported” My apologies if you have answered this, but I cannot remember it cropping up. What does this mean in practice? For example, if two Asians living in Bradford, who were both born in Britain, had a child and gave it an Asian name, would this be an example of non-integration and a reason for deportation? Or if this is allowable because they were born in Britain and are not classed as immigrants, then what about immigrant Pakistanis who give their child an Asian name? Would they be deported? Or a black, British-born Rastafarian DJ who plays dub reggae? Or again, a black immigrant rasta who does the same? Is he fully integrated, or could he be deported? How about two actual Pakistani immigrants that work, obey the law, get on with their Englsih neighbours, but go to the mosque and send their children to a local madrassa and believe the Koran is the literal word of Allah? Are they counted as fully integrated into the national culture? When you say ‘all the immigrants must fully integrate’ are you only meaning people who actually immigrated here, or are you including all the post 1948 descendents of immigrants too (which is what British people often mean by ‘immigrants’)? I just want to get down to specifics of how this thing would actually work—who is classed as an immigrant (does someone who moved here from Poland when he was six months old get classed as an immigrant, or how about a Pakistani who has been here since he was 10), how we define the ‘national culture’ (does it include music, religion, attitudes, whether or not you go to a bonfiire on November 5th, etc) and how you make sure all people adhere to this national culture. 104
Posted by PM on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:10 | # Here’s a thought: would this be a useful ‘meme’ or theme to try and get into British debate about multiculturalism—the idea of a ‘racial/cultural ‘Midlothian question’. The Midlothian question in British politics is the question of whether or not it is acceptable for Scottish MP’s in the House Of Commons to get votes on issues affecting England, when the English have no corresponding say on the same issue in a Scotland with its own devolved assembly. My racial equivalent of this question relates to the fairness of Englishness/Britishness being a ‘shared’ identity, which means that Pakistanis, Jews, Indians, etc who are born here get a say in the direction of our people and our culture, whereas these groups living amongst us each have their own exclusive culture which the ethnically English are given no corresponding rights to change, ban, discuss or dilute. This creates a quite obvious disadvantage and imbalance. So, a British Muslim can decry the George Cross of his neighbour as offensive, whereas his English neighbour as a non-Muslim would be expected to show tolerance and respect for the crescent flag his Muslim neighbour flies. Would it be useful for this simple unfairness to be expressed in this way? 105
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:38 | #
Yes. I think there’s a way of showing mathematically in set theory how the indigenous group is basically erased by this process because they’re not allowed a unique identity. Attacking the double standards of the multicult gradually softens people up. If you try and promote an idea that contradicts the multicult it makes them cringe and pull back but if you just keep hitting the double standards and the basic unfairness then eventually they crumble and it’s a lot easier to then push the alternative, and as the entire multicult is based on lies and double standards there’s plenty of material. 1) Multi-culturalism says all ethnic groups must be respected and their children taught to celebrate their own culture and religion - except one. 2) If a West Indian is both West Indian and English then they have their own unique identity and an English identity. If a Pakistani is both Pakistani and English then they have their own unique identity and an English identity. If a Jew is both Jew and English then they have their own unique identity and an English identity. Only the English no longer have a unique identity of their own. 3) If African is a unique identity and Pakistani is a unique identity then if an African migrates to Pakistan they can only take on a Pakistani identity by giving up their African identity. If they want to remain African while also claiming to be Pakistani then they are in effect demanding Pakistanis give up their own unique identity. 4) The multicult says being West Indian isn’t racist. The multicult says being Pakistani isn’t racist. The multicult says being Jewish isn’t racist. The multicult says being English is racist if it excludes West Indians, Pakistanis or Jews but the only thing that doesn’t exclude anybody is nothing. So the multicult says being English is nothing. There are a lot of different ways of putting it. I’ve never quite found a form of words i’m totally happy with. It’s actually pretty important because although it might sound like something abstract, it’s actually the foundation of a lot. Every time a teacher puts down a history book or easop’s fables because it excludes some of the kids in the class this is what is ultimately behind her decision. In the desire not to hurt outsider’s feelings by excluding them we end up completely excluding our own identity. Excessive empathy being manipulated for genocidal purposes. 106
Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:03 | # Wandrin and others may be interested in the Oxford Complexity lecture series and Warwick Complexity lecture series, both available as free podcasts from iTunes. I’ve only made my way through three lectures so far, but have found them all to be quite illuminating. In particular, the lecture “Cooperation, Norms, and Conlict” by Dirk Helbing proves game-theoretically how an otherwise equally talented, but more cooperative minority can come to dominate a less cooperative, more atomisitic majority. 108
Posted by Silver on Sun, 01 May 2011 04:08 | # You must be Polish/Slavic because every position you but forth is supportive of them remaining in England. The poor Poles will face an assault upon their proximate interests, their standard of living, jobs, etc., however, the ultimate interest of the English/Anglo-Saxon, their genetic continuity, may be dismissed with the wave of a hand. Hard to argue with that. On the other hand, CL is correct that this propensity of yours to pick fights with those groups most likely to understand and appreciate your position and reformulate their own views in light of this new understanding doesn’t do you any favors whatsoever. (Which isn’t what CL actually said, or necessarily feels, but is the point of his line of reasoning, when all is said and done, to which no serious sort of a comeback is possible.) If the Pole, and WNs were really truly conscious of ethnic genetic interests, they would oppose Polish migration to England in the same manner in which they opposed Russification of Poland, but they won’t because these Slavs, like the alleged Silveric only are motivated by self-interest. Self-interest is typically primary, but it’s just flat-out incorrect to insist that it’s always primary, that it always completely crowds out all else. With respect to racial/ethnic interests etc it’s true that they (we) are all motivated by self-interest (which you never fail to exaggerate to the maximum extent credible). My position is that we’re erring in our calculation of what is, in fact, in our long-term interests. Lastly, a minor point, but why on earth do you feel you have to keep perpetuating falsehoods about me? I’ve never described myself as “slavic” (on a race blog). Sure, I can speak a slavic tongue (two, actually), and I suppose there are aspects of the broad “slavic culture” (whatever that is) that I’ve imbibed, but that where it ends. Racially, I’ve always looked to the Med rim for company. Not that this changes anything I said earlier, but if you’re going to talk race, why not do it accurately? It’s not hard. 109
Posted by CL on Sun, 01 May 2011 05:09 | # Desmond, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Whites in England are profoundly threatened by non-Whites. If you want to alienate some of the Whites in England by saying you want to strip them of their citizenship and throw them out of the country against their will, you had better be clear EXACTLY who it is you want to be deported and who it is you think should be allowed to stay. Otherwise anyone where there’s any chance at all of Desmond wanting them deported will rightfully err on the side of caution and conclude that they are among those he seeks to strip of citizenship rights and deport, and thus will certainly oppose Desmond’s form of nationalism, and perhaps all other forms of nationalism in England. People have every right to defend their proximate interests, and they don’t need to be lectured about how it’s supposedly wrong by some asshole like you. 110
Posted by CL on Sun, 01 May 2011 05:20 | #
I said I would be fine with a party advocating a cut-off of immigration from Europe into England.
You’re the only person I’m aware of who claims to favor that Poles in England be stripped of their citizenship and deported. In that sense everyone I’m aware of, including many English people, are supportive of Poles remaining in England. Therefore concluding someone is Polish/Slavic based on their opposition to deporting Poles from England shows veddy poor reasoning skills. the Pole, and WNs were really truly conscious of ethnic genetic interests, they would oppose Polish migration to England in the same manner in which they opposed Russification of Poland Who says that WNs opposed the Russification of Poland to any real degree? As to Poles opposing the Russification of Poland, it should be noted that said Russification was imposed on Poland by an imperial power that ran rough-shod over the Poles right to self-determination. If the Poles had elected a government which allowed Russian immigrants in, then I think the Poles should’ve allowed the Russians given citizenship to stay for the sake of reducing conflicts between Whites. 111
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 May 2011 08:20 | # CL, Poles have no place in my land. They are not welcome. We will not make common cause with them. They are no different to any other coloniser, and we must rid ourselves of them no less than the rest. 112
Posted by Foundation on Sun, 01 May 2011 20:19 | # Guessedworker: ‘Poles have no place in my land. They are not welcome. We will not make common cause with them. They are no different to any other coloniser, and we must rid ourselves of them no less than the rest.’ I’ll second that. 113
Posted by CL on Mon, 02 May 2011 00:44 | #
Who is the we you refer to? I think the BNP and all its splinter groups allow membership to Poles. That’s a very funny thing to do if there’s a serious group of people in England who seek no common cause with Poles. Does the we refer to people who post on this website? That’s rich for the website the owner of which lets a part Italian post.
To think the English got all outraged when Hitler stripped Jews of their German citizenship, but now you want to do that to Poles. But perhaps you would’ve supported Hitler on that if you were around in the 30’s, so maybe on a personal level it isn’t hypocritical. It’s still very ironic. Just curious, are you a British or English nationalist? By which I mean do you favor deporting everyone of non-English descent in England, or do you want to let the people or Irish, Scottish, and/or Welsh descent stay? 114
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 May 2011 01:07 | # CL, “We” are the long-sighted, we are principled, we are the faithful, we are the radical. Nationalism will always come back to us. It does not matter what it does or does not do now. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow it will serve the eternal nation. That is what it is here to do, not to accommodate itself to a hostile Establishment or to the sentimentalities of Slavophiles. The place for Poles is in Poland. We will re-learn to pick our own lettuces. We did it for quite a while, after all. 115
Posted by Ivan on Mon, 02 May 2011 01:47 | # GW, One would think that Polish immigration to England should be next to the last thing fine gentlemen like yourself to worry about. Unless those Poles are of a certain tribe, of course. Are you a British nationalist or a white nationalist? 116
Posted by CL on Mon, 02 May 2011 03:58 | #
When did it come back to you in the past? It’s been more than a 1,000 years since the Norman invasion of England and it still hasn’t been reversed. The Jews who entered in Cromwall’s day haven’t been expelled yet even though you’ve had about 500 years.
Could you share your theory on why Nationalism must inevitably reverse course and take your position on the issue of whether Polish descended people should be stripped of citizenship and be deported?
MacBeth was Scottish you know. Couldn’t you have alluded to Gaunt’s speech instead? At least that’s a character based on a historical figure who was actually English.
Ivan, I suspect it’s even beyond GW being a British nationalist. It seem he doesn’t just want to send the Poles packing to Poland, but also the Scots packing the Scotland, the Welsh packing to Wales, and the Irish packing to Ireland. I gave him a chance to deny it and he failed to answer the question. I wonder how Keira Knightley will feel if her mother’s deported for being half-Welsh and half-Scottish. Where should Sharman be deported to? Wales or Scotland? Will there be a one-drop rule for the Welsh? Will there be a one-drop rule for the Scots? One good thing I can say about GW’s way of thinking, though I’m dubious about many aspects of it, is that it raises all kinds of interesting questions. 117
Posted by CL on Mon, 02 May 2011 04:31 | # Not that these questions necessarily need to be answered now. But if Guessedworker gets his way they’ll have to be answered at some point. For this reason they’re worth thinking about (assuming Guessedworker has some basis for his firm belief that his ideas will inevitably triumph). 118
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 May 2011 07:48 | # When will you racial rocket scientists get it? It’s not about nationalism, it’s about ethnic genetic interests. Even the father of EGI, Frank Salter, recognized that some intra-European migration is maladaptive. If a Slav like CL really cared about the ethnic genetic interest of the British and not just his own self-interest then he will return to Poland, but, like Silveric, he won’t return home because he cares only about his own proximate interests. Duh, about Keira Knightley recognizing that the genetic distance between the Scotch and the English, is many times less than between the English and the Poles? How about CL recognizing that Robert the Bruce [Scotto-Norman] and Edward Longshanks (Anglo-Norman) were actually of the same tribe and that their rivalry was internecine and not international. He won’t do that because all he cares about is his own self-interest. 119
Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 May 2011 07:52 | # Why not “part Scots-Irish” or “part French-Canadian” asshole? 120
Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 May 2011 08:02 | # Why is it solely “about” egi? Because it is right? Well, then it is about morality and you’re begging the question. Although I hate to do so, this is a perfect time to suggest, primarily to Desmond, that he pick up a copy of Thomas Fleming’s Morality of Everyday Life. Even Silver understand this shit. 121
Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 May 2011 08:12 | # I’d like to believe my family and me were welcome in GW’s England. Perhaps I’m mistaken or being too forward… 122
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 May 2011 09:23 | # Daniel, If several hundred thousand Sicilian-Americans immigrated to England in the space of two or three years I would object. Is this wrong? Morality, by the way, I assign to the tertiary layer of non-gene interests (ie, material, sociobiological and cultural artifacts). I don’t know what Desmond makes of that scheme. But I’m pretty sure neither of us would place the origin of morality outside of the human ecology. 123
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 May 2011 10:36 | # Poles have no place in my land. They are not welcome. We will not make common cause with them. They are no different to any other coloniser, and we must rid ourselves of them no less than the rest. Hold on a minute! I thought you were a racialist first, an English nationalist second. After all, race comes before ethnicity. The former is genetic, the latter far more culturally determined. So what is wrong with Polish or other white immigrants? Of course, I can understand not wanting too many at once, for cultural preservationist reasons. But such harsh sentiment! I have known several wonderful, very blonde Polish-Americans, including an ex-girlfriend. They are as racially white as any of us. What’s next: little Englander dislike of Krauts? Are we not white enough? (Hint: I favor white unity, but if it comes to it, the undiluted Nordic German is clearly the world’s superior human type, considered racially, culturally and historically.) Anyway, there must never again be intra-white ethnic feuding. That has absolutely no place in the racial nationalism of the future. What do people suppose produced our current decrepitude - Jewish ideo-cultural indoctrination, Third World invasions, or two genocidal European wars, plus an aristocidal Bolshevik campaign in the East? I opt for the latter explanation. Europe allowed itself to be weakened because its peoples were exhausted, morally as well as physically, following WW2. Never again. 124
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 May 2011 11:03 | # Leon, One loves most what is closest. I love my people before other or all Europeans, and healthy-minded, racially- and ethnically-grounded Europeans reciprocate exactly. In North America it is different, with the boldest line being drawn at European descent. But other lines are drawn, and Desmond will soon tell you where if you don’t know (I’m sure you do). The English don’t dislike Germans as a people, and we positively admire the Poles. That does not mean we wish to share our ancestral land with either of them. We do not. On “feuding”, all peoples possess the moral right of resort to self-defence. Your appeal should be not for an end to conflict but an end to territorial aggression. For us (really for the Scots, not the English), such an end is being made concrete in Ireland - a process which all right-thinking men support. The post-war continental European consolidation did not commence as a globalist programme, in my view, but as an attempt to end dispute over territory forever by wiping away the borders. In the likely event that the attempt fails, you should address your appeal to Germans and Austrians, Poles, Russians, and so forth. For, until the fine day when the distribution of populations matches national borders, and no leader lusts for expansion, the risk of forgetting and repeating history will always be present. 125
Posted by CL on Mon, 02 May 2011 12:23 | #
So you want the people of Polish or German descent deported from England, I got that. If you want to deport your follow Germanics the Germans, then my very strong impression is you also want to deport the Irish, Scots, and Welsh descended people from England, but refrain from saying so for political reasons. Feel free to correct this impression if you actually think it is inaccurate. 126
Posted by CL on Mon, 02 May 2011 12:44 | #
Because I’m pretty sure Italians are less similar to the English than Poles are. Therefore in saying that people of Polish descent should be deported from England, GW is implying that people of Italian descent should be deported from England as well. For this reason it struck me as rich that GW lets a part Italian person post on his website when he wouldn’t let you stay in his country even if you were a citizen. You being part Scots-Irish is less relevant to this point as it’s probable that this group is more related to the English than Poles are. I had no idea of you being part French-Canadian, and therefore couldn’t have mentioned it even if I would’ve thought it relevant. 127
Posted by CL on Mon, 02 May 2011 13:01 | #
Indeed Leon. I was absolutely shocked by GW’s statement that people of Polish descent are “no different than any other colonizer,” and that “we must rid ourselves of them no less than the rest”. The “other colonizers” includes millions of non-Whites! It would be one thing if he favored Poles being deported, but acknowledged that for the most basic racial and genetic reasons this is less important than deporting the millions of non-Whites, but for GW to imply interchangability between Poles and non-Whites the way he unquestionably did is both insulting and insane, IMHO. 128
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 02 May 2011 14:21 | # Ideally English genes should remain uniquely English in England. Swedish genes should remain uniquely Swedish in Sweden. Same for the Germans in Germany and so on and so forth. This is the racial biodiversity I’d like to see preserved in Europe. Given that, if one wants to view this issue from a racial purist’s perspective, then they’d see everything right about GW wanting to rid England of a foreign gene-pool ... even if, as is in the case of the Polish, their PHENOTYPE is very similar to that of the native English. Bottom line, it ‘s the English GENOTYPE that must be preserved if true English culture is to live on and flourish as nature intended. Anything less, IMO, would amount to a form of genocide - both biologically and culturally. 129
Posted by Cray on Mon, 02 May 2011 22:42 | #
Check out this man, you American twat “any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed” 130
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 02 May 2011 23:36 | #
Interesting link. 131
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 May 2011 04:23 | #
Do you still contend that Germans during WWII debased themselves in a way they can never fully overcome? That would seem an impossible line to hold in that the Allies did far worse to Germans when Germans were defenseless than Germans did to other European peoples. 132
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 03 May 2011 05:29 | #
What about non-European peoples, CC? Do you consider them peoples? Are you able to conduct thought experiments? Do you have imagination at all? If you have, I would like you to think what would you do if somebody, in perfidious violation of peace treaty, invades your country and starves to death most of the population of your second largest city (Leningrad), levels to the ground another major city (Stalingrad), kills your people by millions - men, women, children. What would you do when you get you chance for justice and revenge at somebody whom you did not provoke to commit such atrocities against you and your people? Would you restrain yourself, or would you kick the bastard’s fucking ass to teach him a lesson he will not forget easily, so he would learn for good what are the consequences of self-ascribed and wrong-perceived superiority? I have no problem with anybody thinking of himself whatever he wants, until he comes to me to take my land from me because he thinks he is a better being. If he does, he better be ready to pay the price without lachrymose complains afterwards. 133
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 May 2011 06:31 | #
Or is it a response to the presence of a parasite? Who was it that really wished not only to destroy Russia but also kill the German? Has Mother Russian kicked that bastard’s fucking ass?
134
Posted by Silver on Tue, 03 May 2011 06:40 | # Desmond, When will you racial rocket scientists get it? It’s not about nationalism, it’s about ethnic genetic interests. Even the father of EGI, Frank Salter, recognized that some intra-European migration is maladaptive. If a Slav like CL really cared about the ethnic genetic interest of the British and not just his own self-interest then he will return to Poland, but, like Silveric, he won’t return home because he cares only about his own proximate interests. In line with, oh, 99% of people on this earth. Proximate interests constitute the vast majority of what humans care for so there’s certainly no shame in placing a high priority upon them. You can keep waving around your dendograms until your arms fall off but at the end of the day most people who join you will do so not because of EGI per se but because of the impact genes have on proximate interests (which your racial anxiety causes you wildly overstate, to your detriment). In any case, who the hell are you to tell people what they “should” do if they in fact care about genetic interests? My leaving (at this point in time) would do absolutely zero, zilch, nada, bupkis to advance the cause of genetic interests so why keep harping on about it as though it were some ultimate proof of fidelity? My answer is because you’re in the grips of the most profound racial anxiety, revulsion and indignation known to man. So you keep uttering inanities and don’t care that they’re inanities because the point is to simply spew your venom at your adversaries; inanity or venom, it’s all the same to you. Either that or you’re simply a dumbfuck of the ages.
If several hundred thousand Sicilian-Americans immigrated to England in the space of two or three years I would object. Is this wrong? I see. Race-replacement is the height of immorality—but only if it’s done too quickly.
It would be one thing if he favored Poles being deported, but acknowledged that for the most basic racial and genetic reasons this is less important than deporting the millions of non-Whites, but for GW to imply interchangability between Poles and non-Whites the way he unquestionably did is both insulting and insane, IMHO. Well, CL, you little bitch, that’s the nature of the beast. If you’re posting here I doubt you have any qualms whatsoever about taking that attitude towards those you consider outsiders. Oh, but when the same is done to you why it’s just “shocking” and “insulting” and, and, well, how dare anyone! Grow a pair. Leon Haller, If you’re around here somewhere, to respond to something you brought up in another thread, I’m all in favor of “telling the truth about race.” But that means telling the whole truth. Not just the bits you think help your cause. It’s pretty obvious that you people don’t really know what you’re talking about so I don’t think there’s as much to fear from upfront race-talk as antis commonly assume. 135
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 May 2011 06:50 | # I want you to conduct a thought experiment, Ivan, and make sure to use your imagination, if you have one. Consider: Ivan attempts to rob a liquor store, but unwittingly trips a silent alarm which notifies the police. Before Ivan can complete the robbery, the police arrive and apprehend him. Now, Ivan did not kill any employees in the course of his attempted robbery. Yet, based upon what the prosecutor believes Ivan intended to do - kill the liquor store employees to silence the witnesses - Ivan is convicted of murder and executed. Would Ivan have been unjustly executed, Ivan? You know, for something that he didn’t actually do? 136
Posted by danielj on Tue, 03 May 2011 06:50 | # I said me GW. I didn’t say a few hundred thousand in a few years.
137
Posted by Silver on Tue, 03 May 2011 07:06 | # Consider: Ivan attempts to rob a liquor store, but unwittingly trips a silent alarm which notifies the police. Before Ivan can complete the robbery, the police arrive and apprehend him. Now, Ivan did not kill any employees in the course of his attempted robbery. Yet, based upon what the prosecutor believes Ivan intended to do - kill the liquor store employees to silence the witnesses - Ivan is convicted of murder and executed. Would Ivan have been unjustly executed, Ivan? You know, for something that he didn’t actually do? Of course Ivan would have been unjustly executed. That you seem to think otherwise means you’re even more insane than even I thought possible. (“Based upon what the prosecutor believes”?!? God help us all.) 138
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 May 2011 07:06 | #
Silver is doubtless a wog, er, man of his word. Which is why from now on he will preface each comment he makes by admitting he is a greasy wog. LOL! 139
Posted by CL on Tue, 03 May 2011 07:18 | #
Silver, Could you promise to do this little bit against any Irish, Welsh, or Scottish descended man in England who is retarded enough to support the idea of deporting Poles, but then complains when Guessedworker or someone like him calls for him to be deported for being of non-English blood? No use being a hypocrite when it comes to your accusations of hypocrisy. Finally, just to be clear, I don’t support any policy for Poland which I wouldn’t be happy to support for England, assuming the English person proposing the policy was acting in good faith. I would also never say that non-Slavic Europeans in Poland are as alien to the country as non-Whites, the very idea of making such a shocking and stupid statement never would’ve entered my mind were it not for the spurious charge of hypocrisy you just made against me. Besides the fact that I think this would be profoundly insulting to the Germanic and other non-Slavic European descended people in Poland, there’s the even more serious issue that such a statement would destroy my credibility with anyone who heard it. 140
Posted by CL on Tue, 03 May 2011 07:21 | #
You do know that’s the conclusion Captainchaos wanted you to be drawn, right? 141
Posted by CL on Tue, 03 May 2011 07:33 | # Not that I agree with Captainchaos’ analogy. Even at the time the German invasion was stopped the Russians had sustained serious damages and loss of life. I think the Russians were trying to avenge those losses with how they treated the Germans, as opposed to it just being revenge for things the Germans were supposed to be planning to do. But this doesn’t change that CC seems smarter than Silver given that Silver couldn’t even understand CC’s analogy, much less give any reasons for rejecting it. 142
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 03 May 2011 07:46 | # Silver, Respond please. Or remain permanently silent. Haller, you can call me whatever you want as much as you want. The bottom line is I don’t trust as you as far I could throw you, and I’ll do my utmost to ensure nobody else does either. Fortunately for me, the number of people of backgrounds like mine who would be so foolish as to trust anything emanating from your poisonous mouth could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. (Silver) Silver, Exactly what views do you impute to me? That is, what do you not trust me to do or not do? Exactly what is your background - nationality, ethnicity, etc? Exactly what are your own views, considered practically? Finally, answer my damn question: do you support, oppose or not care whether Europeans remove all nonwhite residents from Europe? That is the nationalist ‘ultimate minimum’ (the ‘immediate minimum’ being nonwhite immigration cessation). A lot of people around here spill a lot of words, while not precisely addressing each other’s assertions. All very confusing. Anyway, Silver, I don’t think you are or ever will be in any position to do anything at all to stop me and my plans. Slowly, too slowly, whites are waking up to their unjust, expensive and increasingly dangerous dispossession. My goals are simple: tell whites the truth about race, civilization, and their crumbling way of life; aid in the formation and expansion of American and later white nationalist organizations, while simultaneously integrating traditionalist conservatism, Catholic natural law theory, and scientific race realism at the theoretical level; and finally, make what contribution I can to the formation of the white homeland, either as a new ethnostate within the relatively soon to be defunct US (“soon” within 2-4 decades), or as an expatriate community seeking to conquer demographically and electorally a small (in population), foreign, sovereign polity. How are you going to stop me? And, why try? 143
Posted by Mary Post on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 01:42 | #
John F. Blair, Publisher
144
Posted by middle eastern totem & taboo by-George on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:56 | # THE TROUBLE WITH GEORGE - Colin Liddell Published on Alternative Right, April 23rd, 2015
Full essay at Alternative Right:
Post a comment:
Next entry: Their religion is money
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:26 | #
The British Freedom Party is about to bloom.
Our problems were primarily caused by the incompetence of the Electoral Commission, due to the lack of legal powers granted to them by the government, we were unable to remove two expelled members from the EC as nominated officers until after the local elections deadline passed.
The two expelled officers deliberately stayed in their positions with the EC so as to ensure we could not stand candidates in the local elections.
In the meantime we have been cultivating links with other cultural nationalist parties across Europe and we have received a steady flow of new members even though we have not even delivered a single leaflet to the public yet, due to problems accessing our bank accounts, caused by another expelled ex-member.
That is about to be sorted out and also police investigations begun into the money gone missing from our bank accounts.
The ideology of Cultural Nationalism we are promoting has been greeted enthusiastically in Europe, especially in Russia, and we are forging links with other Freedom Parties across Europe.
We are also looking at forming a Pan-European Freedom Party and Freedom Network of European political parties also promoting Cultural Nationalism to gain funding from the EU.
The only way to destroy the system is from within, subversion is the solution not confrontation.
The British Freedom Party now dominates the ideological discourse in contemporary British Nationalism.
The only people slagging the BFP off are ;
1) The Far Left - such as on Lancaster Unity - as they fear our populist ideology gaining ground as in the example of the True Finns, hence they attack and mock us. If they were not attacking us, then I would be worried. But the more they attack us, the more they reveal their own fear of us.
2) The Eddy Butler Brigade - as they want the BNP split and the reformists driven into the civic nationalist English Dhimmicrats, sorry Democrats, party. All they have done is split the largest Racial Nationalist political party in Britain, the BNP, down the middle and are now doing the same thing with the English Democrats Party. It appears that the aim of the Eddy Butler Brigade is not reform of the BNP, but to destroy both British and English Nationalism at the same time.
3) The Nazi Fetishists who think any party that doesnt adopt the fetishism of swastika flag, jackboots and tight lederhosen is a political party ‘run by ze jews’. Being attacked by these people is par for the course.
Now get your head around this fact.
The BFP has yet to deliver a single leaflet to the public.
We have only been around for around five months and we already dominate the ideological discourse in British Nationalism, we have been mentioned in the mainstream media and we have begun to form contacts all across Europe.
The BNP is finished as a political party.
The NF also.
Both will remain as small political sects for Griffinites and White Nationalists to join, but they are never going to become mainstream parties.
UKIP are a one issue party posturing as a political party.
Every election someone says ‘they are going to take off’ and guess what - every election they dont.
This is because the British public want a Cultural Nationalist party, not an anti-EU party whose victory would be to remove us from Europe and make us slaves to the US.
The BFP will work within the European Union to assist European nations to ‘re-nationalise’ their nation states and also to ensure we have a new EU model based on a Europe of Nations, not a Nation of Europe.
We are anti-European Federalism, not anti-European.
The Freedom Party like all new political parties has experienced birth pains.
But we are growing and our influence spreading day by day.