|
|
|
Can violence come? As has happened with every such event in the past, I experienced a deep disquiet when the news of the Washington Navy Yard shootings hit the wires on September 16th. Yes, a large military base close to the seat of American government seemed just as likely a target for the usual Moslem suspects as the Boston Marathon, and in the event it was a politically irrelevant black psycho. But what if it had been a white man with a private arsenal and the regulation “links to white supremacist groups”? What if some disturbed half-wit had hit out for the cause at the cost of a dozen completely innocent lives? Obviously, the implications for WN would have been serious and harmful. Yet more moral obstacles to its appointment with history would have been piled up. Yet more scrutiny from the security state would be brought to bear. Yet more certain would be the path of dispossession and marginalisation which our people are treading. But what if we turn the “what if” question around? What if strikes against the Establishment were systematic and serial. What if they were embedded in the context of a violent revolutionary or “urban guerilla” struggle, and did not generate the same revulsion and alienation in the popular mind, or a least a significant part of it? In essence, what are the conditions under which extra-legal action in the people’s cause engenders enough popular moral, financial, and logistical support to maintain the prosecution of military objectives over a period of decades, if necessary? Putting aside the problem of how such action could be organised and executed in the modern security state when nationalism is so controlled and weak, which others have addressed, I think it is interesting to look at some of the structural constraints which operate in European and North American societies. The pre-revolutionary problem Revolutionary movements, violent or not, arise in societies in which extreme political and economic injustice prevails. The defining term “pre-revolutionary” might imply an historical process of several decades (depending on the nature and level of crisis) during which a substantial section of society has become profoundly alienated and finds no possibility of the desired change through established structures. Obviously, political and economic crisis is very pressing for many currently across the Western world. Look at Greece. Look at Spain. Participation in the electoral process is low across Europe and in the United States. But societies with even flawed democratic institutions, particularly societies in which personal aspirations have been largely expressed in terms of consumption, have a very long way to fall before they arrive at the fateful conclusion that politics is a dead-end, and those controlling it are oppressors (or agents thereof), and by no means their own representatives. For everyone, the materialism of the Western life and the very consumer products themselves constitute a stake in the status quo, and therefore a significant stabilising force. Indeed, liberal individualism itself does not acknowledge hierarchies of meaning beyond its own immediate and personal interests. Yet it is precisely these hierarchies of collective concern and futurity which inform pre-revolutionary development. Liberal individualism’s twin, social democracy, is likewise a creature of the system and is, by its gradualism, inherently opposed to revolutionary change. After 1916 and the dissolution of the Second International, internationalists sought to re-incorporate social democracy within the revolutionary process by adopting a narrative of historical inevitablism. For example, Rosa Luxemburg wrote in 1918:
By 1924 this was understood to be a hopeless prospect, although Revolutionary Internationalism staggered on in exile for another sixteen years until Ramón Mercader reached into his coat pocket for an ice pick. Today, the greater part of the left has itself been ideologically integrated with the oligarchic forces generating a new world order of untrammelled financial and corporate power. Even that element of the left which possesses a critique of globalisation remains wholly faithful to internationalism and to multiracialism in all the living spaces of European Man, as if ideological anti-racism and anti-fascism, and the breaking of the bond between European blood and European soil, were objective and self-evident human goods in their own right. While liberalism remains the dominant current of our thought-world, the degree to which nationalists can shape society in a pre-revolutionary form is strictly limited. It is not simply a question of contesting with the power elites, the political class, the secular church of liberalism, the power of the media and state security, in the same way that revolutionaries of old (including romantic nationalist ones) contested with the reactionary forces of royalty, church, aristocracy, army, and peasantry. Everything weighs against a popular decision for change. In the end, all that is within the system will organise against that which is without the system, and racial or ethnic nationalism is without the system. Change, therefore, that is really consequential must be systemic. Another great restraint results from the Establishment’s very adroit defiance of Newtons Third Law of Action. The problem of the enemy In the 2011 Census of England and Wales it was revealed that ten million people of foreign extraction are currently domiciled there. The native reaction to this rolling demographic disaster should, of course, have been forthcoming decades ago, and it should have been swift and decisive. For a variety of reasons that reaction has suffered an arrest. I remember being told for the first time that my country was multicultural, and would not only stay that way but would be increasingly defined as such. It was one morning in the late 1980s and I was driving through West London at the time, with the radio tuned to the BBC. I heard Roy Hattersley, of all people, say it. The idea that the non-white populations were in any way a permanent fixture was still novel at that time. The Conservative Party manifesto of 1979 had had to warn us that “there is no question of compulsory repatriation”. But it talked also of “helping immigrants trying to leave the country”. Many ordinary Londoners of my acquaintance had never really accepted that large populations of Africans in particular, but Asians too, had any place in our people’s land. After all, wasn’t the real lesson of the Brixton riots of 1985 that their presence was some kind of political mistake. How could such a gross betrayal of our people go uncorrected? There had to be something else in political life of the nation beside endless submission to this insane business. To be cooly informed now, and by the deputy leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition no less, not only that nothing would ever be done but a cultural equalitarian diktat would be imposed upon us was vexing and begged some very large questions. He was not talking about Labour Party policy, after all. He was not talking about some extention of the kind of multicultural policies that had been tested by a few Labour council in the 1960s and 70s. His delivery had about it the air of an official announcement. Certainly, no Tory MP appeared the next day to offer a contrary opinion. I don’t think I saw a single critical article in the press. Instead, the ratchet clicked leftward. The official policy manual was notated, and the country was quietly moved on. That is the way the political class conducts the business of managing the dispossession of our race. It was the same with the opening of the taps by Blair and his ministers Jack Straw and Barbara Roche in 2001, courtesy of the economic report produced by the Home Office Committee chaired by Jonathan Portes. It has been the same with the opening up of the labour market to the populations of the new democracies of eastern Europe (which was supposed to result in 13,000 Poles arriving in Britain in the first wave, yet the 2011 Census reported a Polish-speaking population here of 546,000, added to which are 85,000 Lithuanians, among others). Mindful that this failure is in the public domain today, and that the next stage of labour market expansion – opening up to the still impoverished populations of Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary - is deeply unwanted by the native population, Government has been careful to neglect its duty to forecast numbers and to plan ahead. At every turn the politicians know exactly what they are doing and why, and how best to avoid, as the Chinese say, treading on the tail of the tiger. They proceed incrementally, they never explain what it all really means or where it is going, and they disguise their own hand, using linguistic and procedural obfuscation, a strategic neglect of duty, and downright lies to do so where necessary. The masters of obfuscation, though, are not national politicians or even their civil servants, but the creatures who labour in the machinery of EU government. By way of an example, consider the roll out of “gay” marriage across the Union. In Britain, as is well known, David Cameron’s coalition government drove through the bill for same-sex marriage with total disregard for the opinions of the Conservative Party membership, the Church of England, the pro-marriage lobby, and even homosexuals themselves who, excepting destructive agents like the usual suspects, expressed little appetite for it. So why did he do it? Where did the demand come from? It appears to have arisen not as an explicit demand but as an engineered product of a movement towards procedural conformity across EU member states. Indeed, the trail commenced in discussion within the EU bureacracy as early as 2004. A document titled, “Comparative study on adoption procedures in the Member States of the European Union, practical difficulties encountered in this area by European citizens in the context of a European area of justice in civil matters, and options available for resolving such difficulties and protecting children’s rights” was published in 2008. It procedes without mentioning same-sex marriage once via documents titled Summary, Synthesis report, Legal analysis, Annexes, and Statistics-comments to a further document titled Facilitating Life Events. In this document same-sex marriage is mentioned over 40 times and marriage some 3,400 times. In 2010 the Commission embarked upon the Stockholm Programme, a wide-ranging initiative “setting out the European Union’s (EU) priorities for the area of justice, freedom and security for the period 2010-14”. It was not published in the official record. An Action Plan was next on the bureaucratic menu. At the same time an EU Citizenship Report was published, setting forth the means to dismantle “the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights”. Only in 2011 was there a roadmap published to “mutual recognition of the effects of certain civil status documents”. This document concludes with the following interesting statement:
... ie, a pressure group had contributed the vast bulk of responses to the aforemented Green Paper. In 2012 the European Parliament published its recommendations on civil procedural homogenisation, known as the Berlinguer Report. Paragraph 40 reads:
Thus the EU is making it possible for homosexuals in member states where formal marriage is not open to them to travel to another where it is, and their own country will be forced to recognise the “union”. Evidently, David Cameron’s government has needed no further encouragement, and has strained every sinew to be “on the right side of history” (if you are a left-liberal and also an internationalist). Likewise, the deep machinations of another international bureaucracy, the UN, is (perhaps less directly) implicated in the long-run transfer of Western wealth, industry and jobs to the developing world, and the impoverishment of the middle-class: The speaker in this video, Anne Brassington, an Australian MP, is flagging up some very grave matters which have been advanced behind the AGW smokescreen. But change does arise from these dark places in which Western public opinion is never considered except as a petty obstacle to be pushed aside. The UN is not a democratic institution. For its part, the EU famously does not take “no” for an answer when electorates decline to support its grand schemes. Nationally, the electoral process itself has been gutted of all significant racial, social, and economic content. But who is doing this? Who and where is the enemy? Being denied clear sight of movement against them, the public just goes back to scratching its collective head at the inexplicability and unnaturalness of it all and characteristically making the best of things. In Britain reminders of our situation, some immensely painful like the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, are literally everywhere in our lives. But they just sort of pile up, without ever reaching a critical mass. So too the political dissonance, so too the social anomie, so too the loss of social capital – matters which the politicians of the Multicult will find condign, but which public intellectuals owe it to us to take extremely seriously. They have identified and bewailed the trends since Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” but, like Putnam, have only turned again to the old utopianism, as if there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The rest of this formula for politicide – the Third Sector, the law, the educational Establishment, the media, the crazed anti-racist left, the safety-valve of controlled political nationalism – plays its progressive part. We are all locked in to an existential fume that never reaches the point where a few hard people finally say, “Our enemy is winning ... politics doesn’t work ... nothing works ... there is another way.” But even this first tiny step would be a very long way indeed from the organisation and execution of an effective campaign of terror. It was common knowledge that the IRA conducted its very dirty war against the British state with a manpower of around one thousand, of which about three hundred were engaged in violence. The rest operated in support, including the raising of funds by extortion from Northern Irish Catholic businesses, and from bank and post office robberies. Loyalist groups ran the drug trade. Terrorism is expensive and its first victim is a moral compass. It probably attracts as many marginal and not so marginal psychopaths and criminals as it does suggestible romantics. After all, it gains its historical purchase solely from a willingness to do anything to anybody if it might conceivably serve the cause - not a career choice of many average men and women. But Ireland was always an exceptional case. It had developed a pre-revolutionary condition in Gladstone’s time, and enjoyed the advantage of a history of patriotism and conflict with the British state dating from the 17th century. In the 20th century Irish eyes could not but see the British state in Northern Ireland as a foreign power. Basque nationalism also has distant antecedents, dating from the mid-19th century. Flemish separatism, which has not resorted to an organised campaign of violence, has a similar longevity. Likewise Catalan nationalism, which dates to the late 19th century. These are the kinds of political histories in which the identity of the enemy is traditionalised, and radical demands of him gain popular understanding. It is out of unmet radical demands that terrorism grows. For the most part, Europeans have a long way to go before we are anywhere near that politically pregnant condition. The problem of a manufactured docility The desire of all oppressive regimes is a compliant, docile and defeated, spiritually debilitated subject population who will remain in their place without a large-scale machinery of oppression being brought to bear. This is precisely the kind of society which is being engineered in our living spaces today. The elites of globalism have seen the truth that: (a) self-expression contained within a particular worldview of the personal, and (b) an egalitarian franchise ... will produce a sustainable political outcome for them in which their interests go unchallenged and their own will is sovereign. Thereupon, they are free to pursue the optimum strategy for a general docility - one which degrades the people as much as it anaesthetises them. So the dumbing down of education, drug and alcohol dependency, single parenthood, unemployment, debt, and welfarism mark the life of the masses as much as the aimless, wall-to-wall distractions of football, gambling, reality shows, and celebrity culture. Throw in endless mass immigration and the dehumanisation of the indigenes’ natural responses, and the hand is complete. For these are not the characteristics of a society which generates an ideologically coherent and militarily committed terrorist movement (as opposed to just occasional lone actors), and keeps faith with it over generations. Where is the spirit and pride of belonging? Where is the common narrative of past and present victimology, and the vision of freedom and autonomy that arises from that? Where is the culture of struggle, the desire of the young to become involved? Where is the solidarity which maintains support for terrorist action through the general and, in many cases, wholly justified outrage? Where, even, is common knowledge of the name of the enemy? The time is rushing past. If, as still seems likely, politics fails, is there any basis there on which violence can come? Comments:2
Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:28 | # I’ll make a preliminary comment, and then give the essay a good reading later. Disclaimer: I’m not advocating anything, just speculating. I condemn all violence. In fact, I condemn, in the strongest terms, any activity which would give our lords and masters even a mild case of heartburn. One of the problems with white nationalism is that, to be frank, it is infested with immature people. I do not refer to trolls and infiltrators, but to sincere oafs. This was made especially apparent to me in the immediate aftermath of the Breivik action. My first of many comments on that incident essentially boiled down to, “Don’t panic. This won’t be as bad for us as some are making it.” And it wasn’t. The world didn’t end, and white nationalism didn’t end. It didn’t even end in Norway. But it wasn’t the initial outpouring of despair that I found immature. What disturbed me, and what I found extremely immature, was the number of commenters applauding Breivik and justifying what he had done. I don’t believe that this was a majority position, but it was certainly well represented, even discounting for trolls. Now, let me be very clear about this: our people are facing destruction. In the face of that destruction virtually anything can be morally justified, but we’re not in a sophomore’s lounge debating lifeboat ethics. I don’t condemn Breivik, but I am also not happy about what he did. That is a distinction that is lost upon immature people. The issue is not whether an act can be “justified.” Again, virtually any act in opposition to genocide can be justified. The issue is whether the act in question actually advances our cause in a meaningful way, and further whether it was the most effective act reasonably available. So the question as to whether violence can come raises another, namely, “Can it be effective?” While not advocating anything, but engaging purely in speculation and hypotheticals, any person who chooses to engage in extra legal activity must view himself as a political soldier engaging in a political act, and it doesn’t matter whether the action can be “justified” or not. It matters only whether it is the most effective action in advancing The Cause. Breivik was within a stone’s throw of unquestionably culpable anti-whites. Adult anti-whites who had an established track record of anti-white activity, and were openly on recording as supporting white genocide. Yet who did he choose? Young, telegenic lefties that, even though they were probably going to become scum with an anti-white track record, did not have that track record yet. They were the most sympathetic, attractive lefties you could find. Slaughtering them is not the message an effective political soldier would make as his signature action. Sophomore lounge nonsense doesn’t enter into it. I don’t condemn Breivik, I recognize him as a brave man, and I believe he thought he was doing the right thing. I also believe there is probably something wrong with him to lead him to the choices that he made. The real question is whether it was politically effective. No, not when there were a lot of obvious bad guys running around destroying our race. Our cause cries out for justice, but the Breivik action did not satisfy that. That craving for justice is distinct from that which is merely justifiable, and that’s rather the point. It’s as if WN is rife with Asperger’s, and these Aspys simply cannot process what is valuable in a political target. They cannot balance competing considerations. Right now, I do not advocate violence in any way, shape or form. I want that to be clear, and I’m not being cutesy about it. But it never ceases to amaze me that those who do engage in it invariably choose a target that either hurts us, or doesn’t make much difference either way. Yet they are willing to throw away their lives for this sort of ineffective target selection as they walk right past the most culpable, choosing instead the most sympathetic of our opponents or, in some cases, the plainly innocent. 3
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:50 | # Breivik acted on his own accord. Full stop. Ultimately, he has God to answer to. In my book, Breivik is a crazed homicidal maniac. There is no room for ambiguity there. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:09 | # Trainspotter, Thanks for the reply - interesting as always. My assumption in this piece is that we all understand the difference between serious paramilitary organisations which conduct hostilities over decades and generations, and the episodic violence that has occurred hitherto from the WN and European nationalist quarter. Even The Order was a joke, really, beside the kind of effort mounted in Northern Ireland and in the Basque area of northern Spain. Bear in mind that serious paramilitary activity would, in my thesis, be a replacement for electoral politics (notwithstanding the fact that a political arm might legally contest elections). We haven’t seen anything like that in WN, which surely can’t be because the offence against us is not grave enough, but must be because of other factors. Obviously, it’s easy just to say that WN, say, has not managed to break into the public consciousness. Well, we know that. But I am trying to look beyond that to some of the social factors which arrest the development both of political nationalism and extra-legal activity. I think there are a number of ways of looking at this, and mine might not be the best. Other suggestions are welcome. As a positive question: what are the conditions under which extra-legal action in the people’s cause engenders enough popular moral, financial, and logistical support to maintain the prosecution of military objectives over a period of decades, if necessary? 5
Posted by Dude on Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:28 | # The use of terror is to create a political effect and thereby advantage. In our case, it is presently clear it would be to our significant disadvantage. That said, dramatic acts that do not go near the extent of terror, might be said to have an effect of creating beneficial conditions. Of communicating directly with the public in a way calculated to increase political advantage, presenting a challenge and requiring an answer. For example, consider the actions of the League of Empire Loyalists, a small group of people disrupting public events to spread a particular message. Imagine doing so at the end of this event. Egging Livingstone and scattering leaflets displaying a simple message, a url and hopefully a telegenic woman or two. Or on the other side, more recently at the UKIP conference against ‘New-UKIP’. Similar, perhaps, to some activities of Generation Identitaire, it may be said that their actions support unaligned political efforts in other areas, such as for the FN, creating a growing groundswell of separate, but supportive activity that also feeds into generalized public dissent and could be considered alongside things such as Manif Pour Tous, drawing lots of other groups into the maelstrom. Additionally, in a situation of increasing anarcho-tyranny, political action against the perpetrators would garner public support. Consider the sympathy that would have been generated if during the ten years when the police had been refusing to move on the perpetrators of grooming, locals had intelligently disrupted their activities. Or the Muslim Patrols. These are of course not causes. As society breaks down in Europe, these questions will come more to the fore, offering such a political advantage. Visible acts are one aspect, but sophisticated arguments in defence of them are another. Too often, the arguments are missing and the national opinion-formers draw the context in which to place the action. In France there is the FN. In the UK, UKIP is showing itself increasingly unsuitable for the role. It may be having the effect of weakening the Conservatives, which is to be cheered, but similar to Canada, will it just do so to merge with them at a later time, cementing the mainstream liberal right back into position? 6
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Oct 2013 10:27 | # It is clear that if actions, whether they are ones such as the bold public statements that Dude sagaciously advises for the time being, or ones taken by independent actors who have had enough, contexting these acts in such a way as to gain sympathy and popular replication in their implication from the broad public, acknowledgement that they were taken in their interests, requires increased circulation and agreement of WN narrative - to some extent, there has been a lack of patience in WN. The Internet is very new in its effectiveness, but there is reason to believe it is helping and will accelerate in its capacity to extend a narrative that would recognize each European nation * as profoundly entitled to maintain its indigenous population - and if there are to be any immigrants, let them be a modicum of less than five percent of other Europeans who have an increased duty binding them to aid in the campaign of repatriating persons not of indigenous European origin.
7
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:08 | # >> A concept of indigeneity that would include would-be WN nations beyond Europe Is that like the Sudanese (et al) in Holland (et al) who say they ==do== have some self-granted moral right to take over the place? Careful of what you write in public my friend…. the untermenschen may learn from it!! 8
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:52 | # I don’t believe the Sudanese have a very strong claim in Europe or Siberia. However, regarding the Americas, Australia, New Zealand ..some other islands, particularly where there has been a policy of reserving certain lands for some native kinds, White territories will be warranted and claimed as well. 9
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:00 | # What do you do with the Sudanese who think they should be able to live indefinitely in Afula? Are they welcome to marry the daughters of Israel? 10
Posted by Nor on Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:52 | # Some quickly-googled numbers, may be wrong—- 10.5 million Ethnic Greeks Greece’s median age today is 43, wiki says, but for the foreigners it is probably a lot younger, so among the active population (Teens to Age 50, say), it may well be that a quarter of active-age residents of Greece are foreigners. I don’t have time to google around for GDP numbers, but IIRC the Greek GDP, is due to equal late-1990s levels soon, so if contraction continues it’ll be two lost decades before long. These are the conditions. The thing is, the EU and USA and NATO are on the beat and (a) would not allow an insurgency, (b) [more importantly] through continuing relative success provide an example Greeks can look to: “the system still works for them”. 11
Posted by Boudica on Wed, 02 Oct 2013 05:55 | # What I understand about our collective European/Caucasian peoples is that we were approximately 30% of the world’s population in the early 1900s and currently are 8% of the world’s population. About half of the 8% are baby boomers, or people 50 and older, so in thirty or so years, we will be about 4% of the population. Enter the media and “educators” pushing the propaganda and agenda of the anti-whites through ceaseless messages of miscegenation and white genocide, using white guilt as the means to silence whites from any sort of action or deviation from their plan. We had better learn from our Basque and Irish brethren, and quickly, before we are a species extinct. 12
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:16 | # >> What do you do with the Sudanese who think they should be able to live indefinitely in Afula? Afula is very heavily endowed with Russians. As in….. still speak pigeon-Russian at home after two generations. As in, pray at the Russian Orthodox Church (there’s TWO of those in Afula). As in…. willing to beat the shit out of any Fakestinian who blows smoke about this NOT being indigenous Hebrew land (check out the percent of Russian conscripts in Kfir Battalion, which has the highest per capita rate of complaints lodged by Human Rights Watch). The Sudanese are much too smart to risk showing their face in Afula. the presence of Russians has certain identifiable downsides. A fairly high percentage of the Russkies in the Army would steal your watch or the like without a pang of regret. It really was the Russkies that introduced true high-end, professionally-organized trafficking-in-women to Israel. Yet overall…. I’m glad the Russkies are here. Afula is safer for them. Israel isn’t the Muslim ummah; you can’t avoid arrest (for the homicide of your daughter) because she di-honored your family by marrying a Sudanese. But honestly, not a lot of sabra women will even marry an American Jew, much less a kushi. Brush up on your hebrew-reading, you can read the Israeli version of match.com, at The ones getting knocked up by Sudanese are mostly the expired-visa Filipinas. With the latter, it’s not deliberate “race-mixing”..... it’s having “baby rabies”; being a feral human female. the Filipinos are sweethearts, but it’s hard to find one who is more than a millimeter of modernism-paint away from their traditional tribal culture. There is a ==reason== those females earned the sobriquet of “rice powered fucking machines” from US Navy boys. Got that one from a Senior Chief of your Navy. If they can hide the child until it’s old enough to enroll in kindergarden…. well, once the kid displays native-speaker Hebrew accent in front of a magistrate, the Ministry of the Interior police are not allowed to deport the kid (that’s the actual rule), and will not be expelled from the public schools. The cops are forbidden to “create an orphan”; so mom stays. And so we get these anchor future-IDF-recruits. You see, once the kids have their Honorable Discharge paper after conscript -service, they’re allowed to sponsor the parent for a LEGAL “Green Card” which allows them to get an on-the-books job with medical, and an old-age pension. And even if the kids’ bloodlines tend to rule out passing the AirForce intelligence screens - hey, Kfir is accepting new recruits twice a year. SOMEONE has to man the graveyard-shift checkpoints in Judea/Samaria!! My own nationalist-philosophy isn’t based on blood, but on language, so it don’t bother me that much. Kfir are bastards - but they are OUR bastards. But the Sudanese guys themselves? I’d pull the trigger with my own finger without a moment’s regret. Brevik receives a lot of sympathy here. But it’s an un-necessary exercise in Afula. The Russkies already keep our streets clean of monkeys.
13
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:31 | # >> What do you do with the Sudanese who think they should be able to live indefinitely in Afula? Afula is very heavily endowed with Russians. As in….. still speak pigeon-Russian at home after two generations. As in, pray at the Russian Orthodox Church (there’s TWO of those in Afula). As in…. willing to beat the shit out of any Fakestinian who blows smoke about this NOT being indigenous Hebrew land (check out the percent of Russian conscripts in Kfir Battalion, which has the highest per capita rate of complaints lodged by Human Rights Watch). The Sudanese are much too smart to risk showing their face in Afula. the presence of Russians has certain identifiable downsides. A fairly high percentage of the Russkies in the Army would steal your watch or the like without a pang of regret. It really was the Russkies that introduced true high-end, professionally-organized trafficking-in-women to Israel. Yet overall…. I’m glad the Russkies are here. Afula is safer for them. Israel isn’t the Muslim ummah; you can’t avoid arrest (for the homicide of your daughter) because she di-honored your family by marrying a Sudanese. But honestly, not a lot of sabra women will even marry an American Jew, much less a kushi. Brush up on your hebrew-reading, you can read the Israeli version of match.com, at The ones getting knocked up by Sudanese are mostly the expired-visa Filipinas. With the latter, it’s not deliberate “race-mixing”..... it’s having “baby rabies”; being a feral human female. the Filipinos are sweethearts, but it’s hard to find one who is more than a millimeter of modernism-paint away from their traditional tribal culture. There is a ==reason== those females earned the sobriquet of “rice powered fucking machines” from US Navy boys. Got that one from a Senior Chief of your Navy. If they can hide the child until it’s old enough to enroll in kindergarden…. well, once the kid displays native-speaker Hebrew accent in front of a magistrate, the Ministry of the Interior police are not allowed to deport the kid (that’s the actual rule), and will not be expelled from the public schools. The cops are forbidden to “create an orphan”; so mom stays. And so we get these anchor future-IDF-recruits. You see, once the kids have their Honorable Discharge paper after conscript -service, they’re allowed to sponsor the parent for a LEGAL “Green Card” which allows them to get an on-the-books job with medical, and an old-age pension. And even if the kids’ bloodlines tend to rule out passing the AirForce intelligence screens - hey, Kfir is accepting new recruits twice a year. SOMEONE has to man the graveyard-shift checkpoints in Judea/Samaria!! My own nationalist-philosophy isn’t based on blood, but on language, so it don’t bother me that much. Kfir are bastards - but they are OUR bastards. But the Sudanese guys themselves? I’d pull the trigger with my own finger without a moment’s regret. Brevik receives a lot of sympathy here. But it’s an un-necessary exercise in Afula. The Russkies already keep our streets clean of monkeys. 14
Posted by Maureen Martin on Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:49 | # “But what if we turn the “what if” question around? What if strikes against the Establishment were systematic and serial. What if they were embedded in the context of a violent revolutionary or “urban guerilla” struggle, and did not generate the same revulsion and alienation in the popular mind, or a least a significant part of it?” My thought is what if after every violent event, hordes of commenters slam comment sections with the right message?
15
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:07 | # Regardless of who abhors violence (from the correct Christian perspective, and contrary to widespread theological misunderstanding, one must reject violence where it is unwarranted, and reluctantly but unhesitatingly employ it where it is warranted), the brute reality (as I have stated at MR many times) is that European civilization, and ultimately the European race itself, will not survive for more than an historically insignificant additional period (a few decades for the civilization; maybe another century or two for the mere biological race) without the utilization of at least some coercive force - and I suspect it will ultimately entail a great deal of it, possibly amounting to a third all-Europe continental war. This one will be both more violent, and less destructive, than the World Wars: less destructive because it is unlikely to devolve into inter-state military conflict using heavy weaponry (unless outside forces, most likely various Muslim armies, perhaps especially the Turks (who should be expelled from NATO and never allowed accession into the EU), should intervene on the ground); more violent because it will entail a true all-Continent civil war pitting, within virtually every European fatherland, albeit to much different degrees, indigenous patriots against both alien settler-colonialists and the indigenous Hard Left / ‘antifa’ traitors who support them. I think European patriots should make a point of spreading the meme that “Immigration = Future Civil War”. The average European moron needs somehow to get it through his thick, beer-fogged skull that importing nonwhite immigrants is not merely about importing unnecessary social problems, but future enemy soldiers. One does not have to violate internet thread taboos against either promoting racism, or advocating violence, in spreading this meme. But it should be done relentlessly. 16
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:53 | # In terms of what you mean I think you need somewhere around 30% support among the indigenous population for something like that to spring up. However violence has *already* come. It’s been happening in one neighborhood after another for fifty years. The majority population hasn’t reacted to the violence being used against them because it has only ever effected a minority at any one time and the media seals off that part of the population so the majority don’t realize it’s happening. So violence will definitely come - from the other side. It has done for fifty years but the media covered it up. The thing about that point is as the genocide progresses it becomes harder and harder for the media to hide the truth and therefore easier for that 30% figure to be reached. The problem is that 30% will be 30% of the surviving white population at that time so it is likely to be very close to too late by that point. So i think violence is inevitable but it will be started by sections of the immigrant population and that will be the catalyst for the formation of the 30%. Obviously it would be a lot better if we could stop the attempted stealth genocide of our various nations before it got to that point but i think 30% is the magic number. 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:53 | # wobbly@16 Yes, this is why I have spoken of an incredibly violent (but probably durationally short) civil war. It will pit patriots vs aliens + antifa. I wish this would have erupted when I was younger. I had a lot of fighting spirit. I would have liked to have gone and flown to Europe and volunteered for our side. If I should have lived, their would have been plenty of time postwar to have built my career. By the time it does erupt (2025? 2035?), I will be too old and settled to do much more than look after myself and own here Stateside. Maybe make a donation, if an appropriate channel is set up. Though, again, I really don’t think Euro-WW3 will last long enough to resemble past wars. The irony is that for most of my life I have assumed that the race war would begin in the USA. Now, I think we are moving peacefully ever further away past the point of no return. Let us hope the Europeans show more sense of race and heritage than we Americans have. 18
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:39 | #
You’re wrong. It won’t be peaceful. What people don’t understand because the media has censored the turth so well is the vast, vast majority of racist attacks are anti-white. As the white population shrinks and their ability to move away is constrained the violence against them will go up and up. And of course the people doing it won’t differentiate between european whites and jews hence the desire to make Manhattan safe in advance by cleansing it of future threats. 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 09:41 | # You might prove correct, but I don’t think so, except wrt blacks. They will be getting ever more violent, with future attacks less directed amongst themselves, and more at us (Graham Lister and his pro-Negroid sniveling, take note). However, though the US is becoming ever more diverse, the black population, though growing both absolutely and relatively, is nevertheless doing so slowly. Will Hispanics start emulating blacks and direct their hostilities to whites? Possibly. I have been fighting the immigration invasion (including over the past summer and right now .. I hope other Americans here are calling their Congressmen as well) for three decades, so I’m certainly not pro-immigrant or pro-Hispanic. But from what I’ve seen here in SoCal, I tend to doubt it. Hispanics just want the good life. I have interacted with many of them. A few have even been staunch conservatives. They absolutely do NOT possess the level of hate towards whites that self-hating white + Jewish liberal-indoctrinated blacks (and Muslims) do. Also, blacks and Mexicans around here are virtually at war with each other. Not sure if that will end soon. Plus, white Americans are quite well-armed, and arguably are getting more so all the time (at least among the more rightist elements). I think life will just keep going downhill here, until we eventually come to resemble Brazil - super high crime, vast slum cities, ever more militarized police, etc. Not the future I wanted for my country, but one that will still be bearable. I think Europe is where the big interracial hostilities will begin, started up by jihadist Muslims and the dysgenic youth influenced by them. 20
Posted by Weaver on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:12 | # “politically irrelevant black psycho” I want to say he was an Obama supporter. I suppose this is “politically irrevelant”, because we don’t own the media. But were he a Bush supporter or anything closer to the right, we’d all hear about it. I suppose we could fight as our masters fight: declare that Obama supporters are prone to violence. Someone should double check that he was indeed an Obama supporter before using that. I can find if it was him or another later if any are curious. I’ve got to go now. 21
Posted by wobbly on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:18 | #
It’s not about hate and it’s not about all of them. It’s about young males aged c. 14-24 forming violent ethnic gangs to gain and control access to young females. It’s not hate. It’s a reproductive strategy. It has been this way for 60 years as the white population has been cleansed from their living space 1% at a time. It is like it now. It will get increasingly worse in the future as white living space continues to contract. People who think this will end peacefully don’t understand that it has never been peaceful. It’s been a violent genocide from the beginning *but* with only 1% of the white population being cleansed at a time and a media blackout so the majority at any given time didn’t realize they were under attack. 22
Posted by Bill on Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:21 | # Russell Brand, the Che Guevara of Greys Essex. How many here know of or have heard of one Russell Brand? - Whom I would have described as an all-round celebrity media luvvy? Speaking for myself, up until recently he has only been a media name I have vaguely heard of in passing, the name conjuring up a stage image of degenerate alternative comedy now re-branded as edgy, which I understand is an acceptable media descriptive term for degenerate filth dressed up as postmodern humour. Listening to Brand with eyes wide shut, he’s a dead ringer for Ricky Gervais of Office fame. (Essex man accent). OK then. why am I posting about a guy who I would normally put as much distance from me as possible. Well, he has burst into prominence as a most unlikely source of aid to a struggling conscientiousness of being British and is slating the existing scam system of representative democracy. Here’s his pedigree that is rocking the establishment. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/russell-brand-democratic-system-newsnight Brand has been a revelation to me, as well as to the the establishment. He is an Occupy- New Ager making things uncomfortable for the elites. Is Brand of any use to us? Like a few more emerging, they are making people ask themselves important questions. Just look at the faces of the audience on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FUu6M8YQOo Peter Hitchens on BBC Question Time. First Nigel Farage and now Russell Brand. Whod’a thunk it? 23
Posted by Bill on Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:27 | # Speak of the devil, Brand is taking a pasting (so far) in this DT comment. 24
Posted by Bill on Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:21 | # @ 23 Comments on the Guardian-Brand thread climbing to 3500 as I speak. On the Telegraph thread a respectable 450+ Mostly miffed UKIP types ad-hominem attacks against Brand. Pitiful really. I suspect most have not bothered to read what he said. 25
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:40 | # @Bill
That was good. 27
Posted by Bill on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 08:58 | # Almost as an afterthought the BBC popped this item well down the pecking order of the lunchtime news that I watched yesterday. I well remember commenting on the Telegraph threads more than six years ago on something almost identical except only the numbers and dates were any different. Our Camp of the Saints moment passed years ago. No conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along there. 28
Posted by Bill on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:08 | # @ 27 I made reference to Jean Raspail’s - Camp of the Saints published 1973. In the event of people passing who perhaps have not heard of Raspail or his book then perhaps this will be of interest. Doing the blogosphere rounds is a recent interview with Raspail, a sort of updating his thoughts as events unfold in today’s world. This version I spotted at Counter Currents but it is fairly prolific elsewhere. A Google search will unearth a fair number of reader’s reviews/comments of the book itself, I like going to Amazon where reader’s reviews give a wholesome flavour of what it is all about. 29
Posted by Bill on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 20:33 | # Kevin MacDonald concludes his latest opus at Occidental Observer.
30
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 08 Nov 2013 05:18 | #
Why do I keep repeating that the real battles are ethical, not ontological? 31
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:47 | # How much time is left for a political solution? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/28/uk-net-migration-soars-to-243000-theresa-may If politics fails then it’s war. The prospective programme of mass (full) repatriation is getting more difficult all the time.
32
Posted by Bill on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:53 | # I think there is every indication that Britain has reached its Camp of the Saints moment, where millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe are now making their presence felt in so many negative ways, housing, jobs, overburdened institutions, social cohesion, lost of identity, crime, and not least, a national void and sense of foreboding. Our elites are showing no sign of let up, the rip tide of humanity landing on our shores (and through our airports) is applauded by the liberal establishment, and yet still the majority of natives cannot understand the logic of it all. The tipping point looms nearer by each single day. In Raspail’s story the liberal elites cave at every turn, until only Switzerland remains as an armed nation of resistance, only for them to crumble in the final hour in the full glare of liberal guilt, France is lost, western civilisation is lost. There is no indication in Raspail’s thinking that the white race is under threat of existence from a deliberate attack by unknown dark forces or who would undertake such a dastardly plan. Raspail’s tale tells us western civilisation had lost confidence in itself and in some way had no right to determine its tribe’s own future, like rabbits in the headlamp’s glare, whites are paralysed to act in their own defence. Perhaps Britain is at this stage in the cycle of mass immigration, for there is no real sign of resistance from the mass of the people, still less as to what will galvanise them into any future kind of action. Furthermore, Raspail’s unfolding imagination does not extend to a narrative where Britain and America are engaged in fermenting a World war in which to bring about their New World Order, all of which throws Rumsfeld unknown-unknowns into the immigration chaos. As I have commented before, it seems when the elites have accomplished their goal, their is no plan B as to what will replace it. How and when will we know when all is won or lost? 33
Posted by B. Mathews eulogy at Whidbey on Sun, 10 May 2015 19:41 | # Metzger eulogizing Bob Mathews on Whidbey Island, the location and anniversary of his death: http://www.resist.com/war_network/radio_station/war_radio_2015/20150307-TT.mp3 ...repudiates the Right. Post a comment:
Next entry: The best they’ve got
|
|
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 Hymie in Afula on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:28 | #
Wait…. Christian Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Hungarians aren’t “white enough” to live amongst you?
Hitler allowed Lithuanians into his SS, yet you don’t even want to let them work as a bus driver in London?
Did you ever notice that many/most of the Jews we send to genocide you…. are our dumber ones, the ones who CANNOT get a Nobel Prize in physics?
Why is that? Because slow-motion genociding Europeans - is a job that only requires our retarded children to accomplish!!