|
|
Comments:2
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:53 | # I tell a lie! The No vote is actually trending downward now. I guess there are little bursts of activity as sites link to it. Re Fred and Latino girls, the MSM are always keen to devote attention to the likes of: Its been a great hardship for me to track down these pictures. Shake their family trees and very few mestizos would fall out, none in some cases I’d bet. Europeans - a lot more. Like I was saying elsewhere, the media are fully devoted to implying that things are almost the opposite of reality. Im guessing most Americans can go all day without seeing latino women of that standard in the street, yet the media are happy to sell the barefaced lie that this what immigration represents. 3
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:28 | # I voted NO. Doesn’t that disprove the theory then of the white minority which in the US are still the vast majority of 200 million people and hold all the positions of power? 4
Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:05 | # Lurker, I think Jessica Alba might be an eighth American (U.S.) Indian, not Latin American. I heard about a genetic testing show presentation-and according to what I read Eva Longoria participated, finding out she is 30% Indigenous Latino. She allgedlly got upset at not being more non-White, and the point is well taken about her not being anywhere near pure indigenous Latin American. However, for the cause of White Preservation-3 out of 10 family tree ancestors being pure indigenous Latin American Indians clearly makes her a non-White. I do agree with you on how they use the relatively White-looking Latinos for their propaganda, however. And great analysis, Fred Scrooby! 5
Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:11 | # My apologies, Lurker. You are correct. Jessica Alba’s father is Mexican. 6
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:59 | #
And of course if her non-white ancestry were greater, the odds are she would be less attractive and have less of a career as a sex symbol. Presumably she would like to be 100% non-white, in which its guaranteed we would never of heard of her in the first place. What a stupid cow! 7
Posted by EA Steve on Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:47 | # And of course if her non-white ancestry were greater, the odds are she would be less attractive and have less of a career as a sex symbol. Presumably she would like to be 100% non-white, in which its guaranteed we would never of heard of her in the first place. What a stupid cow! Oh well. I don’t want her in our genepool, anyways! 8
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:06 | # Agreed! She should reap the full enriching benefits of her non-white folks and live amongst them. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:55 | # Agree with Fred on several issues. I didn’t even know about this until today. Sent an email around notifying friends. Many responded; none had voted, either. As the vast bulk of my friends are demon right wingers, I do have just a bit of a warm feeling about this as well. Obviously, there are more of us than I had thought. People bleat about how this is a “law enforcement, not racial” issue - BS! For some that may be true, but for most, if they search their psyches deeply enough (and for many that doesn’t have to be very deep at all!), it is a moderate way to register a rejection of white race-replacement. I also agree with Fred that there was a subtle bias in the very wording of and pictography with the poll. If they had said ” ... AZ’s modest attempt to try to stop criminal trespassing of the US”, or some such, the results might be still higher. Even better, while I have never subscribe to cable, or even own a tv anymore, I was on vacation earlier this year, and did watch some pundit shows on the resort tv. This included some MSNBC. Correct me if I err, but isn’t Fox more ‘conservative’, while MSNBC is way more liberal? Wouldn’t one therefore expect this poll at least initially to be viewed by more liberals than conservatives? Of course, we might also expect more whites than non-whites (proportionately, not just absolutely) to respond as well, given higher white literacy, IQ, interest in matters beyond the self and of a more sophisticated nature, etc. I bet over 80% of poll takers were white (honestly? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were over 90%). The huge disproportion voting YES thus suggests to me that even many otherwise moderate to liberal whites support cracking down on illegals. This in turn suggests two implications. First, opposition to immigration is something that may increasingly unite whites of otherwise varying ideological positions; and second, Obama’s having the nerve to sue AZ over this will be yet another nail in that affirmative action ass’s political coffin. Finally, the law is indeed altogether too modest. I almost would be inclined to vote NO myself, if I did not understand the larger symbolism. Immigration policy, including any targeted enforcement, really should be a Federal responsibility. The problem with a states’ rights approach is that eventually some whole states could become “sanctuary states” (or even Mexican irredentist ones in the Southwest), as already are some US (traitor) cities, like San Francisco. I support states rights federalism in almost everything, but not deciding on genuinely national issues, like foreign policy, defense - and immigration/naturalization. A small bit of good news, anyway. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:06 | # Further re politics of Obongo suing AZ (from Amren): http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/07/governors_obama.php Dem governors worried about political impact this Fall. It’s not too early to say to all fellow Americans here: MAKE SURE YOU GET EVERYBODY OUT TO VOTE THIS FALL. Unfortunately, it’ll have to be for the GOP, but the message of strength thee would still be helpful to our larger cause. 11
Posted by Angry Indian man on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:57 | # This little piece is intended to any Brit readers that this blog may have. There is no use pretending that the current immigrants (or at least a majority of them) in the UK are motivated to move there due to reasons other than purely economic. Whats wrong in that? Speaking as an indian working in England, I dont see myself as either a genocider or an evil tool against the white race. Who’s fault is it that you dont have enough manufacturing engineers to run your industries for you today (my line of work, btw), not to speak of cab drivers or construction workers? Who’s faults is it that you’re a pathetic bunch of whiney metrosexuals today? It is so easy for you today to forget your colonial past. The same reason I mentioned - economic profit/lust for money motivated YOU people to create your British Raj. How much money do you think the Empire looted off the Indians? I read somewhere that it’d number in the hundreds of billions of pounds in today’s money. How did you think the Industrial Revolution was financed? Are you even aware of the number of indians killed in the battlefields of Western europe and north africa while fighting on behalf of the Empire during the world wars? After all this, you’d grudge a poor indian immigrant a few pounds when he comes to the UK? Where’s your English sense of fairness, mate? Oh wait…there never was any. All you have is a misplaced sense of self-righteousness while overlooking the fact that some of the most shameful events in modern history were carried out by your people. Coming to the issue of inter-race relations, you people seem to think that we are a bunch of crazed maniacs trolling the streets for some white flesh. Ha! Are you aware of the large Anglo Indian (and Portuguese Indian) community in India that came about due to the white man not being able to keep it in his pants while he was out there in India? They happen to be well integrated and no one calls them ‘half-breeds’ or asks for them to be ‘sent back’ or anything like that. Most Indians in the UK have been there at the most 2 generations (I’d say 40 - 50 years), where they’ve tried to integrate into society and add economic value to it, as opposed to the brits who stayed for more than 200 years in my homeland and looted it dry, and killed a few people while they were at it (but thankfully we didnt end up like the Herero, the Namaqua, or the Incas, who were the other victims of White Colonialism, and TRUE genocide victims in my opinion). But oh, I must not forget the railways and the game of cricket that you gave us. And the line that you drew across the subcontinent, dividing it for ever. And the virus called christianity. Thanks a lot, mates! That makes it even! 12
Posted by Oswald Mosely on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:22 | # There is no use pretending that the current immigrants (or at least a majority of them) in the UK are motivated to move there due to reasons other than purely economic. Angry Indian man, Even if it, supposedly, was for “purely economic” reasons various Third Worlders come and live off of our legacy—it is still an admission of inferiority, and not equality, and hence the need to parasite off a superior civilization. *Also - regarding the whole schtick regarding our “colonial” past—remember it was largely the Jewish Rothschilds that were the driving force behind the “British” Empire, and not the average English or Scots-man. So, sorry again for all that, but we cannot let all manner of former ‘colonials’ destroy our civilization and, most especially, our Northern European gene pool as some kind of “amends” for a Mickey-Marxist ‘poisecution’ complex. 13
Posted by Angry Indian guy on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:14 | #
Like I care. Jewish Rotschilds? Are you trying to throw the responsibility on some Jews? That still doesn’t change the fact that the Brits did ‘profit’ a lot from India, and were able to finance their own Industrial revolution through it, as I had mentioned.
That’s just capitalism, mate. You invented the god damn concept! You cant fight the system that has served your needs for soooo many years at the cost of the rest of the world. The East India Company was the first multi-national corporation if you remember your history. It was the father of all multi nationals, the very corporations (backed by the military might of the Empire, obviously) that you owe your comfortable, prosperous existences to. Dont kick yourselves in the stomach mates!(a crude translation of a saying from my mother tongue) Think of it this way - through the process of colonialisation and the unbridled capitalism that you broke upon the world through your precious industrial revolution, you have opened up forces that you could not foresee - immigration being one of them. You cant fight the tide of history. The average immigrant couldn’t give a damn if it was the jewish Rotschilds or the Hittite Pharoahs that brough about this situation, and he definitely does not harbour genocidal intentions, either directly or passively. 14
Posted by one on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:21 | #
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant. What matters is the reality that mass immigration means race replacement. How an individual immigrant views himself is irrelevant. What motivates him is irrelevant. It does not change the reality of race replacement. 15
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:19 | # The poll has been replaced by:
Well anyway, it stood long enough to make a mockery of the notion that genocidal levels of immigration represent “suicide”. 16
Posted by Indian guy on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:11 | #
The transfer of people for economic profit is no new phenomenon for the English - the forcible transfer of Indian workers to Singapore, Fiji and the Caribbean, or the Africans to the New World (albeit to a smaller extent than the Iberians).
Sadly, the considerations of the participants (both the displaced and the natives of the respective lands) was not taken into account back then, and it is wishful to think that the same would happen now. Ultimately, the way I see it, capitalism is the victor. And it is a bitter pill to swallow for those who stand to lose, I agree. But that is the reality of the world today. But it is hypocritical, imo, that the Europeans (especially the Brits) who have benefited from centuries of this sort of human transfer for profit, should now complain when some of the other peoples in the world (the immigrants) stand to gain from it. Am I missing something here? Were the Indian craftsmen and merchants in the 1800’s consulted when mass produced British substitutes pushed them into joblessness and poverty? They didn’t have a bloody choice too! You guys are a bunch of whiners living comfortable lives and enjoying the fruits of capitalism, who do not realise that you have it ‘made’. Share the bloody wealth I say.
Dudes, miscegenation is not as widespread as you think. And not all of us are brainwashed muzzies who want to rape every piece of white flesh we set our eyes on. We just want a bloody decent life to lead. And I promise that once our home countries reach a certain level of economic development, many of us will head back. At least I will. As they say, home is where the heart is. And I consider myself bloody lucky to be born an Indian. 17
Posted by Michael on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:37 | # But it is hypocritical, imo, that the Europeans (especially the Brits) who have benefited from centuries of this sort of human transfer for profit, should now complain when some of the other peoples in the world (the immigrants) stand to gain from it. No it isn’t particularly hypocritical, actually. Obviously, those Britons who are alive today and complaining about immigration did not have anything to do with the East India Company; for this reason they cannot be considered hypocrites. Of course, what you are really suggesting is that one group of white people should be held morally responsible for what another group did. If you are going to apply such collective standards of morality in this manner I suggest you consider the likely consequences - you are in effect forfeiting the right to be treated as an individual yourself (unless you are holding to the hopeless moral position that human rights are parochial and that only people you don’t like shall be treated as a collective mass; is that not the complaint you have against the BNP?); I won’t go too far into the implications, but I hope it isn’t too late before you realise how valuable that right is/was. Were the Indian craftsmen and merchants in the 1800’s consulted when mass produced British substitutes pushed them into joblessness and poverty? They didn’t have a bloody choice too! No they didn’t, did they? I hope you are not suggesting that, a), historical injustices should repeated. This is the sort of thing that many people in the Balkans believe, and look where that got them. Your fall back claim might then be b), that there is little equivalence between modern immigration (good for the economy, including natives) and former empire. You may even have a point - but it would seem a bit odd if you were then implying that a historically guilty group, murderers and thieves as you said, should be rewarded (in this case with immigration); I don’t know of any moral standard that calls for crime to be subsidised. For this reason, many of us still suspect that your real position is in fact a), not b). Is it? Anyway, I’m not holding your feet to the fire here, just raising some points that I think you should consider. I know the arguments of both sides in this long-running debate pretty well. Each side has its “trump cards” and both have their weaknesses. But I think people such as yourself are going to have to realise that the current order that has allowed you to prosper (I don’t begrudge you for that by the way) is going to discover sooner or later that its “self-evident” post-WWII moral foundations aren’t quite so indestructable after all. Once that is understood, a lot of people will need to make some hasty accommodations. I hope, for your sake, that the Gironde will prevail this time. 18
Posted by Angry Beard on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:00 | # The story of history is really the sory of EGI writ large. A tough lesson, and tough words, but it needs to be said. 19
Posted by MIchael on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:08 | # Hi Dasein. The obvious trump card that that diversity party have is the “facts on the ground” card. Consider the following situation - a part-Caribbean/White/Indian kid, whose forebearers have been in Britain at least two or three generations, reaches the age of majority. The BNP by some miracle win the next election and politely inform the individual that they are being deported. Where should they be deported to? That’s the ethical question you will need to answer. The practical question is: this kid will no doubt have friends from a number of different backgrounds. In fact, quite a lot of Britons do. Will they aquiesce to a deportation policy? That’s the question that WNs need to figure out a convincing answer to. If indeed your plan is to “unmix” the batter, how are you actually going to do that humanely? If you aren’t planning on doing so humanely, then how would you convince the voters to go along with it? If I were the liberal elites, that’s the line I’d be constantly pushing. It’s about the only good argument they have. I certainly wouldn’t be running their utterly idiotic and easily-refutable-in-my-sleep lines of “White people have committed historical injustices; we must punish, er, reward them with immigration!”, or “the economy needs it!”, or “Diversity is a strength!!”. Only retarded liberals at the bottom of the food chain genuinely believe that stuff. 20
Posted by Indian chap on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:11 | #
I wonder who’d want to immigrate to India. Seriously. I’m not proud of the way the country’s ‘progressing’ (regressing, in my opinion)
I’m not correlating the English people and the Poles, for heaven’s sake. Just the English people and their ancestors (is that not justified?) Are not all of us, whether willingly or not, inheritors of the results our ancestors actions? (I’m not playing the guilt game here, or suggesting that historical injustices should be repeated…eg. I dont hold the germans today in any way responsible for WW2…just trying to state some hard facts). Are not the Brits today enjoying the various institutions that were built using conquered wealth, even if to a small degree? What about the millions of people around the world who had to climb out of a colonial economic disadvantage and compete with the rest of the world? I dont want their migrating en-masse to the developed world (that would be absurd), but the qualified people from these countries could specialise their skills and take it back to improve their home countries (I know i’m being wishful here). By all means, throw out the cabbies and the cooks…they dont really add any value, anywhere…imo
Thats the funniest thing I’ve heard all day. I’m not sure you’d say the same if you had to struggle for your next meal.
You just played up the differences between the various groups and religions to your advantage…more than soldiers, the Brits were underhanded, two-faced blackmailers and con-men par excellence. I’m not sure I’d be proud of that. 21
Posted by Michael on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:22 | # Fred, I think you’ll find that the majority of people would support a morotorium on immigration. Polls have shown this. The problem is that when they are told that this is also a BNP position, support for a morotorium tends to fall. This tells you that there is something seriously wrong with the BNP brand, firstly, and secondly that once you think beyond a morotorium, as people believe the BNP has, you really need to tread carefully. I don’t think “unmixing the batter” (so to speak) is quite as easy as you think, and you will need to think of a very clear and detailed plan, and how you would publicly justify each step of it (at the very least, the plan would need to stand up under hostile questioning from the likes of Jeremy Paxman). Even if something can be theoretically justified, the practical implementation will potentially alienate many of your countrymen. Which is why, again, you need to go carefully. And if you (not you personally of course) even start to look like this is all based on revulsion towards others, rather than on the basis that all indigenous people have the same right to self-determination, then that will immediately turn off those who you want to convince. Anyway, from that point of view I think Robert Locke has put some interesting ideas forward. 22
Posted by Michael on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:38 | # I’m not correlating the English people and the Poles, for heaven’s sake. Just the English people and their ancestors (is that not justified?) No, it isn’t and I don’t think you have thought through the implications of your argument. In my home country there was an infamous serial killer, executed eventually, who led a parallel life as a decent family man. He bore a few children, and his son became a well-known public figure. Arguably a contributor to society. If I am to take your moral argument properly, you would have to say that the son should enjoy less political or individual liberty than other people who do not have a known criminal ancestor. Do you argue abrogating any of his son’s rights? Would you be prepared to compile a national audit on the ancestry of all Britons, which you would need to do in order to justify treating them any differently to Poles - presumably those with a “clean ancestral slate” (and there will be some) ought to be privileged by the law. Is that what you want? If not, then you cannot apply collectively what you fail to apply individually. This is the key weakness of your position. Are not the Brits today enjoying the various institutions that were built using conquered wealth, even if to a small degree? I don’t know. The onus is on you to do a comprehensive econometric study before you can hold an opinion on that. Have you? What percentage of Britain’s GDP was stolen? Can I have a rough figure? What about the millions of people around the world who had to climb out of a colonial economic disadvantage and compete with the rest of the world? OK, how far back do you want to go? Spain was colonised by Muslims for 700 years, so we’ll call it quits - the Spanish don’t have the obligation to allow other people to enter their country, especially Muslims or other swarthy types. Again, if you are going to make post-colonial arguments, you’ll have a real patchwork of continental grievances to work through. I dont want their migrating en-masse to the developed world (that would be absurd), but the qualified people from these countries could specialise their skills and take it back to improve their home countries (I know i’m being wishful here). Why not? If the wealth of Britain was stolen, as you say, why would you place any barriers to your own people recovering what was lost? If you truly think that we need historical payback, then the very FIRST people to immigrate would logically be those who are the most disadvantaged - cooks, cabbies, etc. I don’t see why you would start with a moral argument, and then backflip to such an unjustified compromise. Those who say outright “the West took our wealth and they must therefore be conquered and destroyed” have a more consistent position. Look, “Indian chap”. If you think you are contributing to Britain more than you take out, then you should say so - and dare your opponents to reduce their own material well-being. Trying to inject half-considered historical morality into this is getting you nowhere. 23
Posted by Indian on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:27 | # Michael, I dont believe in a no-compromise stand, as history is too complicated a minefield to navigate. Some would call it weak, but it is a typically indian (or Hindu) characteristic whereby we empathise with the ‘opponent’, much as it has wrecked us in the past. But if you want ALL the cabbies and cooks that could arrive, all the better I say.
Did the bombs at Dresden or Hiroshima single out the ‘bad guys’?
Spain more than made up for it later, imo.
Can I point you to this? 24
Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:37 | # The muslims, who conquered, occupied and terrorised the best part of India for untold centuries inflicted far more damage on India than the British ever did. 25
Posted by Michael on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:07 | # Did the bombs at Dresden or Hiroshima single out the ‘bad guys’? No they didn’t single out the bad guys - they were in fact unprosecuted war crimes. Somehow, I don’t think the destruction of Dresden or the even worse firebombing and nuking of Japan especially helps you make an ethical case for immigration; unless you approve of collective “punishment” in general while at the same time calling it a “benefit” to the natives. You still haven’t resolved this glaring logical contradiction. By the way, your link to wikipedia gives no data whatsoever on the benefit to the current generation of Britons from the colonisation of India, which ended over 60 years ago. It does talk about the destruction of India’s economy. Again, this is a horrible and humiliating thing to have happened; and it has precisely no implications for British people today. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:24 | # Indian, Empire was an elite project. It was not British peoples who colonised India and elsewhere, but the British political, corporate and financial elites. The presence of Indian peoples in Britain is not required by the British people, is not wanted by the British people, is not legitimated by the consent of the British people. We have no means to deliver a request for you to go, since our political, corporate and financial elites are globalists, extended Jewish phenotypes and race-traitors whose goals are served by the destruction of the bond between British blood and British land. But go is what we want you to do. You will never be welcome, just as the British ruling class was not welcome in India. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? 27
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:51 | # We are supposed to accept Indian immigration because of the empire. Its a punishment then? If it is, then thats an outright admission that Indian immigration is bad for us, the British, and we neednt be concerned with the multicultural nonsense that goes with it. Its a plague on our house, pure and simple. So, thanks for the clarification there. Or, do you mean that as empire was so beneficial to India, now you are repaying the favour? If so, then thanks for that and for the admission that empire wasnt actually The Worst Thing Ever In History - Ever, as thats what we are told 24/7. Of course you could argue the empire was bad for India but Indian immigration good for us, or the empire was good for India, but Indian immigration bad for us - but you didnt try and do that. Not least because that would mean explaining exactly why Indian immigration is good for us. Btw who is going to get the immigration that arises naturally from the legacy of the Mughal Empire? Off the top of my head, Im not exactly sure where those Islamic imperialists hailed from but Ive got a funny feeling their descendants are not being blessed with mass Indian immigration. And thats odd because apparently we must accept these immigrants but they dont need to. Care to explain exactly why that is? 28
Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:24 | # The original Arab colonisers of india hailed from the Arabian peninsuls, the mughals were central asiatic types, allied to the Turks and Mongols. 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:00 | # Posted by Guessedworker on July 16, 2010, 09:24 AM | # Indian, Empire was an elite project. It was not British peoples who colonised India and elsewhere, but the British political, corporate and financial elites. The presence of Indian peoples in Britain is not required by the British people, is not wanted by the British people, is not legitimated by the consent of the British people. We have no means to deliver a request for you to go, since our political, corporate and financial elites are globalists, extended Jewish phenotypes and race-traitors whose goals are served by the destruction of the bond between British blood and British land. But go is what we want you to do. You will never be welcome, just as the British ruling class was not welcome in India. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? ——————————————————————— Very well said. Pithy and pointed. Some of the discussions of “ontological nationalism” and “palingenesis” would be greatly improved if conducted with similar linguistic discipline. That said ... at the risk of being presumptuous, what is the point of responding to such fools? I speak here not simply to the sitemaster, but to all who felt compelled to joust with this Indian ignoramus (he should start remedying his nonsense by studying the history of British imperialism, which was mostly a loser for “John Bull” - but a huge benefit, at least economically, not simply to certain connected British elites, along with various Indian princelings, but to the Indians themselves; the often overwrought Zionistic historian Paul Johnson has on several occasions discussed the extensive benefits of colonialism to the subject peoples). Life is short. The time to save our race is shorter. Might I suggest that commenters devote some more time to figuring out strategies to stop immigration, build white nationalist communities, as well as actually networking in the physical world to build those ‘little platoons’? And to any Americans: what should be our ‘bridge’ organization at this time; that is, the organized force, movement, network of clubs, etc, which is intermediary between the complete racial atomisation we face now, and the volkisch force we want actually to achieve our goals in real time and space? I absolutely have an idea here, but first I’d like to hear from others. 30
Posted by uh on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:41 | # “Life is short. The time to save our race is shorter. Might I suggest that commenters devote some more time to figuring out strategies to stop immigration, build white nationalist communities, as well as actually networking in the physical world to build those ‘little platoons’?” You confuse an effect for its cause. The very reason we are here—is that we can’t. Even GW will admit it. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:09 | # uh, Especially GW will admit it. You will get no argument from me. We live in a hostile psychological environment, yet there is little understanding among us that the foundations have rotted and everything must be swept away. American WNists are particularly susceptible to the belief that if the Jews or the liberals or whatever could just be put back in their box, everything would return to its pre-1960 rosiness. For a job requiring an intellectual pile-driver they are interviewing furniture restorers. 32
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:09 | # “And to any Americans: what should be our ‘bridge’ organization at this time; that is, the organized force, movement, network of clubs, etc, which is intermediary between the complete racial atomisation we face now, and the volkisch force we want actually to achieve our goals in real time and space? I absolutely have an idea here, but first I’d like to hear from others.” At the moment, my best suggestion is to join and support the Constitution Party. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:52 | # I disagree completely. Respecting the social world, I believe in the final victory of physical forces and realities over mere propaganda. Consider the Bolsheviks. Vastly simplifying, from Lenin’s perspective pre-WW1, the likelihood of a Bolshi revolution, when set against the reality of the Tsarist apparatus of repression, and the ignorance and apathy of the mostly Russian peasant population, must have seemed (superficially) very small. Yet he and the other criminals pressed on, did their revolutionary activities, and waited for the opportune time, which finally came with Russian losses and especially hardship on the home front during the war. My point is that all the Church/State “soft power” was no match for determined foes who understood (correctly, even if communism was profoundly wrong about man and society; this assumes of course that the Bolshis were not simply out for the main chance and actually believed their utopian nonsense - a debatable issue, admittedly) that the Tsarist regime did not really serve the interests or desires of the bulk of the population, and that in an increasingly restless and democratic/agitationist age, Russia could not simply cling forever to outmoded forms of rule and governance. Other non-commies (Stolypin, Kerensky) understood this situation of seeming invincibility masking underlying rot objectively as well. Ultimately, self-interest drives men and determines history. This should not be understood as merely materialistic (physical security, then economics, then pride/dignity). Religion certainly plays a huge role, though there is a blunt aspect to that, too: men wish to placate gods or reach Heaven. What does not obtain forever, and will so obtain ever less in a global future of increasing literacy and access to information, is any social structure which rests on a ideational foundation of both falsity and false consciousness. That is, a structure whose central normative justifications are either empirically false, or internally contradictory, and which relies for its perpetuation on a majority remaining in a state of false consciousness. Obviously, the paradigmatic example of such a structure is the contemporary white world’s approach to race. Racial diversification is based, as all here know, on an endless series of both empirical lies about racial realities (eg, races are equal; races are culturally interchangeable; multiracial societies are as harmonious as homogeneous ones, etc), as well as moral justifications which are either false (eg, falsehood 1: Britain’s colonial activities were rapacious towards innocent aboriginal peoples; falsehood 2: even if we admit to #1, past rapacity on the part of a few imposes moral claims on all present day Britons; falsehood 3: even if we admit to #2, justice demands as restitution that Britain should open its borders and grant citizenship and right of residency to unwanted foreigners; etc etc etc; bad reasoning all down the line), or, at least, do not generate ethical imperatives. I submit that there is no moral argument whatsoever proving that whites must racially diversify their societies. Indeed, I believe there are strong moral arguments based in the field of intergenerational ethics suggesting that it is profoundly IMMORAL of whites even to allow their societies to become, willy-nilly, in the course of things, diversified. I further submit that the vast bulk of whites do not benefit from diversification (some do, of course). By “benefit” I mean materially: in terms of economics, personal safety, personal pride/dignity, living space, ease of communications, cultural affinity, neighborliness, etc. Indeed, with the sole exception of those whites who directly economically ‘parasite off’ diversity (eg, the race relations industry, American agribusiness and fast food), or who are sexually attracted to non-whites, I cannot see how whites benefit at all from racial integration and diversification. These are policies solely rooted in false morality (and thus false consciousness). But that is precisely why we can win, indeed expect to win - unless the material/physical situation changes irrevocably (eg, the society becomes so saturated with aliens that it becomes either militarily impossible actually to remove them and restore the status quo ex ante, or at least to do so at an economic (and, yes, moral) cost that the majority - our race - would deem acceptable). Diversification does not serve real white interests. Nor is it morally mandatory. So why does it continue? Because there are powerful forces in favor of it. However, we live still in democracies. If the majority really did not favor diversification, and opposed it passionately and intensely, then it would be ended. The problem is false consciousness. Most whites do not favor their racial dispossession and its effects, but they oppose it only weakly. They do so because they have been (and continue to be) brainwashed into believing that strongly opposing it is morally wrong (and whites, as I never tire of pointing out, are the race which preeminently cares about justice). Can the brainwashing and ultimately diversification be reversed? Yes, because we have both truth and self-interest going for us. And for the moment, we still possess majority power. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:24 | # In fact, I agree with this latest post of Fred’s as well. I stress materiality for the most part. When I stress the moral (philosophical) struggle, as I have here and elsewhere in the past, I do so because our people are not psychologically remotely ready yet for the physical struggle. Until whites become morally convinced of their right to endure, and take what physical measures will be necessary to effectuate that prior right, they will not act racially, absent direct, unquenchable hostilities, which are not however the primary ‘diversity’ problem (and when they do become that problem, we whites may no longer possess the sheer numbers or power to impose our will). Note: this is an empirical claim I am making. You want to save whitey? Unless he’s surrounded by bloodthirsty savages, at which point it may be impossible to save him, all the racial willpower in the world notwithstanding, he just won’t do anything ‘racist’ until he has become convinced that such actions are morally acceptable. GW: You are right that this requires a moral/theoretical revolution, but it will be done within existing traditions. I believe, even respecting Europe, but undeniably wrt the US, this means the Christian tradition. I’ve argued previously here that morality in the absence of God is meaningless. I believe that. At best, without God, it could be based on instincts of affection and sentimentality, such as one feels for children (especially white children, in my case). But without God, only brute self/familial-interest is rational. Who the hell would risk life and limb for ... the white race??! Too abstract, too removed from me, the being deciding what to do, based on a pleasure/pain calculus. What racialists must do is prove within Christianity that white racial loyalty is either imperative (as I truly believe) or at least allowable. (I am slowly working on this.) Then we can move on to the practical questions of strategy and tactics. I don’t wish to ‘dis’ The Ontology Project, but I have to stand with Fred. I doubt seriously that the whole key to the survival of our race will involve Heidegger in any way. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:19 | # Here is my reply, Fred. If I were to follow my paternal line back, say, four or five hundred years, and pick a couple of my male ancestors Blackadder-style at each extreme, I would find that such similarity as they possessed would be only what is heritable in a very general sense. For the most part, I would find two profoundly different personalities, different beliefs and mores, different interests, different expectations of life and power, and so forth. This is wholly because the soil in which they grew was so different. I could not easily explain to the 16th century Puritan the social mores of the 20th century publican, and I could not uncover the social mores of the Puritan lurking in the publican. If it turned out that the only hope of saving the publican from drink and fornication was to impose a fearfully strict and God-fearing way of life on him, I would not suddenly find the Puritan on my hands. We are passive, supine before our times. We are fixed in them, and it only seems to us that we have the power of will to change because we do not understand our true condition. Indeed, we are well insulated from understanding it. To break the fixedness and set the publican on a new course, a pre-determined course, requires a remarkable violence, and that violence is general and it always begins in philosophical theory. Even so, its effect on the publican would be quite marginal. It is his yet unborn children whom one would truly create (but not free - they can never be free in this sense). To be owned by the present is inevitable, and we are. To own the future is very extraordinary. But that is what we are being called to do. 37
Posted by Michael on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:57 | # I think Leon Haller makes some good points. For the present system merely to tread water, the elites will have to lean on ever greater repression and indoctrination. I don’t see how a regime based on pure lies and brute force will be long for this world. As to strategy - I would suggest that the best path forward from here is one of aggressive nullification. It’s probably too early to introduce “solutions”, whatever they might be, because first the public must identify the problem. Anyone seen that series of Youtube videos with the former KGB agent? If you want to overthrow the status quo, the first step is demoralisation. It’s much easier to refute something or to cut someone down than it is to build something positive - this calls for a course of agitating and critiquing and nay-saying and mau-mauing your opponents without relent. Go over to CIF, reveal nothing about your own agenda, and just keep at them. Spread the meme, and keep at it, in every forum, for 5-10 years. 38
Posted by uh on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:04 | # Respecting the social world, I believe in the final victory of physical forces and realities over mere propaganda. Exactly. And all the physical force is on their side. If “force” does not mean the powers of the state to control or quell social movement—which we are not, remember—then force is uniformly on the other side, in fact all other sides but our own. There’s no talking round that. If by “force” you mean anything else, you might as well be aligning yourself with asteroids and tidal waves. The enemy doesn’t deal in mere propaganda—we do. Belief is nothing. Yet he and the other criminals pressed on, did their revolutionary activities, and waited for the opportune time, which finally came with Russian losses and especially hardship on the home front during the war. Well, I suppose we’re all just waiting for Germany to attack our eastern frontier then! My point is that all the Church/State “soft power” was no match for determined foes Determined foes are no match for plastic cargo transport for dissidents, mobile laser cannons, mine-sweeping tanks, and USWs. I’m not sure all that can rightly be called “soft” power. And please don’t tell me you don’t believe one “white man” would never use such methods against another.
I will show you: the sheep have bonded with the lies. It isn’t force, though that can be brought to bear at any moment. You will never see the hold of the lies slacken in the minds of the sheep; and if ever it did, the brute force would quickly make up for it. Spread the meme, and keep at it, in every forum, for 5-10 years. Oh Lord. It just can’t be this absurd. 39
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:19 | #
And that’s the key. It will begin to slacken once the rest of America looks like California. The probability of insurrection in the coming decades seems high. But it doesn’t matter because the other side has already put into place a full-fledged police state with high tech surveillance and weapons which will be at the ready in the event of any such insurrection. Really, NN was correct in that about the only hope America has for any change would be a military coup - but who is to say, in such an event, that the outcome would even be better for us than what we have now? 40
Posted by uh on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:30 | # but who is to say, in such an event, that the outcome would even be better for us than what we have now? This is how the “white nationalist” mind works. It’s all clean logical relations as on a chessboard. The masses will “wake up”, “ideational structure” will crumble, things will “collapse”, and straight to the top will rise white nationalism. This is what happens when you mistake your will & desires for imminent social fact. Poor Guessedworker, who readily admitted my point, has another six years of his sentence remaining—you know, haunting forums, every forum, keeping up the meme-flow before the inevitable deletion. The other day I read about the FBI breaking up an illegal network of—raw milk sharing in California. Raw milk! 41
Posted by uh on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:38 | # Bolsheviks won because there was no f-ing YouTube. For us, who are not a we and will never be, its existence is one of the many signposts in the landscape of our doom. Amazing to me that people can mistake the internet’s little “social media” and PDFs about Jews and the Holocaust for revolutionary activity. 42
Posted by notuswind on Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:08 | # And now for some choice moments brought to you by uh’s stream of consciousness:
Huh?! I beginning to suspect that uh is one of these burned out intellectual types who can’t focus his mind for more than a few moments. Hence the random snippets of craziness. 43
Posted by Last Laugh on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 05:57 | #
I guess that includes this forum too. I can only pity you and your ‘cause’ when certain ‘gospel truths’ you hold dear, when challenged by a random indian guy, get you all worked up. Must be the debilitating effect that centuries of christianity has had on your psyches. And just to clarify my stand, I hold that immigration is part of a wider historical movement set into motion by the forces unleashed by the Europeans themselves in the previous centuries, and that it does not care what the ‘natives’ anywhere think, because nothing can stand in the way of MONEY. As to whether I feel that immigration is a good think for the UK (for the natives), my answer is that it is irrelevant - as long as big money is served, it will continue, and there is nothing you can do about it. NOTHING.
You arrogant piece of shit. If you dont want to ‘joust’, then dont, but resorting to name calling is something I cant stand. As for the ‘ignoramus’ bit, what makes you a scholar on the brit empire? Do you have a PhD in history? Reading one link or one book doesnt mean shit, especially from dubious sources such as those that could be circulated in this forum. Over and out. 44
Posted by Kulak on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:51 | #
Stop letting your envy of White, Northern European, Christian peoples get the best of you with your foul-mouth and childish vulgarity. It is obvious that a random bunch of marginalized White internet dissidents are getting to you, your Desi highness, all worked up and having an effect on your hindu psyche, adroitly challenging the lies and distortions of the “gospel truths” of your multi-kulti worldview.
45
Posted by Desi chap on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:14 | # Thanks Fred, for the sensible words. I apologise to all here for my ‘foul-mouth and childish vulgarity’. Fred, would I be wrong in guessing that you’re American? I’m in favour of anyone who is willing to fight the forces of capitalism and big money! Peace,
Point noted, Sir. 46
Posted by Kulak on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:15 | # Indian/Desi Chap, Let me begin by saying a hearty and warm thanks to your kind and reflective words to myself, Fred Scrooby and the others. Sometimes when we discuss contentious issues such as these we all can, as human beings, have a tendency to get, as Fred says, our tempers overheated, which I have from time-to-time also been a self-inflicted victim of. With intelligent and decent men, however, this need not always be the case, and we certainly can all benefit from a productive, meaningful and thoughtful conversation with eachother—whatever our racial and ethnic background. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Fred that most Asian Indians that I have met and had a personal encounter with more than amply meet this criteria of consideration and gentlemanly respect.
I (and many others here) could not possibly agree with you more on this point, Comrade! 47
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:06 | #
In the course of my researches for an upcoming contribution on UK post-war immigration policy I have had occasion to review the Cabinet papers from the late 40s and 50s and one of the most striking conclusions is how much time and intellectual effort British policy-makers had to put into managing the Empire. Whether it was dealing with the contested succession of the Kingdom of Bechuanaland, or orchestrating the referendum that would decide upon the future structure of the West Indies Federation, or massaging Indian sensibilities in the run-up to the parliamentary debate on the future Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962, or agonising about how to mollify Archibishop Makarios and the EOKA terrorists in Cyprus, the wonder is that any domestic business got transacted at all. Post a comment:
Next entry: Mental models and the historical narrative
|
|
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) |
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:35 | #
Its funny to refresh that page a few times, the Yes vote leaps forward by hundreds over minutes, the No vote staggers forwards by single figures.
Ive voted Yes, in case anyone is wondering!
I think the No vote is progressing though, it was at 4.19% last time I checked, the way things are going it might top 4.20%.