|
|
|
Cameron and the tactics of the Establishment media The last few days have been a fallow period at MR for me as for others. But that doesn’t mean that I haven’t been working away diligently elsewhere. Aside from actively seeking material to post, I’ve planted the usual incendiary devices on various MSM threads. Some made it on to the page, some were lifted quickly, some did not make it at all. John Standing wrote a couple of letters to Waitrose (who, as a result of a campaign by supposed cusomers, pulled their advertising from Fox over the Beck/Obama affair). Another Guardian ban has come my way. It’s been, as Vinny Jones once said, emotional. The main activity has been thread fighting at the Guardian’s CiF facility, which seems to be especially Judaised at the moment. During his leadership election David Cameron made a promise to the “right-wing” Cornerstone group of MPs that he would pull the party out of the federalist EPP grouping in the European Parliament. Give him his due - he was true to his word, and entered an alliance with some pretty sturdy and loyal Poles, Czechs and Latvians in the European Conservatives and Reformists. In the process Edward McMillan-Scott, who seems to have scarcely been a Tory at all, has wound up getting himself expelled from the party. McMillan-Scott has been writing articles regularly about his hate-object in the ECR, Michal Kaminski of Poland’s Law and Order party. By British political standards Kaminsky has a fine record. In 2001 he distinguished himself by campaigning against the then left-wing Polish government’s apology for the fictional 1941 murder by Poles of a fictional number of Jews at Jedwabne. McMillan Scott has been promiscuous in his use of the Jedwabne narrative in each missive, and I’ve tried to provide the counter-arguments in the threads. But he isn’t the only journalistic shyster trying to nail Cameron by nailing Kaminsky. There are at least four others at it and, on top of that, there is a second anti-Cameron front centred on the Latvians in the ECR (who, of course, are “SS apologists”, but we’ll come to that). Today one Jonathan Friedman entered the attack on Kaminsky. The following (now removed) comment of mine provides some background to the attack:
The attack on the Latvians and, in particular, their leader Roberts Zile, has been a Big Jew affair. It began with the very Big Jew and nazi-hunter in chief at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Efraim Zuroff. He was followed by useful goy Peter Beaumont, who has given it two shots. Today, Prof David Cesarani, Holocaustian to the British government, has sounded off. Unable to muster the patience to recrudesce Zile’s arguments I invited - and received - a ban thus:
Next time I will try to be more patient, because there will be a next time. Evidently, this extraordinary campaign is going to run and run. Together with the anti-Boris and anti-BNP campaigns it tells us something about the liberal Establishment’s real strength. They rely on the media monopoly, of course, and in that they are supreme. But there is no ideational rebuttal here. It is all a smear and nothing else. It is made to work through outright deceit and Goebbelesian repetition. Those are the only arrows in the quiver. Those and censorship, of course. In the final analysis, they are as Inevitablist as we are. They believe that the English (and European) masses are fundamentally stupid and can be controlled by shame-inducing propaganda ... at least long enough to effect race-replacement and an end to national feeling. We believe enough of us will wake up to deliver revolutionary change. We know the best they can do now. We don’t yet know what we can do. Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:24 | #
Perhaps Cameron grows more ashamed by the day at being a worm and has decided to act just a little in the image of the Fuhrer:
3
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:18 | # There’s a major cultural battle brewing over this in my view. The holocult is built on the uniqueness of jewish suffering - replacing Jesus on the cross with jews in the camps. They desperately want to keep the far worse Bolshevik holocaust out of the picture. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the entry into the EU of some of the victim-countries of the Bolshevik holocaust those old hidden wounds are in danger of being re-examined and brought into the light. What price jewish moral superiority if people come to believe they deliberately tried to cover up one mass murder for their tribal advantage - even more so when those mass murders were carried out by jews? Hence the almost hysterical attacks on the Polish and Latvian parties who still carry a torch for those of their people murdered by the bolsheviks. It’s a high-risk game because if the jews expend a lot of energy fighting the right of these people to honour their own dead and they lose then the backlash will be stronger. I think this is an important talking point for work/online if and when it comes up in conversation. The articles in the newspapers tend to mostly push the jewish version. What i’ve been doing is point out the earlier soviet invasion, the mass murder of Poles, Baltics, Finns etc by the bolsheviks and the complicity of native communists in those mass murders, how when the Germans first arrived they were viewed as liberators and had no problem recruiting the relatives of bolshevik victims, and lastly how those recruits taking revenge on native communists who collaborated with the bolsheviks is now being turned into something different for political advantage. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:41 | # Dan: Where is the upside? That depends on whether he is sincere in his threat to repatriate what might prove to be quite a wide range of powers. Certainly, he is sitting in the right seat if that is the case. If not, of course, it’s a shambles. Robert, JG invented repetition, n’est ce pas? Wandrin, Very interesting. It is certainly possible that the Jewish elements in the attack on Cameron are, in truth, venting at the prospect of these East European loyalists passing on some immunity to the deracinated West. Said immunity could cut away at the blanket dismissal currently accorded the Jewish role in Bolshevism and its crimes, and indeed to all Jewish actions in pursuit of the Final Solution to the European Problem. Above it all, of course, hangs the wholly fatal possibility that historical revisionists might get a better hearing. One crack in the opening of that door and it will never be shut again. 5
Posted by Angry Latvian on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:55 | # The attacks on Fatherland and Freedom are ludicrous, and transparently false to anyone with a shred of historical knowledge. David Cesarani in the Guardian 7 October 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/07/conservatives-latvia-war-crimes is a litany of half truths and libels and innuendo and slurs. The rightwing, nationalist Latvians, seen by the Tories as partners at Strasbourg, stand accused of supporting the parade of war veterans that takes place each year on 16 March in Riga, the Latvian capital - Fact : the 16th march parades have not been held in Riga for quite some years now, banned at the behest of european politics. Hundreds of Latvians signed on as auxiliaries with the SS killing squads - quick bait and switch of SS for the more correct SD, thereby naturally leading to a smear of the latvian legion (waffen-SS) Paradoxically, Latvia had treated its Jewish population quite well during the 1920s and 1930s. Why would that be the paradox, and not the events to follow? Jews in rural towns were slaughtered in a wave of spontaneous… There is, no evidence for this whatsoever, indeed various documents show that in 1941 the SD was frustrated by the lack of spontaneous pogroms. All massacres were pretty much entirely organized by a single organization - the SD. A Latvian volunteer militia led by Viktors Arajs, operating under the Nazi security police, played a leading part in the massacres, hunting down Jews and communists. Latvian volunteers eventually manned several police regiments. These local militias participated in the seizure of Jewish property and guarded the Jewish population that was now confined to a ghetto. They also supplied “shooters” for the mass-murder operations. Bait and switch again. The Arajs team is well known and their guilt is documented, but the police regiments formed thereafter had nothing to do with Arajs, and certainly were not involved in mass murder operations! Yet the paragraph structure clearly but incorrectly implies this. In September 1941, the Germans formed three Latvian police battalions into an SS infantry brigade. Nope, the police battalions were formed in September, but the SS infantry brigade only two years later in 1943 based on those battalions. Another bait and switch, this negates another important fact - there were no Latvian waffen-SS units until after the massacres of Jews in Latvia were completed. By 1944, many of the men serving in these formations were conscripts; but the core were veterans of volunteer units that had a bloody history of murdering Jews and Communists, ... Many? The vast majority were conscripts! And the volunteer units, as David himself mentions elsewhere were mostly thrown into the front lines immediately after formation in the winter of 1941 where they fought well. ...and carrying out vicious “anti-partisan” operations. Today we call them counter-insurgency or counter-terrorist operations. Incidentally, the partisans are uniformly (and accurately) referred to as “terrorists” in period German documents, the “anti-partisan” tag reveals a left (ie Soviet) source. Elements of the 15th Latvian Waffen SS Division were among the last defenders of Hitler’s bunker. Trying to make them into nazi fanatics. There were no Latvians in the bunker. There was the remnants of a single battalion (250 men) dragooned into the defence of central Berlin, fighting to survive. In Latvia itself, thousands of collaborators were sentenced to years of hard labour in prison camps. The mines of Vorkuta for instance were hardly “prison camps” but death camps, and the Soviets also sent whole families, pregnant women, babes and children there (one presumes for collaboration, David?) Their views are amplified in the state War Museum and in the Museum of Occupation ... In these grim displays, the murder of the Jews gets, at best, a laconic treatment. Ah you see, great big memorials at Bi?ernieki, Rumbula and Skede solelyl dedicated to Jewish victims aren’t enough, they need to be front and centre everywhere else. I’m surprised hes not offended that we don’t advertise Jewish suffering front and centre in the Riga airport lobby or tourist brochures. However, there are Latvian nationalists who refuse to see the collaborators as anything less than freedom fighters, who treat the mass murder of the Jews as either a German crime… The facts : it was a German crime, but even that is unfair, it was almost entirely a crime by a single branch of the nazi regime - the allgemeine SS. The genocide they suffered is routinely equated with the plight of the Latvians under Russian rule. Really? Don’t mass executions, death camps, torture, deportation and repressive secret police count when applied to other folks? And while here, another bait and switch - Russian rule instead of “Soviet rule”. There is more than a hint that the Jews deserved what they got. Innudendo. He forgets to mention that the “hint” is the documented fact that the NKVD officers running deportations in 1941 were disproprotionately Jews. We should hide these facts in his view. It is a national story that militates against cosmopolitanism and works, instead, in favour of an exclusive identity. And therein lies the rub, no? He is offended by Latvians wanting the be Latvian. And at a guess offended that anybody would want to fight bolshevism. I imagine the chap is also offended by the Union Jack being displayed in Britain. And just for bonus points : The spelling of Viktors Arajs’s name was corrected, following a user comment, at ... Only the single, best known, infamous bona fide Latvian war criminal and they can’t spell his fucking name right. Great paper, great research, great editors. CHIMPS. Fuck you David Cesarani, not just generic human flotsam but evangelistic with it. Kudos the tories for not caving in, at least some of them have bothered to understand Latvian history, heres to hoping they stand up for British history too. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:11 | # To “Angry Latvian”: thank you for standing up for your people, your nation, your forefathers, and your posterity to come, against certain despicable Jews and their lies, their slanders, their calumny, their evil. 7
Posted by Angry Latvian on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:14 | # Postscript Sorry, forgot to finish. Cesarini, “professor of history”, quite aside from the explicit leftist slant, demonstrably and repeatedly gets facts wrong in that mentioned article in addition to the repeated semantic slight-of-hand smears. He should be held to account for it and held up to ridicule. Not that will ever happen, but in a sane world “professors of history” would be discredited for publishing such drivel.
8
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:01 | # Angry Latvian, You are most welcome. I second Fred’s remarks. I’m surprised hes not offended that we don’t advertise Jewish suffering front and centre in the Riga airport lobby or tourist brochures. It’s been done at German train stations. [Cesarani] should be held to account for it and held up to ridicule. Not that will ever happen, but in a sane world “professors of history” would be discredited for publishing such drivel. Not just Cesarani - all the people involved in advancing and supporting the attack on us. CiF is full of them. For example, it has become increasingly censorious over the last twelve months or so. I think this is in part due to the pressure that the more radical commenters have put on them. A couple of years ago my experience was that the more substantial Guardianistas could be drawn into an engagement. Now I tend to find they don’t have the stomach for it, and only the liberal riff-raff respond. Meanwhile, “incorrect” commentary is lifted by the moderators very much more quickly. OK, my comment above, which was posted on the Cesarani thread, named Professor Holocaust as a nationalist and a hypocrite - not very subtle. But it lasted two or three minutes, and “wellnigh” was banned there and then. Summary justice, if you are a Guardian mod and a Jew, I suppose. The long comment on the Friedman thread stood for about ten hours while the idiots wondered what to do about it. It had garnered 19 recommends last time I looked, which was the highest number on that page. But it had to go. It blew the whistle about the anti-BNP smear campaign run all over the British press by Blue State Digital, and we’re not supposed to know about that. We can’t bring the likes of Cesarani down in one thread - not if they won’t engage any more, and not if everything we say to them is removed. We just have to keep plugging away at giving readers a quantum of truth for once in their lives. We are laying a floor of fine tessara, not hurling paint at the people we don’t like. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:20 | # We hear so much about the cattle cars the Germans shipped the Jews to concentration camps in but we’ve never actually seen one. I linked a photo of one here, a photo of an actual cattle car used to ship innocent people to concentration camps: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/european_heritage/#c77723 Oops, silly me! Big mistake! That’s not a photo of a cattle car the Germans used to ship innocent Jews to concentration camps in, it’s a photo of an actual cattle car the Jews used to ship innocent Eurochristians to concentration camps in! Sorry for the mix-up!!!! I’ll try to hunt one up that the Germans used and post it! In the meantime, we hear so much about innocent Jewish children shipped to concentration camps by the Germans where large numbers perished in horrible conditions. Here’s a moving photo of a monument erected to the memory of innocent children shipped to concentration camps where huge numbers perished in horrible conditions: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/european_heritage/#c77724 Ooooops again! I must have Alzheimer’s or something! That’s a monument not to Jewish children shipped by Germans to concentration camps and to their deaths, it’s a monument to Eurochristian children shipped by Jews to concentration camps and their deaths, sorry! I must pay closer attention next time! Please excuse that run of mistaken posts! 10
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:29 | # The nationalist Right Wing in Poland and other new EU countries are totally Zionist Jewish orientated with Reagan “Captive nations”/ AEI linked Jews in there governments there main stick/gripe along with the Jewish Neocon’s in the US pushing EU US/NATO lead policy orientated against Russia constant harking about Katyn which was organised by Georgian Jew Beria head of the NKVD which was created by an ethnic Pole and the lead mass murderer was a Jew who emigrated to Israel (anyone know his name?). Anne Applebaum the Jewess and journalist and author who was at the forefront of pushing the US to war with Iraq amongst other things like describing Soviet era crime like in her book Gulag without ever mentioning that it was created and ran by her fellow Jewish tribe is supporting child rapist Polanski. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-york/anne-applebaum-child-rape_b_305814.html Maybe he will settle in Poland if released. There policy which Fred Scooby does not seem to get is to support oil transit routes to the EU bypassing Russia with the main transport hub being Turkey with the new EU states and America and probably Britain pushing for Turkeys entry into the EU. Although the policy is not created buy a Jew there organisations, media pundits, academics, NGO’s, etc are dominated by Jews including the usual suspects all the Neocons, Applebaum, Albright, etc. You just have to look at the map.
This policy was created in the Mid 70’s by Brezinski and implemented in 79 with Robert Gates with his position in the Carter administration and continues to this day with Rothschild frontman George Soros who work primarily through the Democratic Party but also under the Republicans under Bush Ian Brezinski head of NATO operations in Europe for example and Mark overseeing the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:02 | # A report of relevance to the topic of this post. There appeared in the Guardian of 6th October the following report, which contradicts theindictments against the Poles and, especially, the Latvians. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/toryconference
12
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:42 | # Angry Latvian, stay strong against smears and spread your message far and wide. 14
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:53 | # I think Jews are being overparanoid these countries Poland and the Baltic States are pro-Jewish and I would assume control most of the government and the media. I know there is hardcore Zionists in the Polish government. @Guessworker
They should point out the Milliband’s grandfather was a Bolshevik Red Army commissar that fought in the Polish/Soviet war before fleeing to Britain to escape Stalin’s purges who his father Ralph was a Marxist professor and close friend of Joe Slovo South African Marxist terrorist. And David is a Neo-Communist Neo-Con. But they probably kiss there asses. Meetings probably went something like this.
15
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:04 | #
According to AH it was the Jews.
Thus “Goebbelesian repetition” = Germanophobia. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:59 | # Here we go again: This time Jewish journalist Stephen Pollard is working a different tack - “Poland’s Kaminski is not an antisemite: he’s a friend to Jews.” 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:07 | # Desmond, Leaving aside the remarkable opportunism you display and your mirror-image political correctness, are you saying that JG never delivered himself of the observation that:
I think not. I think you are endeavouring to provide context for this quote:
That would be fine, but it hardly disqualifies my use of the adverb “Goebellesian” in this post, does it? 18
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:26 | # That JG quote is usually taken to mean him outlining his own propaganda policy, but I thought it was him describing the actions of others (Soviet propaganda?). Is there a specific lie that can be pointed to which Nazi propaganda repeated ad infinitum? 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:19 | # Oh dear. Banned by the Guardian yet again. And several comments missing without a trace, not just moderated ... completely “disappeared” into the comment gulag as though they were never on the page. Uncomments. Lurker, In the original entry I separated “outright deceit” from “Goebellesian repetition”. They are not conflated, so Desmond’s regulation attack on me is without foundation. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:26 | # Fred, I take it “dynerth” is John Standing’s pen name in that Pollard thread Yes, I’m out of CiF personalities at the moment, so I will register a couple of new ones and maybe return to double-handed threadery to confuse them next time. I notice there are a huge number of Jews commenting in that thread Yes, the slightest odour of European nationalism makes them agitated. But did you notice how little they actually knew - strange considering that this is their history. They just seem to want to get their accusation of Nazism or anti-semitism out, as if that is all they have to do for the object of their hatred to collapse in a heap. 21
Posted by Frank on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:29 | # Would be interesting to check their IPs - see if they’re mostly Israeli bloggers (perhaps on payroll). 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:35 | # Frank: see if they’re mostly Israeli bloggers If that is the case it could explain their cartoonish depiction of European history. They have very likely not been educated in the European historical framework. 23
Posted by Frank on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:38 | # Fred, I think a lot of it is they don’t want to take any blame for past events. It’s too much for them to accept: gasp Jews having to apologise to lowly Goy! Jews have never and will never acted immorally. Those who do (e.g. Bolsheviks) weren’t acting as Jews. They were temporarily deJewed while acting immorally. 24
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:38 | #
Yes, paranoia. They have such a strong sense of “us” and yet they live as minorities among a “them”. They project their extreme tribalism onto the host population and it makes them intensely paranoid. They can’t stop themselves trying to undermine the host population because their paranoia makes them feel constantly under threat and it’s the relentless attempts to undermine the host population that eventually creates a backlash. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that has repeated over and over for thousands of years. It’s no wonder psychiatry started with Austrian jews - their paranoia must make every day for them like living as a spy behind enemy lines. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:58 | # Frank, One of the CiF Jews actually told me that Jew-murdering Poles were acting in their own collective interest while Pole-murdering Jews were acting in the interests of the Soviets. Here’s the quote:
26
Posted by Frank on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:58 | # MacDonald pointed out that Southern US Jews weren’t opposed to the system. So, at times perhaps they’ve been somewhat less destructive. He said the floods of East European Jews were strongly anti-European due to their poverty and conflicts with the native populations due to high Jewish birth rates. I’m still waiting on Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years to be translated into English… Apparently that’ll cover a good portion of the troublesome Jews. So, perhaps we can do as Solzhenitsyn wished and get to the core of the problem and then work out a solution. Though, Jews don’t like truth - it’s “anti-Semitic”... 27
Posted by Frank on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:06 | # I didn’t mean to word that as if I want to continue living with Jews.
I’m scared to learn how that’s justified… - The way lions defeat foxes is by simply ignoring the “isms” and propaganda and throwing the foxes out. Isms are BS. Either some sort of old paganism or Christianity ought to be sought after, but isms offer nothing. Lions don’t need anything more complicated than honouring their ancestors and looking to them and not to the ism creators. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:14 | # Frank, It isn’t justified at all. It is believed ... they genuinely believe that Jewish souls are perfect and singularly loved by G-d, and cannot be improved upon. Only the goy can be racist. It is impossible for a Jew to be so flawed. 29
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:15 | #
I think there’s another aspect to their paranoia which is not directly hostile but ends the same way - security through wealth. I think the jewish reputation for greed comes from the same paranoia through the desire for wealth to provide security i.e a strongly built house with paid guards away from the poorer and wilder parts of town. That craving for wealth creates problems which eventually lead to a backlash also e.g the current banking crisis.
In the end mass immigration to the west will destroy them too (and Israel) but if by some miracle we win i think there’s only three possible solutions: 1) They stop being insanely paranoid/malicious (depending on preference). I don’t think this is possible while they have such a strong sense of their own unique identity as that sense automatically gives them an equally strong sense of the host population as the “other”. 2) They assimilate completely. Some might. Most won’t. 3) They go live in their own land. I don’t even mind helping them with that as long as they take their paranoid malice with them. 30
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:46 | # The Cif thread is an almost pure distillation of what is going on. This is what they’re afraid of:
Partly because it undermines the uniqueness of jewish suffering which underpins the power of the holocult but also because of this:
The fear that the truth about soviet communism comes out. That Stalin was just a frontman for a jewish elite that had hijacked Russia and whose mass murders were heavily motivated by racial hatred and revenge for perceived wrongs in the past. In particular the deliberate starving to death of six million Ukrainians in 1932-33 as revenge for the anti-jewish pogroms in the Ukraine in the 1880s. The year prior to the German elite giving the Chancellorship to Hitler out of fear of communism. 31
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:35 | # In that thread I think you can also see the faint outline of the conflict between those jews who want to repeat the soviet method of becoming an invisible aristocracy inside White Europe and who are prepared to sacrifice Israel and those who above all else want Israel to survive. Although maybe i am just imagining that. Lastly
I don’t know if that is an absolutely brazen double-standard or an amazing lack of self-awareness. The Bolsheviks invaded Poland in 1921. jews in Poland sided with the soviets and helped kill their “fellow countrymen” for their real fellow countrymen. When the invasion failed there was a backlash against the jewish “traitors” (more accurately described as stealth invaders in my view) and they had to flee. A substantial number of the jewish leftists in the UK are descended from those jewish communists who betrayed Poland, Ukraine, Finland and the Baltics. With so much to hide it’s no wonder they’re almost hysterical over this subject. 32
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:21 | #
Yes, it quite striking how the Guardian appears to be only mainstream outlet that is dwelling on this episode. All the rest have treated it as the storm in a teacup which it actually is. What’s going on at the Guardian? One of the CiF commenters, responding to another’s complaint that the Guardian was anti-Israeli and therefore anti-Semitic posted the following link in response. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/commentisfree+world/judaism This generates sixteen pages of links to 233 CiF articles. Substituting ‘anglicanism’ for ‘judaism’ in the link results in thirteen pages of links. What’s wrong with this picture? 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:55 | #
Yet that is manifestly the truth. It need not entail lies though. Just how else can one ‘do politics’ but to deliver the message in such a way as to garner a critical mass of support? There is no other way. And without a critical mass of the people on our side, and at last on their own side, all is doomed to failure from the first. So long as enough of our people cling to the System fighting it physically is impossible, and if enough of them come our way no fighting will be necessary. We must deliver the truth, or enough of it, in a way that is effective. Whatever approach is used, the path of the philosophical, GT’s microcommunities, Bowery’s citizen’s dividend, is for naught without it. 34
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:11 | # @Wandrin A lot of Jewish Communists actually fled to Europe, US and Israel in 67 onwards when the USSR cut diplomatic ties with Israel to keep military and trade agreements a few accussed of war crimes in the Baltics were working at Yad Vasham I mean shem holocaust museum in Tel Aviv (was an article about it but I cant find it). Found this by accident instead. Persecution of former Jewish Partisans in Lithuania 6-12-08
http://www.eilatgordinlevitan.com/vilna/vilna_pages/vilna_stories_former.html I thought Jews were in charge of the Baltic states after WW2 like all the other Soviet satellites. 35
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:52 | # @JamesUK Interesting article. It fits well with the discussion.
That’s the strange thing. They’d won. They’d taken control of the Soviet Union and built an empire but then seemed to lose power during the 60s and 70s with jews fleeing to Israel and the USA. Strange. 36
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:55 | # Barney Frank makes an eloquent case why his people never should’ve been let in to the U.S. and that the 1924 Immigration Act came a couple generations too late. His tribe wouldn’t have mightily contributed to the dispossession and genocide of Whites. His people will not be satisfied until all of us are dead. Note the typical Jewish self-absorbition, everything is always viewed from the Jewish historical perspective; and screw the founding people. It’s folks like this repulsive lisping toad that makes it very hard not to be anti-Semitic. 37
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:20 | # Can the media keep the plates spinning? I posted a few weeks ago the agenda has already been set for the coming election. It’s the economy stoopid! And who always sets this agenda? - It’s the media stoopid! And it’s no different this time. The nation is in the grip of a life and death psychological war and guess what is uppermost in every one’s mind? Yes it’s the economy. The media as ever, have decided it will be the economy and will interminably wheel out a parade of old farts and failed politicians, the very same people who have betrayed our nation for decades past. Panels of the same old, same old political hacks will be assembled around the table; the media man will make sure the talking heads only talk about safe non controversial topics, anything contrary will be expertly whisked away as of sleight of hand. Only the safe and predictable will be on the table, some will talk in code wilfully dismissing the uninitiated, smugness reigns and the whole charade continues without let or hindrance as it has for the whole of my lifetime. Red team - Blue team accusing each other their figures don’t add up - you simply couldn’t make it up. Contrary to what I’ve repeatedly predicted, the media show no signs of losing their grip; if anything, as Britain’s crises becomes many and more severe the media are intensifying their efforts to influence and pacify the viewing populace at large. I’ve noticed they’re now using the royal ‘We’ just to show us they share our pain (job losses, mortgages, increasing costs, housing) – how considerate of them to identify with their viewers. When it suits their purpose they allow themselves personal opinion, slanted favour (or otherwise,) they display sympathy by tone and convey the illusion of objectivity and impartiality with great skill – don’t blame us, we feel your pain, we’re only the messenger. Since TINA, (Thatcher - There is no alternative) Politics in Britain has coalesced around management - on how to manage the nation’s affairs. IOW’s, politicians don’t do vision anymore, they no longer do principle, values, pride in nation, pride in who they are, they don’t even believe in themselves, in short, they’re rudderless empty suits. Winning elections is their game. What I do notice widespread throughout the media is the constant cataloguing of the whole spectrum of woes across our society, child abuse, knife crime, teenage pregnancies, whites lack of achievement, in fact the whole gamut that is killing our civilisation. The irony is, to try and tell the media that if they connect the dots, the cause of all these ills can be traced directly back to them and the ideology that they ram down our throats on a daily basis - all of which is rejected with indignant disbelief. None of this is new of course; whole volumes have documented this change in our society’s fortunes, but one must ask the question, is all this deliberate or is it all the unintended consequences of liberalism? Funny thing is, our populations, instead of being happier and contented with this new Utopia are becoming more discontented and disconnected than perhaps at any other time in our existence. The irony it seems is, the more abundant and material our lives become, the more empty and dispirited we become. Liberalism is at the heart of the problem, with a belief in nothing but self, the dispirited people float along on a current of apathy and indifference – all ably and deliberately fostered by the media of course. It grieves me that for some time now I have consistently underestimated the state of apathy and indifference of our people to their plight. How can this spiral of civilisational decay be broken? There are an embryonic few who are looking to Nationalism (white?) to fill this vacuum and stop the rot. Trouble is, here in Britain (and elsewhere) the people are in an apathetic trance, disconnected and uncaring, so what chance do we have of turning things around? Who or what is there out there to break this gridlock which is mainly held in place by a politically correct media? There is a mother of a storm on the horizon, and our antagonists are pushing metal to the floor, surely conditions will soon be upon us where opportunity will be ripe to loosen the bond of our psychological straight jacket So, what, how or who, is to loosen the bonds of this straight jacket on our people? The cluelessness of Cameron’s Tories and the others will soon become evident to the mass of our people; will paralysing despair follow or take to the streets anger? Methinks the former is the answer. This election is not about support for Cameron but all about kicking out the hated new Labour project, which astonishingly, (or maybe not) has managed to remain Teflon coated in regard to not becoming synonymous with mass immigration. Which raises the question of how important will the immigration debate become in the run up to the election? Indeed, will there even be a debate on the effects of mass immigration on our civilisation? The media will do its utmost to keep the subject a no go area. It is said that at the last election the Conservatives were warned off the subject by TPTB just as they were gaining traction – the subject of immigration instantly vanished off the table. Looking back over my life, it has become self evident (by dint of an alternative world viewpoint becoming available on the Internet) that consensus politics (Lib Lab Con trick) has been an illusional con trick perpetrated by a parallel unaccountable cartel of the rich and the powerful. In short, the stark truth is the people have never had democracy; it’s a sham, a safety valve punch bag to nowhere – all to keep the herd from stampeding. This scam is coming to an end. Sometime during Cameron’s coming reign bits will start to fly off the Lib Lab Con trick (It’s starting now) and there’s an even chance the whole thing will stall and crash. The long absence of debate of the effects of mass immigration into these Isles can wait no longer, time is getting short, the people must be wakened to the dangers. Immigration must be debated at length at national level. Even if the media refuse to co-operate a way must be found, someone has to do it - and that someone is the British National Party. 39
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:42 | # Fred on October 10, 2009, 12:18 PM.
Fred. Just re-reading my post. I’m trying locate the above statement - without success. The only thing I can think of what it is your referring to is where I say….
My mental mindset when referring to liberalism is that of an elite top down micro enforcement (on the people) of a repressive totalitarian ideology. The freedom of the songbird in a gilded cage. The people of Britain are not liberal minded, far from it, in fact it is only the few CIF posting in the Guardian threads who would qualify under this label. If asked, I would opine the rank and file British people haven’t a clue what liberalism is about. All that they see and experience is something they articulate as do-gooding, the people doing the do-gooding being described as the do-gooder - that’s as far as the people can express how it appears to them as they go about their everyday lives. They, the people, have no idea who is responsible for the do-gooding or where the idea(s) comes from. The fuzzy manifestation of who are the do-gooders is a loosely defined guess that it is the politicians and judges who are mainly responsible, with the police and social services as close runners up. In other words, the mass of the British people couldn’t do liberalism if they tried because they don’t know what liberalism is all about, for they see it as not not normal behaviour. Hence the elites have to force feed social engineering down the people’s throats in order to ensure they (the people) ‘get it’. I dont think the elite politicians and the BBC have a clue that what they are trying to do is way over the heads of the people. Hey-Ho, if at first you don’t succeed…. I am inclined to think (wrongly) that both our countries are similarly affected but this is not so - our social histories are vastly different. (Thanks Prozium) The export of American liberalism to Britain has not and will not work, somebody has messed up somewhere. This is why I steer clear of the JQ. IOW’s, up until the Internet I had no other knowledge, like the vast majority of British, my view is (was) the boiler plate? version of what the universal holocaust narrative insists I believe. I was brought up from childhood on the drip drip of newsreel film and BBC television, with no counter view available, (to ordinary folk) how is anyone ever to know (or even question) the validity of it all. It is only on the arrival of the Interenet….This is why I say elite liberalism is to blame, to even allude to darker forces would be a no brainer approach in Britain. Here’s something else. As you know, we have a third party over here who indeed call themselves the Liberal Democratic Party, more usually known as the Liberal Party. I have no idea how the mass of the people view the Liberal Party in relation to all that is going on under the guise of liberalism - it must be most confusing for them. (Assuming they bother to think about it at all) Peeling back another layer of this onion, I cannot help but think the elites couldn’t give a monkey’s about liberalism, to them it is a psychological tool, and is nothing more than a weapon to bludgeon our civilisation into committing suicide - by walking off a cliff. I hope this clarifies a little better where I’m coming from. 40
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:14 | # @Bill
I think it’s a bit of both. From the 1920s and 1930s onwards marxists did create a methodology for trying to destroy nations from within by unpicking the threads that held those nations together. However open and honest cultural marxism could never attract many recruits. Instead what they did was create lots of front organisations like Anti-Apartheid or Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Prison Reform, Radical Feminist groups etc. These groups were cultural marxist on the inside but their public outer face was much less radical and designed to attract individuals with a bee in their bonnet about one particular subject or who wanted to be a rebel. Once inside the organisation the individuals could be exposed to the whole range of diluted cultural marxist thought which is what modern liberalism is. Anyone who’s ever been involved in some way with the liberal-left may have noticed how it’s really a collection of single issues bolted together. This is why that is. Although the cultural marxists know that marxist-liberalism is damaging, and deliberately designed to be, the liberal stooges believe it is good and that they are doing the right thing. With them the damage is unintended. Thay also have an immense ability to blind themselves to reality helped by the fact that they rarely live in the places which suffer the damage. Lastly the success of marxist-liberalism has led to the creation of whole industries supporting marxist-liberal ideology like Affirmative Action. There’s probably plenty of people working in those industries who don’t believe in it but go along for the cash. I personally believe cultural marxism is just another variety of jewish tribal warfare designed to weaken the host nation but it’s not neccessary for the main argument. Marxists can exist separate from jews. There’s also the angle of seeing a lot of this as the result of KGB “active measures” during the cold war which kick started movements which now have a life of their own without any help from their instigators. Maybe it’s a mixture of all three. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures In a nutshell i think cultural marxists deliberately created a swarm of marxist-liberal Frankenstein’s monsters that were designed to be damaging but once those monsters were released they had a life of their own with consequences both intended and unintended. 41
Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:41 | # The problem isn’t “liberalism”, whether in the people’s minds or in the minds of the people who shape the opinions of the people, and no matter whether that everything-and-nothing label is applied to the symptoms misidentified as such by Lawrence Auster or the philosophizing of John Rawls and his philo-semitic faux-White channeller Ian Jobling. Though without intending to, Jobling comes closest to the problem. His Principles of the Pro-White Movement explicitly makes protecting jews it’s highest principle. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. The problem is that in the Eurosphere - states founded and formerly dominated by Europeans of various ethnicities - the racial order has been inverted to a greater or lesser degree, with “people of color”, ie. non-Whites, granted superior social and legal status by the current rulers. That inversion is rooted in the original, self-effacing logic by which jews were first emancipated and eventually clawed their way to supremacy. Indeed, though the inversion has been broadened to include every group other than White men, jews still hold the most superior status of all. This genocidally anti-White regime is grossly misidentified by charlatans as “liberalism”, or worse, “liberal non-discrimination”. Whites are strongly discouraged from opposing this reality, and most seem not even conscious of it, acting instead under the presumption “we’re all equal”, self-suppressing copious evidence to the contrary. Anyone who promulgates confusion on this point is either dissembling to cover for those at the top of the heap, or have themselves become confused by such dissembling. Either way they help perpetuate the problem. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:50 | # Saying the people want liberalism is like saying the North Koreans want communism. Communism is oppressing them; they would slough it off if they could but it was imposed on them and is still being imposed. Same with us and liberalism. Auster and Kalb, in blaming “liberalism,” are wrong. There are men behind the scenes imposing what is called “liberalism” on the people exactly as there are men imposing communism on North Korea. It is not the choice of the people. The people aren’t “liberal,” they’re normal. Human nature doesn’t undergo fundamental change in that way every forty years. Human nature is no different today than in 1955. People didn’t go from normal in 1955 to “liberal” now. It doesn’t work that way. I used to be in complete agreement with Auster and Kalb on “liberalism.” “Why won’t the people stop being liberal? If only we could get them to stop and see the light! We just have to keep plugging away at it till they do!” Then the scales fell from mine eyes and I realized the people weren’t liberal. Quite the contrary, they chafe under liberalism. “Well, why don’t they overthrow it then?” All right then, to what extent are their potential leaders permitted to speak of the problem openly and fully, through the mass media? The ones who have to be addressed and sorted out aren’t “the people and their liberalism” but the shadowy men behind the scenes who are forcing “liberalism” on the people. There aren’t that many of them, either — as will be seen when they’re finally overthrown. 43
Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:35 | # Again no apologies for a shameless cut and paste job. This is a post by Simon Darby, Deputy leader of the British National Party from his blog Sunday, 11 October 2009 It’s a Swindle When I predicted yesterday that we would obtain coverage in the Mail on Sunday I would have wagered very heavily against a front page headline. Nevertheless, that’s what we have today as the growing row over allowing media access to people who oppose the disenfranchisement and replacement of indigenous Britons continues to build. Build it most certainly will in the run up to October 22nd and Nick’s appearance on BBC Question Time and another considerable unravelling of the binding ties of so-called liberal multiculturalism. In desperation we see the likes of the truly wretched Peter Hain doing all he can to effectively deny the rights of millions of people to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. We witness also the attempted vilification of senior BBC figures who dare to disobey the mantra of “multiracialism” and place their own professional integrity before the megalomaniacs who seek to deny us the right to choose how to think. The Radio One interview has particularly upset them, knowing as they do they can effectively control the middle classes with fiscal threats, the younger generation already saddled with vast amounts of our national debt are a completely different prospect. Do younger people appreciate being instructed on what they can or cannot hear or watch? Of course they don’t and find the concept utterly repulsive. Over the years we are going to see a lot more unravelling of the IslamoMarxist project and with it the exposure of the truly wicked and repressive mechanisms that have allowed us, as a nation and a people, to sink to this level. The truth, as they say, will set you free. Indeed it shall, but let us not forget in the process just who is responsible for our collective sale into servitude. This may sound controversial, but in the future the likes of Hain should face trial for what he has done. There are some who even at this stage do not realise just how serious this all is, but Peter Hain does and so do we. It is no secret that I never really got on with the last chairman of the BNP, but there are certain things he said to me that I will not forget. “Simon, can you imagine if all of this comes out” he once told me, well it is coming out and those that have conspired, intimidated, manipulated and deceived have a great deal to worry about. In future we will all be able to look back in absolute astonishment that the vicious, systematic, multifaceted assault on our people has been sold to us as a great crusade against “racism”. How on earth did they manage to get away with it in the first place, people will ask, let alone perpetuate the swindle for decades. Examples of the anger and frustration expressed by some of the greatest and persistent exponents of our embezzlement can be found by following the links below. You can almost taste the despair from the old world politicians who know that a new age is on the way. After all what better evidence can I offer in a week that can see the man who sanctions the continual bombing of Afghanistan and even the moon, actually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 44
Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:28 | # Can the media keep the plates spinning? I see from the links provided by Simon Darby’s post (copied above) that they (links) provide an invaluable insight into the unholy mess the media is about to get itself into. Only a few posts above I was lamenting the fact that the media were holding fast and my much vaunted prediction of an inevitable media breakdown was not on the horizon. What a difference a day makes. Is this latest groaning of the tectonic plates just that or does it signify something more disturbing? I’ve noticed the impossible high wire act of the Daily Mail in the last couple of days, they really are in a no win situation. The Mail leads its readers up to the top of the hill and leads them down again and calls them wannakill6millionjewsnazis, Littlejohn has got this off to a tee. But their readers are fighting back, (I would love to read the spiked comments) I sense that what I have always thought that the time would come when the people would cotton on as to who were the real Nazis- the BNP or the media? The heavy load that is the responsibility being heaped on Nick Griffin’s shoulders by the people’s eager anticipation of his up coming appearance on BBC’s flagship politics programme is awsome. I daren’t look. A week in politics is indeed a long time. 45
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:54 | #
One of my new favourite words is “wordism”. modern liberalism = disguised cultural marxism = jewish tribal warfare If you’re chatting about politics with someone whose views are near the mainstream but who is mildly disturbed by what is going on and you talk about jewish stealth tribal warfare designed to undermine the “us” of the host population they live among then that person will give you a funny look and walk away in a hurry. So you talk about liberalism. Later when they’re all square with that you talk about cultural marxism and how it was designed by communists to undermine western societies from within and how what 95% of liberals think of as liberalism started off as disguised and diluted cultural marxism. Later when they’re all square with that you tell them how to spot the actual cultural marxists among the marxised-liberals: rational vs emotional. Later, when they’re good at spotting the cultural marxists they suddenly realise that almost all of them are jews. So the problem is what it is. The wordism is just tactics. It makes sense for a party positioned where the BNP is to call the problem liberalism with a bit of cultural marxism thrown in. 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:45 | #
Alternately, the BNP might illustrate liberalism through exploring the writing of J.S. Mill in particular as it regards freedom and ethnic nationalism. The realization that classical liberalism has almost nothing in common with neo-liberalism can be almost immediate. 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:51 | # Wandrin, Our political history did not begin in Frankfurt in 1923. Jews did not create the response to the English civil wars, they did not create the American War of Independence, they did not create the French Revolution. There is more to the maladaptive formation of our minds and of our political thought than Jews. Know thyself. 48
Posted by Bill on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:58 | # Wandrin above at on October 11:14 PM Just above. Thanks for that. 10.12.2009.
Maybe, something is definitely lost in the translation of implementation and desired results. Or alternatively, the architects no perfectly well that the skewed results will be the desired result. (chaos) I’m continually struggling with the shifting sands of liberalism. I’ve asked before here, do (liberals or whoever) have a league system of victimology of promotion and relegation, you know like soccer? As you say, the raw material of the cultural Marxist is the perceived (or manufactured) oppressed groups of society who are latched on to and infiltrated, groomed and stirred into a radicalised force. This process it seems is rinsed and repeated along with other similar groups – ending up with sizeable proxy army for the architects. That such enterprises involve tremendous planning, huge resources both in terms of funds and personal commitment – these people must spend most of their lives dedicated to the cause and quite often do not see the results of their labour in their lifetime – just blows my mind. I’m intrigued by the question of who decides the status and merit of victim-hood? Is there a liberal HQ where these things are discussed and rated by regular panels of judges and decided upon? Do they hold up cards with numbers on to register victim performance and content like Strictly Come Dancing? Is there a body of judges constantly reviewing and appraising the merits of victim-hood, do they drop groups off the list and replace with a more promising upcoming group or perhaps they relegate a poor performing group to a lower division and promote or and add new ones? Do they publish the results of their appraisals in league table form? How does the world liberal legal system keep up to date with the latest pecking order in the victimology stakes? Are league tables distributed on a need to know basis? It seems to me that the whole gamut of the liberal victim industry would need to be constantly updated. Just think of the army of lawyers needed to administer such a machine. Hey Ho, More questions than answers - I’ll never get it. 49
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:03 | # “They did not create the French Revolution” By 1780 financial paralysis was making its appearance in France as the world’s important (and mainly Jewish) financiers were becoming firmly established. According to Robert McNair Wilson’s ‘Life of Napoleon’ ; “They (the Jew-dominated international financier group) possessed so large a share of the world’s gold and silver stocks, that they had most of Europe in their debt, certainly France”. McNair Wilson continues : “A change of a fundamental kind had taken place in the economic structure of Europe whereby the old basis had ceased to be wealth and had become debt. In the old Europe wealth had been measured in lands, crops herds and minerals; but a new standard had now been introduced, namely, a form of money to whom the title ‘credit’ had been given.” France’s debt, though high, was not beyond the hope of repayment except in Jewish terms of gold and, if the Crown had issued money on the security of the lands and the intrinsic wealth of France, the monarchy’s debt position could have been rectified without too much trouble. Unfortunately the King’s financial advisers heavily discouraged such a move, not wishing to contravene the new rules imposed by the international usurers. From that point on the Semitic chains of usury were tightened and the burden became more onerous as France’s debts were denominated in gold and silver, neither of which the country produced. These shadowy financiers were led by the Goldsmid Brothers (Benjamin and Abraham) and their partner Moses Mocatta and his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore and they were all directly involved in financing the French Revolution. 50
Posted by Bill on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:08 | # Wandrin on October 12, 2009, 04:54 AM Spot on. We in Britain cannot cannot go down route one, it is through the lens of liberalism that we will win. In the eyes of the people on the street of Britain, liberalism is the hated political correctness, it is the hated affirmative action, it is the hated catch all anti terrorist laws, ID’s, it is the do-gooding justice system, police, Town hall jobsworth, the hand-wringing lefties at the BBC, in fact liberalism to the average thinking British represents Orwell’s 1984 and everything they have lost - they want their country back!!!. 51
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:42 | #
Currently that can be made to work because partipation in the process is its own reward. Its important to them to feel they are sticking it to The Man, even when they are The Man (as they so often are!). Yet they can live out a normal life in every other respect. They chip away with their votes, their jokes and a bit of discretionary spending but for most of the time they dont have to be working for the project. Important as well is that there are few, if any, punishments for partcipation, social, financial or legal. 52
Posted by fellist on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:55 | #
I don’t doubt you but do you happen to have a decent source for that info that isn’t specifically focused on the Jewish angle so would include any non-Jewish miscreants were there any? 53
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:33 | #
I beg your pardon? Here’s some food for thought: - Barbaric beheadings in “enlightened” France (???) http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html Hello, anyone? It goes liek this: 54
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:55 | #
Of course. There’s a hundred and one causes of conflict within nations that have nothing to do with jews and the French and German nations didn’t need any jews to make them fight over Alsace-Lorraine or the English and Scots to raid over each other’s border. Also, regardless of any truth, obsessing over the jews while trying to get elected is entirely counter-productive, at least in Europe. However none of the usual causes of conflict within nations leads people to accept the suicide-genocide of their nation. More especially none of the usual reasons explain how a mass of different nations embark on a policy of suicide-genocide all at the same time. For decades now, when immigration is discussed the battle-winning argument is racism. Why does that argument work? It works through shame and guilt because White ethno-centricity has been turned into original sin. How did White ethno-centricity get turned into original sin? It didn’t come from politics, education or the people first - it came from the mass media, Hollywood first and then television - all those film morality tales like “To Kill a Mocking Bird” or “Twelve Angry Men” where the hero is the white goodie who sides with the non-white victim against the ethno-centric white baddies, followed later by all those hundreds of holocult films and TV shows. The psychological warfare from the media supports like-minded politicians into office who then use their political power to change the education system which eventually leads to generations of brain-washed White children growing up to co-operate in their own genocide by mass immigration. And which group were and are the critical factor in that media psychological warfare - those active measures to demoralize the western nations? It doesn’t even need malice. A right-liberal, or someone masquerading as one, could accept all the official history but say jews, as a defensive reaction to that history, worked through the media to attack white ethno-centricity purely as an understandable defensive reaction to the Nazis. They could then lead on from that to talk about the negative consequences of this i.e the inability to combat mass immigration because of White guilt over anything to do with race. I don’t blame the jews for everything or think they’re behind everything. I don’t even think they’re that strong or smart, certainly not wise. However I do think they’re responsible for the most critical element in our destruction and dominate the most critical point which is the mass media. Therefore, to me, the focus of attack needs to be on them (but not openly) because they’re the critical point. I also focus on jews (here) because i think we need to copy them: stealth, covert, hidden, disguised but also relentless and focused. 55
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:29 | # @Bill
Yes i think the architects want to sow conflict but they don’t always control what they reap. For example they can operate so easily in White countries because White people see them as White. However because they themselves see White people as something totally separate i don’t think they foresaw that one consequence of building up White ethno-nationalsim as original sin would be that White people would see Israel as a perfect example of White ethno-nationalism and attack Israel. They think the left-wing attacks on Israel are anti-semitic. The left-wing attacks on Israel are, in the heads of the attackers, anti-White.
Yes they do and it’s based on who is most hostile to the White/Western nations. In the UK it used to be West Indians because of violent crime but it shifted to muslims after 9/11. I think the way it works with the white liberal stooges is they have the same instinctive reaction as everyone else i.e they percieve the biggest threat as the worst but then their brain-washed white guilt at feeling that way kicks in and switches it round so the worst becomes the best - the people they percieve as the biggest threat are the people they put at the top of the league while the people they see as less of a threat go to the bottom e.g in the UK Hindus and Sikhs are near the bottom of the liberal league. I think the way it works with the architects is purely opportunistic - they flow like water to wherever the cracks are in the host nation and make them worse. I think the muslim thing is an example of unintended consequences as those jews who are most aware of what is happening don’t want muslims to be the most liberal-protected but the brainwashed white liberals aren’t directly under their control.
If you see it as instinctive it’s not so mind blowing. It’s just tribal conflict conducted by an international tribe where they constantly seek to weaken the host nation as they compete over resources. I don’t see it as any different to France and Germany fighting over Alsace-Lorraine except that it’s an internal war. With the white liberals it’s effectively the same thing except as they’ve been brain-washed into becoming their own enemy the strain of being genetically suicidal makes them seem very emotional and a bit strange. 56
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:16 | # @Fred Scrooby @Bill
I don’t think it’s enough on its own. People need to be nudged towards at least a vague understanding of a third position i.e that they are under attack from both right and left. Otherwise they just end up as more right-wing conservatives when what we need is counter-revolutionaries. Pointing out the attack from the right is easy - big business pays the bills for the conservative parties, and although those parties might contain many decent people, in the end big business’ desire for cheap labour will always win out. International capitalism is one wing of the enemy. The attack from the left is hidden under layers and generating the neccessary fear is less easy as modern liberals are visibly too soft to be scary - annoying, angry-making yes, but not scary. To get people to a third position they need to feel that there is a nastier hand behind the curtain with modern liberalism being the mutant child of cultural marxists who are actively seeking to promote social disintegration for their revolutionary ends. International marxism is the other wing of the enemy. Myself, I start with people by talking about modern liberalism and then gradually move onto how the driving force behind it is cultural marxism. I leave the jewish element for people to figure out on their own. 57
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:32 | #
You may well be right on that but the sort of people i talk to need more bite-sized arguments. I can definitely see the value in a more Leninist-style cadre-based party that is more focused on the intellectual side and instead of standing for elections becomes a kind of second stage for people who get their initial radicalization from the BNP but personally I’m more comfortable working at a low-tech level. 58
Posted by Bill on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:40 | # Re - My 10.28pm 11.10.2009 Above. Yesterday I casually came across this link on the Simon Darby blog http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219538/Ashley-Cole-insulted-BNP-interview-BBC-Radio-1.html Which prompted me to comment.
Sifting through the BNP reportage of same here. I came across this comment by Lantern @22.00. This comment is indicative of what I’m trying to say here regarding why route one isn’t available to us. Lantern is not alone on this thread.
In my 6.42 PM 10.10.2009 above I wrote.
BNP commenter Lantern seems to be the very person I’m referring to, Lantern is obviously a thinking person who is struggling to get a handle on what the heck’s going on, Lantern says he/she cannot understand why the Mail should hate the BNP as the Mail is forever banging on about immigrants etc. Not only is Lantern a thinking person he/she is no less than a BNP supporter and would seem to be following the Zeitgeist - but is lost and really hasn’t a clue what’s going on. How long will take for the millions of Lantern’s of this world to learn the Full Monty. But he knows what he thinks liberals are doing to him - because he can see it with his own eyes. He sees the results of what he thinks is liberalism everywhere, especially on Television. This is one big conundrum. IMO, we have to be like our opponents and at street level keep it simple - it’s the Lib/La/Con-trick politicians - the people will understand that and stop voting for them. (hopefully) 59
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:33 | #
I agree with your general point. However i think the Daily Mail conundrum provides a simple path into the other half of the equation. What i’d say to someone like Lantern is the Mail may be anti left-liberalism but it’s also pro big business and big business is stealthily just as internationalist as the left-liberals. 60
Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:28 | # I realized the elite were behaving as if under hostile alien influence before I faced the reality that it wasn’t black, latino, or asian aliens who were the agents of that influence. That’s why the word “alien” is so politically incorrect. It traces right back to the source. 61
Posted by Bill on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:03 | # Simon Darby of the BNP does battle with Radio Leicester. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:51 | # I have just finished listening to that, Bill. How do you think he fared? Will the Imam’s insistence that he is English and proud of it, and his wife and children are indigenous because they were born here - and let’s not forget all his references to “our” country, “our culture, “our society - will all that have made some genuinely English but not yet BNP-voting blood boil? I hope so, because if outrageous claims like that don’t work some sort of magic we are well and truly lost. It was good to hear Simon employing the replacement issue (thanks, Fred). I think this is our strongest suite in public discussion. On the other hand, Simon confused the issue with his culturalist emphasis on Islam. I think that argument is thin, and were it not that Islam is high-vis in the old Labour heartland, there would be little mileage in it. I would like to see the party narrow things down to the English in England, concentrating on the morality and justice of English survival, on our right as an indigenous people to live unmolested by our own elites and by foreign populations, and on our right to think and speak freely about who we we are and wish to stay. 64
Posted by Bill on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:33 | # GW October 13, 2009, 08:51 PM I’ve just sat down to poise over the keyboard when I hear from the adjoining room something on the BBC 10 O’clock News. It was a BBC team out in the streets discussing this very topic, guess where this was taking place. Right first time - LEICESTER! Simon’s gig took place this morning and it is my guess he’s caused such a stir the BBC has sent a team up the M1 to do a damage limitation job. I’m sure of this. Did you see it? I only saw fragments. I got the impression the whites of Leicester are beginning to paw the ground, I heard one chap tell the reporter - Britain is no longer our country. The BBC seemed alarmed by the response to their questions or maybe it’s just me. What did I think of Simon’s performance? 7/10 I think the BNP have got to have a clear strategy on how they are to handle these interrogations. Surely they know by now (by heart) what the liberal attack is going to be, it never seems to vary, it cannot vary because that’s the nature of the beast and this should be turned to the BNP’s advantage. The BNP must have a boilerplate reply to the opening shot of - is the BNP a racist party? The reply should never vary - keep it simple, keep it credible. Something like, what is racist about preferring one’s own? It is clear the BBC technique is to maintain complete control throughout, effectively cutting off any territory the interviewee might wish to introduce. In such circumstances I would say direct the answers to the listening public, ignore the questioner and direct the answer to those at home. Too many time the interviewee gets tangled up in a argument with the questioner - forget him and talk direct to the listeners.
Too damn true, you could hear them squirming in their seats. I’m glad Simon picked up on the fact the Asian guest was delighted with the fact that Leicester had become a white minority city. Well done Simon - more like this. Simon should have countered with the fact that soon, the whole of Britain will become like Leicester. BBC’s Wadsworth said with such religious fervour it was inevitable that the cultures of the world will come together and (by inference) would eradicate the white race. Simon should have asked him if he (Wadsworth) would welcome such an outcome? The BNP have got to hammer it home forever more, if something isn’t done soon to counter this extermination, we’re finished. Use the Red Squirrel analogy - he’s a naturalist. 7/10 Could do better (with practice) Well done! Good Lord - look at the time, I’m off. PS Regret if this doesn’t address all of your points but I’ve done this in a hurry. 65
Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:43 | # Simon Darby of the BNP does battle with Radio Leicester. Back again. I’ve watched a few such encounters as this and the BNP seem reluctant to raise certain things, such as the subject of White Flight (or am I wrong in saying this - I stand to be corrected. For instance, when the fact was highlighted that Leicester is a white minority city (or fast approaching) Simon failed to mention that thousands of whites must have moved out - thereby debunking the Asian chappie’s simpering remarks of how everybody integrates so well. It also reduces the BBC’s much vaunted how much immigration enriches our lives - to a sick joke. And whilst talking about white flight, Simon might also mention that immigration has been largely responsible for Britain’s economic catastrophe - by destabilizing the housing market and consequent soaring prices. Thus causing a housing bubble and bust not to mention record levels of debt. He might also mention how immigration has destabilised the housing market and is precipitating a housing availability crisis. Simon might mention that immigration is causing the dole queue to lengthen daily throwing hundreds of thousand of whites out of a job. The BNP have to inform the public that mass immigration is a deliberately planned and orchestrated attack against the whites of this country and why and who is doing it - mass immigration has not occurred through random natural events it is planned. All of these things and more could be displayed and explained on their website - but they’re not. I see all of these points as missed open goals and opportunities that we can ill afford to pass up. I know it is easy to give advice from the safety of our cyber bunkers but it is offered with the best of intentions, to borrow a current Tory soundbite, we’re all in this together. But having said that, it seems there is a distinct lack of urgency being conveyed with the present rhetoric in the public sphere. The message of Britain’s plight is diluted and watery, the rhetoric must be gunned up to reflect the sinister intention of what mass third world immigration is all about, and how deadly threatened we are - the message should be stark. Time is running out. I ‘m sure there are other things I’ve missed out that could be added - but this will do for now. 66
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:12 | #
This is absolutely spot on in my view. Don’t argue. Just make a point. “I don’t want my children to become an ethnic minority in their own homeland.” Don’t argue. Make a point. “Politically correct anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.” The enemy’s number one skill is word-juggling - using words to manipulate and confuse. Most of the people listening aren’t going to have the ability to compete with that. Give them simple mantras they can repeat. State a point. Don’t argue. “We want a complete halt to immigration and the removal of all illegal immigrants.” I was gradually coming to this way of thinking myself but i was listening/reading to some things recently which have crystallized the view. http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/ and http://www.whitakeronline.org/ “We should be training our own people, not importing skilled immigrants.” Use mantras. Simple repetitve statements that are easy for other people to learn. State your point. Make your point. “Left-liberals are so obsessed with race they’re deliberately creating a white genocide to prove how non-racist they are.” Don’t let the interviewer tie you up in word-games. Or rather, if they’re dumb play word-games with them. If they’re not then make a point. “The conservatives are funded by big business and big business craves cheap labour. Big business is supporting white genocide through immigration because they’re blinded by greed.” If you were winning an argument but then got tangled up in a word-game, back off and repeat a talking point. “The English people have a right not to be be turned into an ethnic minority in their own homeland. For fifty years the BBC has attacked anyone who tried to assert that right.” 67
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:48 | # @Bill
I think that’s partly to avoid fitting the cliche of “shouty right winger”. I think being very calm and non-shouty is a good tactic. I think your potential talking points, “white flight” as evidence of how little people want to integrate, immigration as cause of the housing crisis and the insanity of mass immigration when there’s millions unemployed are all good ones. I know other political parties do this - send round lists of simple, repeatable talking points by email. These simple repeatable talking points are especially useful for activists who can’t word-juggle. A page of mantras would make a good addition to their website in my view.
I think this is a half-trap also. islam is so obviously alien, so mind-bogglingly un-English in every way and so disturbing to people that it makes sense to use it politically but I think it’s better to use the culturalist argument against islam as an example of how far the multi-cultists are prepared to go. The people who constantly attack white people over women’s rights are prepared to ignore honour killings, forced marriages, female circumcision and paedophile grooming because the genocide of white people comes before everything else. Use the dissonance between those two things to illustrate not how bad islam is but how nothing is more important to the multi-cultists than their hatred of white people. 68
Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:52 | # When briefly catching a glimpse of the BBC’s damage limitation team out on the streets of Leicester on last night’s news, the BBC were bewailing the phenomenon of the working class turning to the BNP for solace and comfort. Surprise - Surprise. I get the impression that the BBC, see, (and justifiably so at this moment in time) it is the working class vote that is responsible for the rise and rise of the BNP, it doesn’t seem to enter the BBC mindset that soon, where the working class are leading, the middle class will follow. That this possibility eludes the BBC mindset as sheer fantasy is most revealing. According to the BBC, integration is the key to weaning the working class off voting for the BNP. This despite what they have just ‘discovered’ in Leicester is not touchy feely enriching integration taking place over three generations - but fleeing white Flight. The BBC are in for more shocks - methinks. 69
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:15 | #
Yes, organisations like the BBC have spent fifty years hiding the harm done by mass immigration and the multi-cult from the public . The ice has to be broken by those people who have direct personal experience of that harm but once the ice is broken other groups can be drawn in. (nb I don’t want my earlier comments to sound like criticisms of Mr Darby. It’s obviously a lot easier to do this stuff while chatting to someone at work or in a pub than it is on hostile ground in a BBC studio.) 70
Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:29 | # I knew there was something else lurking in the back of my mind, I’m hopeless at multi thinking. Do you think it’s appropriate for us in Britain to continue using the term indigenous Briton? I’m as guilty as anyone and have used the term many times, but I notice more and more this is getting the BNP into problem areas - what do you mean by indigenous Briton? The term white Briton or just white seems to be off limits - Is it me(?) I suppose when the BNP refer to a British person they are inferring that the person is not only British but white - but they don’t say this. So are these descriptions, indigenous and white interchangeable? If we dropped the description indigenous and substituted it with white, would this be any better? Would there be any advantages, bearing in mind I keep reading the term white Nationalism? Does indigenous Briton equal white nationalist? I’m getting confused - again. 71
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:45 | # I think indigenous is good. People are brain-washed and will react to their programming when they hear certain trigger words like “white” so avoiding using thosee trigger words in a mainstream context is good tactics in my view. You can say an awful lot as long as you avoid those certain specific words and phrases. Also “indigenous” is used in the UN protocols on genocide so that fits. 72
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:27 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: Peace and the Obamessiah
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:58 | #
I’ve always thought that Dave’s insistence on seceding from the EPP faction in the European Parliament on the very narrow ground of anti-federalist sentiment was a very strange one. After all. the EPP includes the Conservatives’ ideological soulmates in the form of the largest centre-right parties in Europe (CDU/CSU - Merkel, UPM - Sarkozy and PdL - Berlusconi). Leaders of the parties that constitute the EPP also represent all the movers and shakers in the Council of Ministers as well in the European Commission.
At the time of announcing the schism Dave must have been aware that, in creating a new grouping, he would have to get into bed with some ‘dodgy’ characters on the hardish-right, as has indeed turned out to be the case. Apart from the monotonic anti-federalist refrain the Tories have very little in common with with their new pals.
I can’t for the life of me imagine why he has has taken this risky gamble, surely he can’t be that concerned about the UKIP? Where is the upside?