|
|
|
Brown’s puzzle for the BNP In the English local authority elections of May 2006 the BNP scored a phenomenal success in Barking & Dagenham, a much-enriched district on the eastern edge of London. The local Labour MP, Margaret Hodge, picked up a good deal of the blame for the BNP’s performance. Instead of refuting its line on preferential housing allocation for migrants, she had managed to make it almost respectable for English residents to vote for the local BNP candidates. There were calls - unheeded, naturally - for her to resign from her government post in the Department of Trade and Industry. Now, hard on the heels of Gordon Brown’s little eco-stratagem - the planned building of thousands of new council houses - Ms Hodge has outraged Labour supporters in the same way again. Writing in the Observer she declares:-
Here, I believe, are the lines of battle between Labour and the BNP in London, at least, for the Brown years. 1) Determined not to be “racist” or rude about non-Islamic foreigners, the BNP has pegged its case to housing. So on the doorsteps Labour can now talk about new housing and even new towns. It might actually build something, too. The initiative passes thereby from the BNP to Labour, and a prime electoral weapon of the former is lost. 2) But the housing stratagem is only a corrective. It isn’t a long-term solution to the offence to the indigenes of foreign population transfers. Labour remains vulnerable. It has pegged its case to “the evolving nature of our Britishness”, meaning that it will press on with the transfers, hoping to ease their progress with the now familiar Brownite reification of civic values. These are readily attackable on grounds of jus sanguis. But the BNP is well advanced in its anti-Islamic strategy in the north of the country, and a non-racial/racial split in campaigning strategy will not be sustainable. In the south, then, it will be forced to find a non-racial proxy like housing. I really don’t think there is one. Of course, it could throw over the anti-Islamic approach in the north and predicate everything on an honest basis. But it never will. Either way, the cost could be high, and the most likely choice will be the usual ineffectual fudge. Comments:2
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 21 May 2007 14:03 | # I hate repeating myself, but wasn’t it only a few years ago, before this current ‘liberal’ immigration delugr that the then Home Secretary David Blunkett (probably the most witless, useless man to have held high cabinet office in several generations) pompously proclaimed “There is no upward limit to to the number of immigrants Britain can take”. 3
Posted by gongstar on Mon, 21 May 2007 20:14 | #
Fred—a lot of Brits are prejudiced against Americans on the ground that they’re crude, aggressive loudmouths. That’s often very unfair—as Jim Bowery regularly demonstrates—but your comments on this British topic are, I’m afraid, crude, aggressive and loudmouthed. British topics, as you’ll certainly realize, are likely to interest Brits. Your comments, as you don’t seem to realize, are likely to put them off. Laying down the law about “traditional Britishness” while trampling on it isn’t the way to win friends and influence people over here. You don’t need to be British to know that. But British ancestry may help:
5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 May 2007 22:01 | # To all Englishmen: don’t read the comment I posted first in the thread: you’ll find it crude, aggressive, and loudmouthed. To all Scots, Welshmen, Ulstermen (three races I am certain “can take it”), and everyone else: read it. To Gongstar: you’re invited not to read my comments, as most will upset you. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 May 2007 22:21 | # Gongstar has noticed (apart from my typical American crudeness, aggressiveness, and loudmouthedness) my indignation on behalf of Brits over their forced race-replacement. Yes, my righteous indignation over the forced race-replacement of kindred races extends to the situation in the Mother Country. I’m as indignant about that as any right-thinking Brit is. If that bothers Gongstar — if he finds it intrusive, unwarranted, crude, counterproductive, unwelcome, or whatever, I have more crudeness to offer in reply, this time directed at him, if he wants to read it (just let me know). Furthermore, the subject of what arouses my indignation is strictly none of Gongstar’s business. Let him mind his own. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 May 2007 22:51 | # But Daedalus states the case well. Good quality English advocacy can readily be characterised as the search for a lethal politeness. Heck, the one time I really let fly the English commenters gave me a severe dressing down. Fred, of course, was delighted. But doesn’t that make the same point? 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 May 2007 23:25 | # GW, I took Daedalus’ comment to mean the opposite: that politeness can be lethal to the one being polite, which would tend to support me over Gongstar. Your interpretation however is probably the one he had in mind: that politeness can, if “wielded” as a weapon, be lethal to one’s opponent, which would tend to support Gongstar. But you know, there also comes a time, frankly, when politeness is irrelevant. Blair fucking up England and beyond-brazen Jews such as Mrs. Hodge telling Brits they have to go out of existence and their country has to be handed to an assortment of wogs are two examples of such. Gongstar’s testicles have, I can see, never descended but if he hooks up with a good endocrinologist I’m sure a regimen of regular testosterone injections, the right diet, and lots of fresh air and exercise can stiffen him a little in the right place, stiffening he plainly needs (no pun intended, I sincerely assure you ... I meant in the backbone ... the backbone ... And no, I have NOT heard anything “about him” from his wife ... That’s just a nasty rumor going round ... Never happened! ...). 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 May 2007 23:44 | # Then we need the relevant authority to decide, Fred. Is considered politeness lethal to self or it is actually Lethal Weapon 5? 10
Posted by gongstar on Mon, 21 May 2007 23:44 | #
As you point out politely. And succinctly. Fred could learn a thing or two there.
http://www.whitealert.com/ten_truths4.htm Fred—You misunderstand me. Your posts don’t “upset” me, they bore and irritate me. Or did bore me, still I stopped bothering to read the longer ones.
Sorry: Scots, Welshmen and Ulstermen generally find gusts of hot air boring and irritating too.
But Britain is my business. When you insist that Margaret Hodge “shut the fuck up”, it’s just so much hot air. She isn’t going to “shut the fuck up” and the impotence of your bluster will be reinforced every time she opens her mouth in future. But if you had simply pointed out that she’s a hypocrite, your good judgment would have been reinforced every time she opens her mouth in future. So one way you undermine yourself, and the other you turn her own power into a weapon against her. It’s not so hard to understand that, is it?
If it’s up to the standard of your last broadside, I wouldn’t bother. Given my mental image of you, I also worry that you might explode, slaying ten. But feel free to “upset” me more if you really want. 11
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 22 May 2007 00:20 | # Politeness is normally a virtue. My point was that politeness, or civility, can be taken to extremes. At a certain point, it becomes pathological. We can see this in the U.S. today when all the nice people wince at any frank discussion of sensitive topics like racial differences in intelligence or Jewish influence in the mass media. That said, I find VNN style bombast and vulgarity counterproductive and extremely off putting, and agree with GW’s point that civility can be disarming. 12
Posted by Matra on Tue, 22 May 2007 03:23 | # Fred, your Jewish “czar” at Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, went one better than JPod:
13
Posted by Amalek on Tue, 22 May 2007 14:12 | # Guessedworker: You were good enough to heed my objection to your uncharacteristic descent into bad language on a previous occasion. Since then you have maintained the civility you request of others, for which I thank you. I now suggest that Mr Scrooby’s comments to ‘gongstar’ have crossed a line which should, at least, confine him to what the uncouth colonials call the sin bin for a while. Like Harold Laski in Attlee’s words: a period of silence from him would be welcome. 14
Posted by Matra on Tue, 22 May 2007 17:17 | #
It is in England that the term “sin bin” is most commonly used, usually by rugby fans. If its origins are indeed colonial then it must come from Australia. In North America it is just called a “penalty box.” 15
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 22 May 2007 18:54 | # Fred is usually a civil poster. I think he is simply exasperated at those who insist on walking on eggshells around this issue given the seriousness of the matter. While I also find Fred’s response to gongstar a bit over the top, I can sympathize with the frustration of his initial post in this thread. 16
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 22 May 2007 20:37 | # The Sin Bin is widely used to refer to the penalty box in hockey [ice, is there any other kind?
17
Posted by Matra on Tue, 22 May 2007 21:26 | # Desmond, 99 times out of 100 ice hockey fans do not call it a sin bin. In rugby, both league and union, the British commentators always call it a sin bin. (They even think they invented it)
What ever happened to TOG? 18
Posted by gongstar on Tue, 22 May 2007 22:57 | #
1) Fred has done neither himself nor “The Cause” any favours by his reaction; 2) I don’t call for walking on eggshells about foreign criminals like Margaret Hodge. To quote again:
http://www.whitealert.com/ten_truths4.htm WhiteAlert does not walk on eggshells. 19
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 22 May 2007 23:19 | #
20
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 22 May 2007 23:48 | # gongstar, While Fred’s initial comment was over the top, I think your response to him was a tad rude and provocative, which is why he took offense and responded to you the way he did. It escalated from there. Don’t lose sight of who the real enemy is here. Both of you. 21
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 23 May 2007 02:33 | # Please, gentlemen, please! Some of the real enemy are to be found in the comments at the Observer article that GW linked to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2083873,00.html Lets go and take some potshots at them instead. Far more rewarding. Ive had a modest go myself. 22
Posted by Tommy G on Wed, 23 May 2007 14:07 | # “This Jewish woman desires a multiracial society for Britain. Does she desire a multiracial society for Israel? Unless she desires it for Israel, she needs to shut the fuck up about desiring it for Britain.”— Fred Scrooby While Fred’s ‘justifiable’ reaction to the Jewish woman is coarse, it often is the most effective way to confront our enemies. I have observed all my life (here in the States) the reaction to hostile load-mouthed Black militant activists with polite reasoned responses has got us NOWHERE! The tactic of ‘winning through intimidation’ as worked exceedingly well for our enemies. They continue to make advances in all areas that are proving detrimental to our existence. Appeasement has proven to be a losing proposition in dealing with Blacks in the States - no matter how much they get, it is never enough. England’s government is making the same mistake with the Islamists. Using appeasement as a stradegy to try to assimilate Islamists into the larger culture in England, is proving to be folly for the Brits…it only emboldens them. Just imagine what a turnabout of events would occur if the racial Islamics in Londonistan demands are meet with Gordon Brown telling them to SHUT THE FUCK UP or I’ll deport everyone of you bastards!!! I think this would immediately embolden the masses of native Englishmen to ‘grow a pair’ and put a stop to this multicultural insanity. This is the kind of bold leadership we so desperately need if we are to succeed in our White preservationist movement. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 23 May 2007 15:01 | # Tommy, Gordon Brown does not, of course, want to put a stop to the multicultural insanity. Other than Frank Field nobody - not one - among the 646 brave elected representatives to the UK parliament has spoken one syllable in defence of our people. I certainly believe that the climate of fear has to be challenged. But hard truths spoken quietly - but spoken often - travel furthest in this country. 24
Posted by Tommy G on Wed, 23 May 2007 15:32 | # “Gordon Brown does not, of course, want to put a stop to the multicultural insanity.” Yes, GW, of course you’re right. I was just fantasizing a bit. But it would be invigorating and inspirational to hear an elected Head of state from a major Western country stand up for the average White persons interests. 25
Posted by gongstar on Wed, 23 May 2007 19:09 | #
Things like that are tests and he failed. He’s obviously unbalanced if he reacts so extravagantly to provocation. All groups have their faults, even the English. It’s just that Americans have more (and worse) than other groups. Live with it.
It wasn’t simply the coarseness, it was the futility. “STFU, Hodge!” “STFU, Hodge!” “STFU, Hodge!” What effect will it have? Absolutely none, except to put off people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the message.
But there are plenty there speaking in defence of those who aren’t our people. 26
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 19:26 | #
That’s a strong charge, gongstar. I haven’t see you substantiate it. If anything is true, PC has been taken to a more ridiculous extreme in your country than it has in mine. 27
Posted by Steven Palese on Wed, 23 May 2007 21:54 | # Gongstar wrote,
Can anyone tell me who this gongstar character is? What is his beef with Fred? Why does he keeps attacking him again and again? I’d also like to know why he presumes to have standing to “test” and judge. Is he somebody important? 28
Posted by gongstar on Wed, 23 May 2007 22:28 | # Daedalus—Sorry, I was joking. The English probably have more and worse faults than the Americans.
“Keep attacking again and again”? Are you a Spinal Tap fan? I’ve criticized Fred on good grounds in two threads. In both he’s reacted like a petulant child and proved my points. He is, as I’ve said, unbalanced.
Are you? Either way, why not leave Fred to fight his own battles? Unless you, like me, think he’s not up to it. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 23 May 2007 23:41 | # Steven Palese and Daedalus, thanks very much for your support, both of you. I’m following Amalek’s suggestion (this thread, above) that I disappear from MR.com’s comments threads a while: it’s not always easy to see yourself as others see you and it’s certainly possible lots of readers, particularly Brits, agree with Gongstar. Over the years I’ve received about equal amounts of favorable and unfavorable reaction to my comments; beyond that I don’t know how to judge them. To me they seem like anyone else’s but if my style is said to alienate potential readership, shutting up’s easy enough: the web-site and The Cause come before anything else, obviously. I wasn’t planning on chiming back in this thread but when I saw two comrades defending me, not one to stand by and watch that from the sidelines I had to be at their side — and, once again, thank you! That said, I don’t think anyone wants more time spent on this particular subject which I hope will close after I respond to Gongstar’s last gibe about me defending myself: I don’t see a need to stoop to “defend myself” against a piddling non-entity the likes of you, Gongstar. You’re not up to my standard. Now bog off, there’s a good lad. 30
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 24 May 2007 01:11 | # Fred, the way I read you original comment you were just letting off a bit of steam. Its not the end of the world. Perhaps some people have taken that too much to heart. As I mentioned earlier, if people want to get into an argument, go and take it to the unbelievers out there. I know I should do that more myself. 31
Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 24 May 2007 03:22 | # Fred, in the strategic analysis I posted earlier, I mentioned five grievances that can be worked with. You’re a grievance 1 man, whereas MR is a grievance 4 blog. Personally I think grievances 1, 2 and 3 provide easier and superior articulation of pro-white positions and interests. I’m impressed by the job you’ve done representing grievance 1 (race replacement) and demonstrating its articulation, which, yes, is certainly very powerful, somewhat abrasive and apparently forceful enough to rattle teacups. In contrast, loss of child equivalents (grievance 4) is a bitch to articulate and, quite frankly, lacks the emotive punch of 1, 2 and 3. People can barely understand it and when they do.. they don’t get mad enough! I guess it’s just too bad that extensive use of the easier, more user-friendly grievances comes with health risks. Surgeon General’s Warning: The increased moral clarity and fierce us-versus-them perspective that comes with simple grievances may complicate posting and lead to more strident, emotive and forceful expression. Please consult your ideological advisor. 33
Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 24 May 2007 12:49 | # “Fred, please continue posting as usual.”—Al Ross I second what Al says. Both Fred and gongstar contribute greatly to MR. I would hate to see anyone of substance stop posting due to a petty argument. 34
Posted by gongstar on Thu, 24 May 2007 17:53 | #
Really, Fred? Then I’d hate to see how much hot air you’d let off if you did see “a need”. Global warming would go through the roof.
You know, with your modesty and verbal restraint you could pass for jewish any day. Online at least. Not sure if you have the looks and physique to do so IRL. Then again, perhaps you’re a repressed homosexual. Vain, petulant, verbose, ever ready to squeal that others are effeminate—did I miss anything? But crypto-jewish or gay (or both), you’d be a liability to any cause you attached yourself to and are certainly a liability to this one. 35
Posted by calyen on Tue, 29 May 2007 04:26 | # Guessedworker: “Gordon Brown does not, of course, want to put a stop to the multicultural insanity. Other than Frank Field nobody - not one - among the 646 brave elected representatives to the UK parliament has spoken one syllable in defence of our people.” What has Gordon Brown said/done on the issue? And what has Frank Field said in defence of British people? “I certainly believe that the climate of fear has to be challenged. But hard truths spoken quietly - but spoken often - travel furthest in this country.” Absolutely right. Post a comment:
Next entry: Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe
|
|
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) |
] and more specifically in the NHL. And those Canucks are definitely uncouth colonials. 
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 21 May 2007 13:50 | #
I always seem to remeber Margaret Hodge, in the days when she lead Islington Borough Council, to be on the hard-Left, verging on the ‘Loony’ tendency, you know the sort of tosser who came out of the wood-work in the rearguard of Ken Livingstone’s Multi-Racial Circus of the GLC circa 1982.
Just what anathema Hodge 2007 vintage is spouting to the Hodge of 1982 when the prevailing opinion was that the ‘peasants’ needed to be re-educated out of there tiny, narrow-minded ‘Alf Garnett’ bigotry.