Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 03:52 | #

“They are two very similar phenomena experiencing a form of cultural despair about themselves and their identities.” - Dominic Grieve

No, their is joy in the struggle, ordinary men are given the opportunity to become heroes.

Posted by the Narrator.. on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:18 | #

long-term inhabitants

Wow!

Just think how insidious that statement is.

In other words there is no such thing as an Englishman in this man’s mind.

He’s essentially saying to the English people, “killing you can’t be a crime since you don’t exist in the first place.”

Unbelievable…

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:10 | #

This is the needed corrective to that POV!

http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2008/09/guarding-bridge.html

Posted by snax on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:36 | #

Narrator: the man in the street KNOWS Dominic Grieve isn’t going to kill him. Tell him what you mean in taxi-driver talk. Even better, fit it to an English taxi-driver with a Welsh wife who shares his cab with a Greek fella.

I want something snappy, like I’ve found Fred’s “race-replacement” to be, although for this thing a few sentences is probably necessary.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:32 | #

Good rant GW we all feel the same.

What is this interview all about?  Cameron must have OK’d it in advance, what’s the point of it?  Assuming of course there is a point to it - on the eve of their party conference..

Posted by John on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:02 | #

The “long-term inhabitants” doesn’t bother me so much. He’s reduced working/middle class ethnic English to that—so what? Hardly offensive name-calling we often chide others about be thick-skinned about. But reducing their legitimate concerns to “fear”. That threadbare communist tactic is offensive.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:18 | #

John writes: But reducing their legitimate concerns to “fear”. That threadbare communist tactic is offensive.

It is another bioweapon in the amygdala war—specifically:

In the State of Nature, a masculine “long-term inhabitant” will fight a “new comer” that he disapproves of being in his territory, and it is correctly perceived that if he does not so fight the “new comer” then he is “fearful” of going man-to-man with the newcomer.  In the Holocaustian State, an individual man who fights an immigrant of another race is labeled as being part of an “oppressive gang” that is attacking the lone individual immigrant—not a “fair fight” and hence committing a “hate crime” for which he can be subjected to “sexual awakening” (the phrase used by one government study for ethnic prisoner gang rape) by those his “gang” “oppresses”.  Our paleolithic instincts just can’t accurately perceive the presence of a monstrous Leviathan—mediating on the side of the immigrant in the amygdala-triggering confrontation between individual native and individual immigrant.  So the primitive rhetoric of “fear” essentially labels the native men as “cowards” unworthy of honor, life, territory or progeny.  It is quite effective biological warfare against the native population.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:57 | #

Bill,

It is market positioning - that’s why the Guardian was selected for the interview (and, lo, it is reported by the BBC, too).

An irony of the demonisation of national feeing by the “ethnic” and “conviction” left is that the Tories can criticise multiculturalism only if they address the left.  To make the same case in the Daily Mail would bring the attack dogs down upon them in an instant.

In any case, the criticism is insincere.  The offence is race-replacement amounting to genocide, not telling us that “cultural background isn’t really very important”.  The Tory buffoons can tell us how culturally important we are until the cows come home, but they will never do anything to help us out of the racial quagmire.  They care about cheap labour, not their own people.

Posted by Mike on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:03 | #

I think this guy needs a Long Term Beating at the hands of who he calls “long term inhabitants”.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:59 | #

For those of you who are not already aware, Robert Whitaker regularly reminds anyone who will listen that genocide is the issue. He has reduced it to a form even taxi drivers should understand. It’s called Bob’s Mantra:

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

The Netherlands is more crowded than Japan, Belgium is more crowded than Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve the RACE problem by bringing in millions of third-worlders and assimilating and intermarrying with them.

The words immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used to promote a program of genocide against the white race.

Everybody says the final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to bring in the third world and assimilate and intermarry with non-whites.

All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.

This is genocide against the white race.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Focusing on this point separates friend from foe more effectively than any other, and the mantra is expressed in simple liberal-speak specifically for this purpose. Who perpetrates the genocide and whether or not it was deliberately planned or is officially pursued is not as important as recognizing that it is the empirical result of the West’s current course. Faced with this point anyone who can still mock, ridicule, deny, or even minimize our situation reveals themselves as an enemy. Conversely, allies who have so far deluded or distracted themselves are likely to be sobered and awakened.

It has worked exactly that way every time I’ve ever seen it used. The only problem is that it isn’t used enough.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:09 | #

“Who perpetrates the genocide and whether or not it was deliberately planned or is officially pursued is not as important as recognizing that it is the empirical result of the West’s current course.  Faced with this point anyone who can still mock, ridicule, deny, or even minimize our situation reveals themselves as an enemy.”  (—Tanstaafl)

This is an important point.  OK, the Jews say they didn’t do it?  All right, I believe them.  Forget Kevin MacDonald, forget whatever impressions I might have had in the past; let’s start over with a clean slate.  We and the Jews are friends, they’re not trying to genocide us.  All are agreed and we’re not mad at them any more.  OK, that’s out of the way, and we can FINALLY get down to the business of fixing the forced race-replacement situation. 

Wait ... not so fast.  There’s still a problem, a big one.  There’s still a huge stumbling block in our way of fixing this.

There IS??????????  OK, what is it this time????????

It’s .......................

THE JEWS.

The JEWS????  GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!  DON’T THEY EVER STOP?????? 

All right, I might have known, but I was stupid.  I thought Euros could work with Jews, but how wrong I was!!  So .... we’re back to square one, and I guess Kevin MacDonald was right all along.

Let’s pick up where we left off, guys.

Posted by John on Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:39 | #

GW: “They care about cheap labour, not their own people.”

Really? That’s it?! That’s the extent of their motivation? I suppose you’re going to tell us next that the terrorist attacks of 2001 were done in order to make a few millions shorting airline stocks.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:32 | #

John,

Show me one loyal Tory heart who hasn’t had to hold his tongue or be thrown out of the Party.  There are none.

The Conservative Party is shy to point of being against an English England.  It much prefers the status quo of the MultiCult, and doesn’t ascribe any meaning to the coming English minority status.  Why?  Certainly, in its mad desire to be relevant it thinks it must also be “correct”, and horribly fears the stigma of being labelled “nasty” and “racist”.  But that isn’t all of it.  The greater part is that the Party is bought by interests inimical to English survivalism, these being the big Jewish and other immigrant doners, and big business generally.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:08 | #

Note that The Monitor has not commented here to reiterate that his denial that any genocide is taking place.

QED

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:50 | #

Here we encounter the multi - culti recurring Christian decimal point, “Grieve is a practising Anglican Christian and a member of the Church’s London Diocesan Synod ” according to wikipedia. After all arent we all, even the English who arrived in immediate post-Roman, Celtic Britain with unseemly haste, God’s immigrants?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:36 | #

“Note that The Monitor has not commented here to reiterate his denial that any genocide is taking place.  QED”  (—Tanstaafl)

DON’T taunt him into coming back, Tanstaafl, puh-LEEZE!  We’re so thankful he’s GONE!  Shhhh, don’t say a word!!

Posted by John on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:46 | #

@guessedworker

I disagree with none of what you said at 9:32pm but strongly disagree with you on motivations. You might dismiss me as conspiracy-minded but it’s not too hard to glean from mainstream published sources that TPTB want a reduced population, decreased fertility and ultimately control of individual reproduction decisions, more androgenous men and women, one world gov’t, one world currency/banking/financial/taxation system where all decisions are made from the top and any remaining vestiges of free enterprise are removed, a managerial/socialistic/police state with mongrelized dumbed-down molocks to run it, a microchipped population, and one world religion/culture/language (to name but a few of their objectives). To say that race-replacement immigration is motivated by “cheap labor” is shallow to say the least, imo. Anyone of any race who doesn’t want to be assimilated should oppose them.

I suggest for topic the elltes’ motivations for immigration to the West.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:29 | #

“I suggest for a topic the elites’ motivations for immigration to the West.”  (—John on Tuesday)

John, in case you haven’t heard, that happens to be precisely THE sixty-four-thousand dollar question around here.  We’ve been trying to figure out the answer since the site opened four years ago (four years ago this month, come to think of it).  But it looks as if you’re pretty well covered it yourself, in the comment you just posted:  their motivation is that they want, as you wrote,

“a reduced population, decreased fertility and ultimately control of individual reproduction decisions, more androgynous men and women, one-world gov’t, a one-world currency/banking/financial/taxation system where all decisions are made from the top and any remaining vestiges of free enterprise are removed, a managerial/socialistic/police state with mongrelized dumbed-down morlocks to run it, a microchipped population, and one-world religion/culture/language (to name but a few of their objectives).”

I think that does a good job of summing it up right there, John, especially the part about the microchip-implanted population of eloi kept in line by mongrelized morlocks straight from the Island of Dr. Moreau, an eloi population that’ll be sure never to give the overlords any backtalk whatsoever.

I think you’ve got it down, John, in all its basics certainly.

Posted by John on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:24 | #

Sorry, I meant Molochs. Disagree if you think they want informed, critically thinking people who have an education that allows them to do more than just their job but have just been dumbing down the education system in the West for the last 70 years “by accident”. Whatever.

Maybe I’m wrong about the elite want a one-world centrally controlled banking/financial system. Silly me.

You’ve got to admit, Great Britain are looking over the last 20 years more and more like a totalitarian police state (they’re more “1984” while Scandinavia, where I live, is more “Brave New World”) and that might not be by accident (i. e., planned that way). In any majority European area where there’s hardly a need for door locks and no muslims to provacateur into terrorist acts with shampoo bottles, a police state is a very hard sell.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:34 | #

John,

The Tories, whom we were discussing, don’t want those things.  Very probably, three-quarters of the managerialist elites don’t want them in any explicit sense.  But somewhere beyond the Bilderberg there are interests with interests in that direction.  Perhaps not the whole package, but as much as it will take to deliver global power and global wealth in perpetuity.

The great difficulty in discussing deep conspiracy theory is precisly that the conspiracy is always very deep, and real knowledge of it unobtainable.  What, then is there to discuss?  How does one discuss a threat the existence of which, ultimately, is completely speculative.  Well, OK, we have the owl in DC, and the Moloch at Bohemian Grove.  And we had Aaron Russo and ...

But I live in the light, and put my mind to the contemplation of things in the light ... events, ideas, people, all of them standing in the light where they can be seen.  Of their meaning and reality I can be certain, or certain enough to navigate my way around the political world.  If I had to go into the darkness and feed my mind suspicion and speculation instead of facts, I would lose the sense I have of moving towards anything solid at all.

That’s just not for me.  It might be for others.  But not me.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:05 | #

John thought I wasn’t agreeing with him but sarcastically parodying him.  I wasn’t.  I was agreeing with him.  It sounded like sarcastic parody because what the élites want is so bizarre, and so evil, that when you faithfully represent it in words it sounds at first hearing like sarcastic parody.

Posted by John on Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:37 | #

GW: The Tories, whom we were discussing, don’t want those things.  Very probably, three-quarters of the managerialist elites don’t want them in any explicit sense.

Maybe not, but are they after “cheap labor” and nothing else? Doesn’t this cheap labor cost them in other ways? Anyway, it might be an interesting topic what motivates

@Fred, I get ridiculed alot by my Sven Svensson friends who are like fish who can’t see the water, so I’ve got a thin skin.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:28 | #

“are they after “cheap labor” and nothing else?”

What I actually said was, “They care about cheap labour, not their own people.”  I didn’t say “They only care about cheap labour”, and I think you probably know that.

Obviously, my intention was to use “cheap labour” as a marker for all the Conservative Party’s adopted interests, ie not the interests of their members or their voting bloc.  Cheap labour, of course, is the interest of the politically-influential business community - but not the only interest.  Open borders is a necessary other.  Low corporate taxation another.  Low regulation another.  A strong centralist state another.  The increasing transnationalisation of governance another.

In the same way, neither Party has anything really different to say about Israel or the War on Terror.

These malign “special interests” drag Labour and Conservative in the same direction, and destroy their distinctive character.  The public hates it, but has no say in the matter.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:08 | #

“The public hates it, but has no say in the matter.”  (—GW)

This is the crux.  As Steven Palese said, something is blocking the democratic process.  What, precisely, is that something?  When a maggot has found its way into a wound you take a tweezer and pull it out.  There’s a maggot in the system somewhere.  It’s hiding but it’s there all right.  It has to be identified and pulled out.

Posted by john on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:03 | #

GW: The only item in your list explicitly related to immigration is cheap labor, (and arguably even there, the costs in welfare, police/ward services, and quality of life and culture that affects even the patrician class to an extent, etc do not underweigh the savings in labor costs). The others are tangentially related at best except open borders, which is kind of tautological.

I meant specifically, what specific “benefits” (other than cheap labor) accrue to those who would bring the third world to Europe. Maybe it’s too broad to be topical to this thread, but (the) Nya Modernatera here and the Christian Democrats in Germany, etc. does the same things.

Posted by john on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:07 | #

Add to above: What strategic objectives are met by turning Europe in Eurabafrica?

Posted by Bill on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:14 | #

ie not the interests of their members or their voting bloc. GW 10.28pm

What do the Tory rank and file feel about immigration?  I have read where as many as 70/80% of the voting public regard immigration as their no.1 concern - so by extension, a similar proportion of the Tory rank and file must feel negative about immigration.  (The public hates it, but has no say in the matter - GW)

Silly question - Why will millions of ordinary conservatives, who hate what is happening to their country, vote for Cameron?

The power of the media rears its ugly head again - the illusion of choice.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:30 | #

“Why will millions of ordinary conservatives, who hate what is happening to their country, vote for Cameron?”  (—Bill)

They’re a combination of confused, snobbish (which explains their rejection of the BNP, in part), dishonest, and — and this is important — able to personally avoid the worst ravages of incompatible immigration by getting themselves and their families away from those neighborhoods and their children away from those schools.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:13 | #

John,

The benefits of Third Worldization depend upon the constituency pressing for it.  They are manifold.  Jews benefit differently from global businesses benefit differently from liberalistic politicians benefit differently from NWOers benefit differently from ethnic minorities already in the West benefit differently from otherwise-deserted faith leaders benefit differently from self-loathers and other liberals who seek moral validity ...

You have to understand that, once the voice of the English is not only marginalised politically but morally oppressed into silence, there is nothing - not a thing - pushing back against Third Worldization.  It doesn’t need a top-down conspiracy, though as I wrote a couple of years ago:-

at the highest, most Bilderbergian levels all the characteristics of conspiracy - exclusivity, secrecy, conversation and decision - do indeed apply.

Life is messy, and rarely corresponds to nice, clean, compartmentalised definitions.  All the interest groups who are served in some respect by Third Worldization have different strategic objectives.  But there is sufficient congruency for the mill to turn and keep turning.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:28 | #

Notice in the comment immediately above by GW (replying to John), specific culprits are named.  None is pulling it off alone, obviously:  what we’re dealing with is an alliance of many and varied interests.  But it’s an alliance made up of specific culprits, all allied against us in their push for race-replacement.  My point is, it’s not nebulous, like managerialism or po-mo liberalism.  It’s not a miasma doing it but specific agents toiling in an alliance of convenience against us.  This is the sort of analysis that is helpful:  identify the germs.  That’s the point I’m trying to make when I reject what I call miasma theories of disease in favor of germ theories of disease.  GW does it right there, in that excellent comment.  If someone says germs aren’t important, only miasmas are, he’s saying if you do identify all the germs involved and counterattack them all by name, you’ll be no closer to solving the problem, because somehow you have to get at the miasma (the miasma being po-mo liberalism and managerialism).  That’s simply not credible, no more credible than that getting at the “bad emanations causing the bubonic plague” instead of getting at the germs causing it is what’s needed to cure it.  No.  Getting at the specific germs is what will cure it, and once that’s done the “emanations” and “bad air” (the managerialism and po-mo liberalism) will fade away from consideration as irrelevancies, if they ever really existed in the first place.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:13 | #

Fred,

All germs ... all of them ... breed in a certain medium, perhaps like a thin film of grime on a kitchen surface.  They don’t create the medium themselves.  It must be present for them to live and breed within it.  In this case that medium is, if I can be as accurate as possible without taking up much space, the potentials present within philosophical liberalism.

For some years now I have been trying to refine and present a model of multiple causalities operating within a favourable philosophical and political environment.  The kitchen surface has to be disinfected with nationalism, so that the chefs and kitchen workers can, once again, lead a gentle and healthy, naturally conservative, beautiful life.

Now, you lean towards the Single Jewish Cause to explain pretty well everything.  You want to neutralise what you see as the virulent pathogen.  For you, as for James, I think it’s fair to say, the medium is European Man’s society, and it is by burning out the pathogen that European Man is saved.

I do disagree with this.  I am adding a component - liberalism - and stating plainly that without this component the pathogen cannot grow.  It cannot grow on European Man’s society alone, as it did not grow over the two millenia until liberalism appeared.

I continue to believe that my “cure” is holistic and complete.  It would hit the elites, big business ... everything.  But, as they say in Big Pharma, it might be several years before a commercial product is on the market.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:36 | #

“It cannot grow on European Man’s society alone, as it did not grow over the two millenia until liberalism appeared.”  (—GW)

You and I have different views of what liberalism is.  I’ve come to see your view as a vague miasma.  The liberalism that, for me, is the problem is post-60s, is very specific, and has been imposed as part of the post-60s Jewish hegemony over the United States exactly as bolshevism was imposed as part of the post-1917 Jewish hegemony over Russia.  So when you say, “It did not grow over the two millennia until liberalism appeared,” I say to myself, “But that liberalism which we’re talking about there was created and imposed by the same pathogen:  it’s an effect of the pathogen having already begun to grow, not a precondition for its growth.  Evidently it makes things more congenial to its continued growth but it was an effect of the pathogen.”

I remember in one of his books which I read, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, early-1900s Canadian arctic explorer, disputed the notion, then common, that catching a cold was caused by exposure to cold.  He pointed out that in all his years of living in, traveling through, and exploring the circumpolar regions he’d never caught a cold or seen any of his men catch one.  He concluded that ambient cold (corresponding here to the miasma) wasn’t the cause of colds, but solely germs, and as long as these weren’t being spread by someone, you didn’t catch a cold no matter how cold it got.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:11 | #

Fred,

The downward spiral began much earlier than 1945 (or maybe the sixties), and it began in Europe.  America itself is a product of that spiral.  The tea wasn’t turning Boston Harbour brown when it began.

Look, you know the origins of the political left and right?  You know how those sitting on the right of the French revolutionary parliament wanted to halt the revolutionary process and turn to constructing the New France.  But those seated on the left were the radicals who wanted to go on and on, overturning every table in the land ... always onward until the old life was destroyed and a New Man born.  The appetite for a radical analysis of human freedom was there already, having been nurtured into an intellectual movement in the years before 1789.

Likewise in America immediately after Appomattox men’s minds were turning to globalism, as Alex has demonstrated here.  These ideas were circulating before Karl Marx published his opus in 1867.

This is what I mean by “the potentials present within philosophical liberalism.”  It is these potentials which harboured the pathogenic intellectualism of Frankfurt, and all that flowed from it.

Liberalism ... the religion of a human freedom isolated from human nature ... has to be got out of us.  You can’t achieve anything that you want without achieving that.  “Events” will always oppose you while men think that freedom is the ultimate human value.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:18 | #

By way of illustration, let me remind you that Alex Linder, the most singular anti-semite in America, has no real politics.  He described himself on a thread here (Cosmic Ants, I think) as a libertarian, more or less.

So we go “thru the Jew” and afterwards do whatever liberalism we like.  Yeah, that will work.

It is philosophical incoherence like this that causes the WN movement to be so patently worthless ... a people as energetic and creative as white Americans cannot put together a single nationalist party of any worth or substance!

The road is plainly signposted “To Failure”.  It has always led to Failure.  Why would it change now?

Posted by Bill on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:43 | #

Assuming this current debacle has not been manufactured and is for real, how worried are our elites?

I don’t remember if I’ve remarked before, but the irony of all this is that apart from some astute bloggers, the professional pundits and the media just didn’t see it coming.

Are they bovvered?  are they restive?  Do they perceive a threat?  They seem agitated and not in control to me and yet still in denial.

It’s a good job Britain’s economy is well placed to ride out this storm. (Cap’n Pugwash Brown)

Interesting times as usual.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:24 | #

That intrepid mariner, Cap’n Pugwash, was skipper of a ship whose name would doubtless be vetoed by Lloyds Register of Shipping in these dire PC days, viz., ‘The Black Pig’ .

Posted by Bill on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:56 | #

Was Boris’s spat with Sir Ian politically incorrect?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/03/police.london