|
|
|
Ethnicity and the 2011 Census in England and Wales We are down to 80/20 per cent. But read on. That headline news and other key points: ■ White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British1 was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent). ■ The White ethnic group accounted for 86.0 per cent of the usual resident population in 2011, a decrease from 91.3 per cent in 2001 and 94.1 per cent in 1991. ■ White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 percentage points). ■ Across the English regions and Wales, London was the most ethnically diverse area, and Wales the least. ■ 91.0 per cent of the usual resident population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British) in 2011. ■ The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011. ■ Most residents of England and Wales belonged to the White ethnic group (86 per cent, 48.2 million) in 2011, and the majority of these belonged to the White British group (80 per cent of the total population, 45.1 million). In London in 2011, 45 per cent (3.7 million) out of 8.2 million usual residents were White British. ■ Twelve per cent (2.0 million) of households with at least two people had partners or household members of different ethnic groups in 2011, a three percentage point increase on 2001 (nine per cent, 1.4 million). ■ Of the 13 per cent (7.5 million) of residents of England and Wales on 27 March 2011 who were born outside of the UK, just over half (3.8 million) arrived in the last 10 years. ■ Nearly 4.8 million residents held a non-UK passport that was either an EU passport (2.3 million) or a foreign passport (2.4 million). The full ONS report on ethnicity is here (pdf). One quote from that report:
Well, the population of England given in the Census is 53 million (Wales 3.1 million). On that basis we were actually at 61% in March 2011. But that is very unlikely to include a satisfactory total for illegals or for legal, non-white non-respondees to the Census. We will minoritise within a decade by a strict reading (ie, excluding Scots, Welsh, N.Irish, and Irish admixtures as fully English). Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:48 | # War, I should think. What else do you honestly think is going to happen? 3
Posted by daniels. on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:52 | # War, I should think. What else do you honestly think is going to happen. I should hope so, but certainly effective strategy would call for some forms of tactical retreat, consolidation and ...incisive tactics. 4
Posted by Bill on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:22 | # Is this our Camp of the Saints moment? http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDFs/Camp_of_the_Saints.pdf My @ 55 The nature of the Beast. Move if you wish to Thread ‘Ethnicity and the 2011 Census in England and Wales’ 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:24 | # Daniel, This is a small country. Consolidation is happening already. It is called White Flight. The real consolidation is in the Mind: awareness of self and the Other. That’s our job. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:26 | # Bill, if you re-paste the comment on this thread I will delete the original. 7
Posted by daniels. on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:15 | # Posted by Guessedworker on December 11, 2012, 01:24 PM | # Daniel, This is a small country. Consolidation is happening already. It is called White Flight. The real consolidation is in the Mind: awareness of self and the Other. That’s our job.
8
Posted by Bill on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:47 | # 2011 Census. Announcement. Just finished watching the mouthpiece of the British establishment, the BBC, silently congratulating themselves that the headline news is London’s whites are now in minority to foreign born. The consensus of opinion according to the BBC News-team at witnessing the success of the changing face of Britain is….. fascinating! Both newsreaders, Sophie Rawarth and Mark Easton found seeing the demographic changes in Britain over the past decade as… fascinating! So there you have it, things are going splendidly. There will no announcement from grim lipped Dave from the steps of No. 10. There will be no statement read out by BBC’s Mr. Gravitas Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell, from a Thames backdrop. Move along there! Nothing to see. 9
Posted by Bill on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:46 | # BBC News December 11th 2012. To those who have not seen today’s BBC News. 10
Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:47 | # There is a recent blog post over at New Statesman that needs more comments: 11
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:51 | #
That’s what makes the difference. It’s so much harder to hide the truth here even with numbers only at US 1970s levels. The other side of that coin though is there’s not a lot of scope for grand tactics as there’s no space. 12
Posted by It's Got To Be UKIP. on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:08 | # Exactly right, GW, it really is that dire - actually probably even worse, as the UK government has got a log track record of understating the truth, and an awful lot of ethnics evade the census. 13
Posted by Bill on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:47 | # @12
Yes I did. This was an absolute travesty, I switched off after 10/15 minutes, I couldn’t stand it any longer. Where do they get these people from? The BBC live in a bubble oblivious to millions of people who don’t think like they do. As I say, an absolute travesty! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pdy79/Newsnight_11_12_2012/ Farage is in the cross hairs of the Guardian this morning. Farage is a monster! See the comments. Comes with government health warning. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/11/ukip-david-cameron-gay-marriage This is interesting in of itself, Farage entering the mainstream. It’s happening! 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:49 | # UKIPper, I did not watch Newsnight but I note that the DT didn’t allow comments on its main Census article. A piece by Damian Thompson on the rise of Islam: ... and another by James Kirkup and Tim Ross on Damian Green and his Europhilia: ... have both been seized upon by anti-immigration commenters - check the “best rated”. Where comments are enabled, the DT threads are ours. I am wondering where to try next. 15
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:55 | # [Perhaps this should be carried over to this new thread.]
16
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:15 | # My reading skills may have begun their age-related decline, but I somehow have missed the reference to the following:
Um, who is this “we”, and they are down to 20% of what? As with the first, so with the last: I cannot get the sense of the following, either:
Are you referring to “English sole-identity” (which I take to mean, those id’ing themselves as only English - no other white admixture, not even Scots, Welsh, etc - that’s a pretty damn strict ethnonational standard, BTW/LMAO!!), and only in London? It can’t be the case that white British identity persons will be a minority, even just of England, within a decade, at least not on the numbers provided. Please clarify. BTW, as a tactical PR matter, I don’t think you ought to draw ethnic standards so severely. English nationalists should be dividing friend/enemy along visibly distinct racial lines - at least at first. You’re going to have to have the largest possible white population on your side if you intend to overcome the army of nonwhites + leftist race traitors. By what I perceive to be your standards, I myself would be judged an alien, and this even if I had been born on UK soil, and spoke with your, ahem, accent, as I only have a small portion of English blood in me. But I am a pure Nordic racial type, and look no different from any number of Anglo-Americans (Bush, Clinton, etc). Actually, I somewhat resemble your current PM Cameron - same hair color, complexion, (not sure re eye color), tall, etc. The enemy is the non-European. Once they have been removed, getting non-English whites to leave, if that should be desired, should be a piece of cake. 17
Posted by Bob on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:55 | # Leon is on target, all whites world wide should be behind the movement to rid our lands of the OTHERS 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:56 | # Leon, Scotland is not going to vote for independence. So you are asking me to indulge in a completely theoretical exercise. On that basis, it boils down to this: Are the Tories ideological liberals or is it all just electoral calculation. This question can be answered as follows: Yes, they are liberals. They are also power elitists, the whore of big business and the banks, obsequious servants of Jewry ... They have to be put to the sword, and that is UKIP’s historic task. 19
Posted by Zale on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:34 | # There will be no war. A populace that moved many centuries ago from kinship based reciprocity to non-kinship based reciprocity where the state is the arbiter of contract and essentially the sole exponent of violence is a populace that trends to industriousness and thrift but also eventually to dependence and docility. 20
Posted by Anon on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:12 | # Every cloud has a silver lining. A brown Britain is less likely to support Israel and more likely to support the brown Palestinians over the white skinned Israelis. The vampires have decided they want to rule over a country of brown people, but the joke is that the brown people will produce less wealth for the vampires to feed off than white people. So whilst they can claim victory over white British people, it is a hollow victory. A brown Britain means less security for Israel, less sympathy for the Jews and less wealth for the Jews. How ironic. 21
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:47 | # I don’t think it’s any consolation that a brown Britain MIGHT translate into less security for Israel. As far a Israel goes, it is already the most insecure sate on the planet. They’re surrounded by 1.3 billion Muzzies that hellbent on wiping Israel off the map. Add to that all the rest of the non-Muzzies that hate Jews and the State of Israel. Top it all off with the many secular Jews that don’t support Israel. Bottom line: The only danger Israel poses to the rest of the world is their threat to exercise the Sampson Option. Other than that, Jews are a dying breed and the Jewish Sate of Israel will wither away well before the end of this century. —- Obama/CIA Gives Netanyahu his Pink Slip? 22
Posted by Silver on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:12 | # Haller, Yes, I was confused by “down to 20%” too. I interpreted it as meaning “we’re up to 20% non-British.” The unalloyed English minoritizing within a decade (in England, not just London) is not far off, even if it is an overestimate. The English are skewed towards the eldery and a significant portion of births to English mothers are the result of miscegenation so the combination of the deaths of members of older cohorts and the reduced-white proportion of the youngest cohorts will have the effect of speeding up the transition. Based on present trends it promises to be a rapid slide from 50% to 33% and lower. A great deal depends on what happens on the immigration front, though, so this certainly isn’t baked into the cake just yet. The enemy is the non-European. Once they have been removed, getting non-English whites to leave, if that should be desired, should be a piece of cake. Yeah, Haller, no one’s ever gonna see that one coming! Will you get real? (Seriously, what would it take for you to get real? Your entire attitude is I’m White and I’m mad and therefore I’ll propose whatever I goddamn feel; those who don’t like it can go hang. But reality doesn’t care for your feelings. It happily rolls along being reality regardless of how you feel about it.) Now, look, you’re not going to ‘sneak up’ on anyone this way. But just because you’re not going to sneak up doesn’t mean you can’t garner outsider support. Non-English whites in England (and everywhere else) stand to lose a great deal if racial politics continues to play out the way it has been. They’ll lose in England and they’ll lose in their home countries, too. Efforts to garner their support need to make clear (in one way or another, directly or indirectly) that by helping the English they are helping themselves. In reality, of course—remember, we’re dealing with reality—there’s no need to artificially restrict that reasoning to non-English whites. The reasoning applies to anyone who cares about racial belonging (of any sort). The typical WN, in my experience, cannot bring himself to believe that anyone but whites could possibly care about their future racial existence, and yet, if you care to look, reality would reveal that many of them do care. This really isn’t an inordinately difficult concept to grasp, but if you’re a mad-as-hell WN, and you’ve vowed that you’re not going to take it anymore, and you’re champing at the bit to shoot some non-whites, it’s understandable that this point may escape you. That moves me to my next point. GW asks
Honestly? Not war. Not any time soon. Not a chance. If I’m wrong, all bets are off. But if I’m correct, and you consider what I said above, then the next move to me seems obvious: an organized effort towards ‘racial reform.’ That, of course, would require you to engage the public on its terms, not on your own. That’s a task you may or may not be up to, but it’s moving ahead with or without your consent anyway, old chap. If you like you can continue to hold the fort on purer strains of nationalism (philosophy, attitude, political objectives and so on), but the racial stakes are too great to bet everything on Heidegger making a clean sweep. 23
Posted by Silver on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:24 | #
Maybe, but it’s common to find significant counter-trends amid even the most pronounced long-term trends. The point then should be to position yourself to catch that next counter-trend wave and ride it for all its worth. Then even if things eventually settle back into the pattern of “dependance and docility” at least you might emerge from the interlude with a race worth calling your own. The last thing you want to do is throw your hands up in despair, especially when the basis on which you’re doing so may be no more than pseudoscientific piffle. 24
Posted by Silver on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:16 | #
That’s not really true, though. UK land is composed of 25% arable (land both under crops and lying fallow), 45% pastures (grazing land) and 12% woodland (forest). (FAO for arable and pastures; various sources in agreement for woodland.) Unless I’m missing a very important detail that leaves some 18% available for urbanism. 18% of total UK land area is about 40,000 square km. If that territory were inhabited at a population density merely half of Greater London’s it would allow for a total population of 100 milion; at a London population density 200 million could be accomodated. This isn’t overcrowded. London ranks among the leaders of world cities in terms of parkland area. Starting with that, then, even in an absolute worse comes to worse, nightmare scenario in which immigration isn’t halted, and the UK adds another 50-100 million immigrants (the rest of the growth to 200 million being provided by natural increase) before any serious sort of racial reaction occurs, that could still potentially leave the UK 20-25% white (and of a mind to stay white, the weaker hands having mixed out earlier on) over the next hundred years. If the major racial groupings at that point are white, mixed, black and asian, and are roughly evenly distributed, it leaves whites and ‘white sympathizers’ (composed of, say 50% of the mixed population, 15% of asians, and 5% of blacks) as an influential political plurality of about 40% . That sounds pretty grim, but this is a worst case, nightmare scenario, recall, so it’s encouraging to think that even not all would be lost. 25
Posted by Andrew Neather on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:04 | # Silver, When you talk about other races being ‘white sympathizers’ I haven’t a clue what you mean. If they actually gave a shit about us, the best thing they could do is to go home and leave us alone. 26
Posted by Dude on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:18 | # Whatever else might happen over the next critical twenty years some consideration should be given to developing a philosophy of the European disapora now. Those who heed the call can more readily will direct their amity to those within and their enmity to those without and stand ready to aid in whatever way becomes the most practical and self-supporting across national borders. 27
Posted by (Dude) US Census - Minority in 2043 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:56 | # http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/12/census-whites-no-longer-a-majority-in-us-by-2043/ 28
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:28 | # Dude @26 Yes and no; or, Yes for non-Europe-based whites, a loud “NO!” for Europe itself. I have been arguing for a very long time that a “white civil rights” group (as opposed to white supremacist or even WN ones - not quite the same things, btw) is absolutely necessary for the US (probably soon, too, for Canada and New Zealand; our Southern African brethren, OTOH, just need to escape to the West). American whites are soon to be living under nonwhite electoral domination (arguably we already are, post-Obama reelection), and within a decade or so, demographic domination. However, there are still a lot of whites in America in absolute numbers, and a lot of conservative whites in absolute numbers (even though numbers of both are falling; however, I’m not convinced that white racial liberalism, which is actually growing among young whites - how else honestly to explain the votes for Obama: successful administration of the economy (:angry: )? - will necessarily continue to grow even in the face of ever greater and more obvious race-based outrages and problems ... as a realist, racial and otherwise, I think people’s real, material/bodily/survival interests do tend to win them over in the end, even if a nation’s greater wealth does allow for long periods of increased susceptibility to ideological brainwashing, at least amongst the relatively hyper-imaginative and thus less - dare I say? - ‘ontologically grounded’ white race). These whites aren’t just going to run away to foreign climes any time soon. White Americans are already being minoritized or “diasporized”, transformed into internal refugees in our own land (those last three words require an entire ethical philosophy be developed to prove their truth). Someday this may/will lead to race war, as long predicted. But we’re not going to get from race liberalism to race nationalism (let alone warfare) overnight. There will be a long intermediate stage, which we have entered now, during which whites will be ever more disempowered, yet still not fully conquered - all the while remaining capable of living at least somewhat normal (non-racially obsessed) lives. For this period we need an ideological/political ‘bridge’ linking normal conservatism with the WP/WN of the future, as well as an activist movement to defend white economic and political interests within the existent system until racial activists have awakened enough of our people for WPs to be able to mount serious challenges to that system (either in the form of racial reempowerment measures, especially at the state and county levels, or fundamental secessionist moves toward the White Republic). In other words, white Americans need to formulate strategies for surviving (and thriving) within a nonwhite majoritarian America, for living as a diasporic people. We will only be able to do so to the extent we dramatically increase our racial consciousness (of course, had we raised it in time, we might have prevented our diasporization altogether ... (sigh) ... oh how long I/we have warned the mainstream conservative douchebags ... ), which, of course, is our main task today (along with stopping immigration by any possible means or arguments, racial or otherwise). But Europeans must never think of themselves as a diasporic people within Europe itself, nor must they allow themselves to become one. For Europe the ONLY goal is TOTAL EXPULSION of the Racial Other (though I would also hope that a few dozen million white leftists could be conveniently exterminated in the course of the racial reclamation project - which hope is not idle, as undoubtedly hordes of self-hating white traitors will join with their nonwhite ‘brothers’ in violently resisting any indigenous patriotic measures). But let me add that, yes, whites everywhere must make common cause with each other on the basis of race. Intrawhite ethnonationalist hostilities or ill-feeling must be vigorously discouraged (which is not to say that intrawhite immigration should be encouraged, except on a case by case basis: eg, Canada and Australia need white immigrants, Britain does not). 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:30 | # What happened to my parenthesized non-smiling “smiley” @ 28? 30
Posted by Dude on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:02 | #
Leon, I do not suggest adopting a mental state that affirms the (to coin a phrase) ‘wandering European’ as a motivating philosophy, but a worldwide fraternity to which ethno and racio-centric Europeans may join, subject to certain stipulations, that recognises our comradeship as well as kinship in the midst of the darkening European living spaces. That builds that community and educates and shares within itself as if the members were immediate family. That develops deep belonging in a world of bowling alone. Also sadly, one that might eventually have to consider those Europeans outside as potentially lost at best and actively hostile at worst, regardless of GW’s (true) view of their suffering from a debilitating psychological sickness. I do not think of this sort of thing as an overtly political organisation in the sense of being outward facing activism. Those type of activities (such as your civrights comment) while growing out of the membership would purposefully be kept separate as run as quasi-independent entities in their own right. At least, it seems the time is coming for something like this. Following on from this interview I offer a suggestion of a name: Our Europe (Europa Nostra)
31
Posted by Dude on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:04 | # Just noticed that you have answered in a different thread and at the witching hour I have followed your example. 32
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:08 | #
The lack of space argument is that unlike the states there’s nowhere to run. The point of decision - war or capitulation - will be reached sooner.
The reciprocity or rather the lack of it may turn out to be the key. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:11 | # Ok, I’m back for a bit. Silver@22-24
First, I’m glad you’re speaking my language now, at least wrt the issue of who is/is not white. If you’re white/nonwhite mixed, YOU AIN’T WHITE! Thus, to put a hard exclamation point on this, if I married my slightly less than half-Jap GF, such that any kids of ours would be a bit more than 3/4 white (and white of the most Nordic stocks, incidentally) - THEY STILL WOULD NOT BE WHITE!! I don’t know where the cut-off should be placed, but it has to be a lot less than 1/4 (I believe the Nazis defined it at 1/32 or less, but I can’t recall if that was for “white” or “German” or “Aryan”, and more importantly, if that was to define Jewishness or general nonwhiteness; if the former, then, wrt the latter, the cutoff would have to be much tighter, as Jews are at least Caucasoids). OTOH, note that, imo, there should be some “grace point”, beyond which we are, er, ‘tolerant’ of mixture. This is so for two reasons. First, our racial numbers are declining rapidly, and frankly, we need all the allies we can get. My standard - if a man looks white, acts white, and fights white: he’s white! - seems reasonable, all things considered. Second, and related to the first point, there are a lot of subjective whites (WPs) who do have tiny “First Nations” admixtures from way back. This is especially true in North America and, interestingly, in South Africa. [Sometimes you can even see this, as with some family of mine who’s family on the side not genetically related to me go right the way back to the very beginning of English colonization of the US. Although blonde and fair, they have very dark eyes, and just a hint of Asiatic in the face. I have another self-considered white friend who looks almost mixed Asian, but only because he has a single 19th century Hawaiian in his ancestry. Should we give these white persons the boot? Can we afford to? At some point we must move along lines of common sense, from genetic to cultural understandings of race.] If we gave the racial boot to every white American with a bit of “pioneer Indian” in him, we’d lose some of the best, most traditionalist, most potentially WP members of our race, because, after all, most white Americans with “injun” in ‘em are also very Old Stock, and thus persons correspondingly less amenable to “nation of immigrants” appeals. I’ve seen this firsthand, btw. Any stats on the rate/numbers of contemporary British miscgenation? I’ve long been aware of the “rapid demographic slide at the backside” argument, and it is a real worry, not only in terms of miscegenation, but the lack of fecundity among increasingly single whites (everywhere, really). Pat Buchanan discussed this a decade ago in The Death of the West. Basically, we face the following: 1) large existing numbers of nonwhites currently resident in white territories (in Europe these are immigrants, or their children; outside Europe, these are First Nations peoples, descendants of African slaves, plus immigrants and their children) 2) declining white family formation 3) declining white births 4) nonwhite fertility rates that are higher than white fertility 5) increasing white/nonwhite miscegenation 6) continuing mass immigration, illegal and legal 7) intensifying diversitarian brainwashing 8) intensifying political/cultural repression of WPs. The notion that we can defeat all this except via White Zion strikes me as naive (though I hope I’m wrong, and perhaps I shall be). The West needed WN arguments 50 years ago, and WP measures (like ending immigration, for starters) no later than 30 years ago. Now, all this is too late. In another 20 years, WPs/WNs will have oh such beautiful scientific and metapolitical theories - and too few potential converts (and too numerous and powerful enemies).
34
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:47 | # wow, I didn’t know our situation here is so desperate. I wonder why the price of condo’s here keeps going up and up and up? We’ll put aside a corner of Rosh Pina for you Euro Whites. You’ll love that foggy weather. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:57 | # Silver@22-24
Yeah, Haller, no one’s ever gonna see that one coming! Will you get real? (Seriously, what would it take for you to get real? Your entire attitude is I’m White and I’m mad and therefore I’ll propose whatever I goddamn feel; those who don’t like it can go hang. But reality doesn’t care for your feelings. It happily rolls along being reality regardless of how you feel about it.) Now, look, you’re not going to ‘sneak up’ on anyone this way. But just because you’re not going to sneak up doesn’t mean you can’t garner outsider support. Non-English whites in England (and everywhere else) stand to lose a great deal if racial politics continues to play out the way it has been. They’ll lose in England and they’ll lose in their home countries, too. Efforts to garner their support need to make clear (in one way or another, directly or indirectly) that by helping the English they are helping themselves. In reality, of course—remember, we’re dealing with reality—there’s no need to artificially restrict that reasoning to non-English whites. The reasoning applies to anyone who cares about racial belonging (of any sort). The typical WN, in my experience, cannot bring himself to believe that anyone but whites could possibly care about their future racial existence, and yet, if you care to look, reality would reveal that many of them do care. This really isn’t an inordinately difficult concept to grasp, but if you’re a mad-as-hell WN, and you’ve vowed that you’re not going to take it anymore, and you’re champing at the bit to shoot some non-whites, it’s understandable that this point may escape you.</blockquote> I have no idea what you’re blathering about here. Who’s talking about “sneaking”, or advocating any harsh measures against other whites? I was responding to GW’s points. I am a RACIAL NATIONALIST (actually White Patriot), not an ethnonationalist. I do not oppose specific European nationalisms, if that is the best way in particular circumstances to advance a functional racial nationalist agenda. Maybe “White Denmark” is too much for the little Danes, but “Denmark for Danes” would gain traction. Whatever works to keep territories as white as possible is what I support (unless specific ethnonationalisms resulted in actual or potential harm to other whites, in which case I would be opposed to them; I dislike the conflict in Northern Ireland, though I’m on the side of the Prods against my fellow “Catholics” [IRA = bunch of filthy leftists]; I would also promote peace between, say, Serbs and Croats). No nonwhite cares about the survival of whites (except perhaps some very intelligent ones, who recognize how horrific the world will grow without us). That other races care very much about themselves doesn’t in the least translate into them caring about us, except in terms of how much they can loot from us. This is obvious; perhaps I’m not grasping your argument.
Agreed, war is yet a long way off (unfortunately), at least in Europe (though probably also in the US). Beyond that, again I’m unclear what you’re getting at. You are a great one for hinting, implying, insinuating. OUT WITH IT, MY GOOD MAN! Pretend you’re a proud Anglo-Nordic Old Stock, and just state your positions manfully. What do you want, and when do you want it? I repeat my position: For Europe: TOTAL EXPULSION OF ALL NONWHITES (incl Jews). We should try to effectuate this in as Christian a manner as possible. Those nonwhites who peacefully pack up and leave should be allowed to do so unmolested (for moral as well as tactical reasons). Those who violently resist should be viewed in their precise (moral) status: as enemy occupiers, and treated accordingly. No whining about “But I was born here” etc. Plenty of whites were born in Third World countries, from which they were unceremoniously robbed of property and thrown out (if not raped and/or massacred), despite having given a great deal more to their occupied territories, in the form of infrastructure, Western law, educational and parliamentary establishments, hospitals, etc ad nauseam, than the foreign parasites who have been allowed by treasonous elites to colonize our lands have given to us, the natives. History is jagged; we must try to be fair, but fairness applies first and foremost to us the indigenous (and yes, I’m an indigenous American: when my ancestors arrived, many pre-Revolution, all pre-20th century, little of the country had been settled or built up; today’s Third World invaders are like ancient nomads looting the hard proceeds of a settled agricultural community - nb - contra Graham Lister, libertarian ethical theories of homesteading will play a large role in the development of a WP ethical philosophy, this so much more useful, incidentally, than the convoluted if not Lewis Carollian “ontological nationalist” wordplay going on elsewhere at MR). [I agree that the mu Heideggerian sweep might not be our best hope or path forward - lol.] Beyond the expulsions, Europe must reconfigure its political economy and educational systems (which in turn must be purged of all multikult propaganda, obviously) to recognize the true worth of children. For at least two generations, Europeans going forward must place increasing natality at the top of their governmental agendas. Large families should be subsidized, whether directly or via tax incentives, in all ways necessary to ensure a dramatic population expansion (which, however, will not initially result in any overcrowding, given that it will be merely counteracting a forthcoming dramatic population decline). I would favor the application of eugenicist principles, too, but it is the raw increase in births by which success should be judged. We need a lot more race-pure whites, for economic and geopolitical considerations, as well as purely racial survivalist ones. Outside Europe: A) End nonwhite immigration. B) Deport illegal aliens. C) Encourage white immigration (except of known leftists, as happened after Weimar’s end). D) Try to reduce interracial wealth transfers. E) Fight for white reempowerment, nonwhite disempowerment (eg, national Voter ID laws, felon disenfranchisement laws, end affirmative action, grant independence to US overseas possessions, like Puerto Rico, promote concealed carry, weaken antidiscrimination law, promote tougher law and order, esp in cities, etc). F) Long term, work towards WP ingathering and the White Republic and/or White Zion. Basically, in the New World, our focus should be on stopping white disempowerment, esp via immigration, as well as informally encouraging white fertility, and building up white consciousness towards a goal of future secession. 36
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:30 | # >> They’re surrounded by 1.3 billion Muzzies that hellbent on wiping Israel off the map
Yeah, we use proxies as needed. So cry me a river about it. You’re jealous that we routinely outfox you. You can join the Muslims. EurArbia pretty much already has. Your grandchildren will need us more than we need them. 37
Posted by Silver on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:25 | #
I don’t need to live there to have an idea of it. I can look up the population density and compare it to regions with similar density near me.
That can be an eyesore to those who abhor too many people but what it means is that for a given population density, say London’s (5000/km2), if some parts are multiples of that density (15,000 or 20,000/km2, say) then other parts will be fractions of it, with a more relaxed, suburban feel to them. Some people enjoy high population density, others don’t. I don’t think it’s too glib to say there’s something there for everyone.
Oh piss off. If you want to confine yourself to the woe-is-me nationalist ghetto, fine. Go cry into your beer alongside Leon Haller. Misery loves company and all that. Just leave people actually willing to engage the world to do their thing. Now look, you people have had fifty fucking years to make your case. Yes, much of it under very trying circumstances, but nevertheless, your record of total, total, total failure screams loud and clear that you’ve been barking up the wrong the tree the entire time. “Oh, well, if they ‘cared’ about us they’d just go home.” Total bullshit. You’re assailling humans for having a human nature. No one is going to stop dead in his tracks, struck dumb by your pristine logic and proclaim, “Why, yes, I see it! I see what’s wrong with this country: it’s my presence in it!” But just because they aren’t willing to acknowledge that their presence is the long-term problem it doesn’t necessarily follow from that they’re feverishly anti-white. A ‘white sympathizer,’ then, in the simplest formulation, would be a non-white who is not anti-white and who refuses to join in the anti-white hate-fest. Maybe in the nationalist imagination such people don’t exist, but back in the real world they assuredly do, and they are going to figure prominently in the political landscape whether a ghetto nationalist wishes to acknowledge their existence or not. None of this is to say that racial objectives should not be pursued. But the abominably dumb “all non-whties get the fuck out right this minute” formula, attitude towards and conception of life is just not going to cut it.
38
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:38 | # I don’t need to live there to have an idea of it. I can look up the population density and compare it to regions with similar density near me. In the days just prior to the Internet’s becoming effective, say around ten years ago, I tried to explain the situation to people unfamiliar with the nightmare of living with Blacks. I was asked, “what percentage of America are Blacks?” I answered, 12%. To which, my interlocutor responded, “oh, that’s not so bad.”
39
Posted by Silver on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:59 | #
This is pretty confused. You begin by claiming that I now agree with you that there’s an easy demarcation, but your attempt at a definition only highlights that there is no such easy demarcation. Moreover, this idea of “cut-offs” is the stuff of racial science nerds, not real world political activity. It would be one thing if you had political power. Then perhaps there’s a chance you could enforce your strict standards. But attempting to achieve power on the basis that you’re going to walk up to some extended family, look each member up and down and tell them, “You’re in; you’re out; you’re in; you’re out; you’re in; you’re in—no, wait, you’re out; you’re…” is too stupid for words.
If you’re asking me, no I don’t have any stats at hand. I think there was an attempt here to estimate it by, if memory serves, Dasein and Dan. It’s not really necessary to know precisely what it is over the timeframe relevant to us. Whether it’s 10%, 20% or reaches as much as 50% (certainly a possibility, however remote) over the next fifty years, a nerve-wracking demographic slide is all but certain. It’s the beliefs, behavior and resolve of the remnant that is of greatest relevance. 40
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:03 | # Dude 26, says, and I agree: Posted by Dude on December 12, 2012, 04:18 PM | # Whatever else might happen over the next critical twenty years some consideration should be given to developing a philosophy of the European disapora now. Those who heed the call can more readily will direct their amity to those within and their enmity to those without and stand ready to aid in whatever way becomes the most practical and self-supporting across national borders.
“I would also hope that a few dozen million white leftists could be conveniently exterminated” ..inasmuch, this obscures the clarifying and distinguishing term: The White Left It is important to defend that term as being for Whites only (and for members of the particular native European national, only) Dude says in 30: ..: “I do not suggest adopting a mental state that affirms the (to coin a phrase) ‘wandering European’ as a motivating philosophy, but a worldwide fraternity to which ethno and racio-centric Europeans may join, subject to certain stipulations, that recognises our comradeship as well as kinship in the midst of the darkening European living spaces.” Again, I agree - it corresponds with organizing on the basis of our DNA, its national European categories and some tactical (provisional) retreat
42
Posted by Silver on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:18 | #
But I’m not just looking at the numbers from a distance. I’m looking at them and comparing them to the same thing where I live. If you told me your city was 30% black and I knew of a city that was 30% black and I had visited it I would indeed have some idea of what that means. People who casually dismiss the US being 12% black as anything to worry about are most certainly ignorant. America’s biggest and best cities are full of mile after mile after mile of almost literally nothing but niggers. That is not livable environment by any stretch of the imagination. One of the first things I did when I came to America was to walk into a food court in a shopping mall. It was all niggers. What an arresting sight. I’d never experienced anything even close to it. The funny thing is the shopping mall didn’t even seem to be all that niggerfied just walking through it. It was only when I reached the food court and saw them jam packed like that that my mind started racing. It didn’t take much after that to disabuse me of my naive notions about race and racism. I came to America fully expecting to hate the racists but left hating the niggers. (Not ‘hating’ them in the sense of wanting to hur them, but you know what I mean…)
43
Posted by Silver on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:56 | #
Just how is anyone supposed to interpret: “The enemy is the non-European. Once they have been removed, getting non-English whites to leave, if that should be desired, should be a piece of cake.”? The proposal is to recruit all whites, of whatever provenance, to support the restoration of White Britain. After that task has been accomplished the job can be finished by expelling the remainder of non-Britons. Okay, let’s not call it “sneaky.” What adjective would you recommend?
My suggestion wasn’t that they do or should or some day will care. Caring has little to do with whether or not some measure of support can be gained from them. Support for what? Support for policies that will result in securing racial existence. If they’re to extend such support they will need to see something in it for themselves. That something is the opportunity to racially reorganize society (on whatever level: local, national or even global) in such way that permits them to exclude those they consider racially undesirable from their living space. The fact that these races, as much as they appear to constitute a united anti-white front, do not much like each other then becomes very important and useful. As for the “looting,” that can’t be ignored, but I don’t want to get into it right now. Two brief points. Yes, it occurs, but realize that it’s always couched in other terms (“social justice,” “equality,” “human rights” blah blah). If those other terms are removed (discredited, replaced) and it had to operate nakedly I don’t think it could survive. Secondly, people don’t have to care about each other in order to agree to leave each other alone. Reciprocity is achievable and it’s something practiced, however unconsciously, day in day out. I don’t see any inherent reason why it can’t be practiced at the racial level.
Well, it’s easy to issue such manly calls isn’t it. Quite another thing to propose how that is actually to be done given the circumstances. At the end of the day it amounts to little more than a call to bell the cat. In fact, the mice in that story are better positioned than you: they know what they want to achieve, they know why they want to achieve it, and they even have a fairly good idea of how it could be achieved; what they lack is a mouse with the guts to put the plan into action. In contrast, you have the what and they why down pat (at least with respect to your conservative, traditionalist, nationalistic leanings) but you’re hopelessly out at sea with respect to the all-important how. I’m no better myself, of course. As you’re aware, I can’t even provide a decent what. I have some loose ideas, but it’s difficult to reduce them to something concrete and definite. Here’s the thing, though: that’s not the defect it seems at first glance. Racialist outcomes are in a sense ‘nested.’ Let’s assume the ultimate racialist outcome would be an all-white globe (all-white universe, even). Now, that’s not my preferred outcome, not by a long shot. But I think it’s fair to assume it is for those of an extreme racialist bent. That outcome cannot be realized before realizing necesarily prior outcomes, such as an all-white continent, or an all-white country, say. Now, follow along. An all-white continent or country cannot be achieved prior to a desire for such a thing. A desire for such a thing cannot be achieved prior to a widespread appreciation of the benefits to be gained and the handicaps to be avoided by it. An appreciation of the benefits to be gained and handicaps to be avoided cannot be attained until the propriety of considering white racial interests is established. The propriety of considering white racial interests cannot be achieved until…here it gets murky. My answer is that the propriety of considering white racial interests cannot be achieved until considering white racial interests is ‘non-threatening’: at a personal psychological level (status, self worth), at the level of vital life interests, at the level of the social gains of the last century (eg peace, tolerance, equality), and some other levels I can think of but these are the main ones. If I’m correct, we can see right there the first obstacle the conservative, traditionalist nationalist stumbles over. He cares little for peace, he sneers at tolerance, he laughs riotously at equality, and he’s incredulous that any other group’s interests besides his own merit consideration. Let’s assume now that that first stumbling block is overcome. We’re not placing our racial stance on a conservative, traditionalist footing. We can then establish the propiety of considering white racial interest. We can go on to highlight benefits to be gained and handicaps to be avoided by cultivating a positive white identity and achieving white living space. At that point we have to shift gears from the mental to the physical. White living space where? How much of it? Is this to be a permanent arrangement or a temporary accommodation? How is to be achieved—what legislative procedures might take place, what physical actions might they be accompanied by? I don’t have any straightforward answers to these questions and that is why my prescriptions are necessarily vague (“implications and insinuations”). Ideally, it shouldn’t rest upon any one man to provide such answers. If we can move things to the point where such answers are insistently asked and answers to them inistently demanded we’ll be half way there. You can see, Haller, that none of this necessarily works at cross-purposes with “TOTAL EXPULSION OF ALL NONWHITES,” rather it’s all necessarily prior. It seems reasonable that if such a point is ever reached that ‘racial reform’ policies are routinely pursued you’ll have every opportunity to have your case considered. Such a day is a long way off at the moment. That will be tomorrow’s battle. I’m more interested in today’s. 44
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:04 | # /. However, your formulation of the qualities that need to be promulgated on behalf of promoting security are way off the mark: ..perhaps it has to do with over-empathy for non-Whites. “My answer is that the propriety of considering white racial interests cannot be achieved until considering white racial interests is ‘non-threatening’: at a personal psychological level (status, self worth), at the level of vital life interests, at the level of the social gains of the last century (eg peace, tolerance, equality), and some other levels I can think of but these are the main ones.” “Peace” will come across as disingenuous - and while it may have some appeal to non-Whites, it will not appeal to the Whites themselves: just look at the first two comments on this thread. So, Peace needs to be superseded, perhaps with promotion of human bio diversity . “tolerance”, give us a break. That code word has been so abused that it will not do anything but signify that a Jew trained monkey is speaking. Perhaps something like “paradigms of co-existence” or “different ways of life” would be in order. “Equality” is another disaster word. The essential issues are qualitative, more like: sameness and difference. I had meant to go into the notion of incommensurability with the last post, but comments did not lead to its elaboration - nevertheless, it is going to have to be gone into farther. Equality/inequality scares everybody: breeds insecurity, snobbery, contempt, jealousy, superficiality, reciprocally escalating diatribe - to make matters worse, it becomes an issue when it is not the essential matter. http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111203/non-equality-or-incommensurability 45
Posted by Silver on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:44 | # daniel, when I cite peace, tolerance and equality I do so from the perspective of summarizing the social changes that occurred over the 20th century (particularly the latter part, though the seeds had been sown much earlier). Can it really be doubted that a desire for peace as blossomed during the last century, so much so that it appears to us inconceivable that ‘traditional’ foes like France and Germany would ever go to war again? Tolerance likewise has been a real gain. It’s not liberal make-believe. It has actually been achieved. People today are vastly more willing to put up with people different to them and to put up with practices they find weird or disgusting than ever before. I don’t see any way that can be denied. (In my view, while it’s certainly tolerance, the problem is that it’s mere tolerance. It doesn’t go much further than that. There’s no real warmth or genuine fellow feeling there. I think we can do better.) As for equality, I’m certainly no believer in its existence. But I would allow that the move towards it that really gathered steam during the early years of the 20th century did a good job of narrowing or outright eliminating the artificial inequality between people. See, it’s one thing to acknowledge that people are unequal (often vastly), but it’s another thing to exaggerate the differences between people, and worse, to use those exaggerated differences as a club to beat the ‘inferior’ with. It’s a tall order to deny that any of this occurred or to charge that people who saw real value in it were complete idiots. 46
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:46 | # Posted by Hymie in Afula on December 13, 2012, 12:30 AM | # >> They’re surrounded by 1.3 billion Muzzies that are hellbent on wiping Israel off the map ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
True, but there is a contingent of terrorists sufficient in numbers willing to inflict enough damage on both the physical structures/infrastructure and the psyches of the citizens. This will go on in perpetuity….
True again, but over a long period of time, attacks via proxies can and do have the effect of demoralizing the Jewish population.
I beleive Iran’s direct attack on Israel, for the moment, is that of a psychological nature. That’s the purpose of a nuclear Iran, IMO.
And there will always be proxies to carry out the dirty work
Wrong. I believe your luck is about to run out. Moreover, if I were a Jew, I’d rather be living in AmeriKWA than Tel Aviv any day. It’s much safer here.
You’ll never catch ME siding with the Muzzies. What do you take me for, an irrational suicidal leftist/liberal? HEH! I contend Islamofascists and modern-liberals/Cultural Marxists are the White Race’s/Western Civ’s mortal enemies.
Ah. I see. Your post was meant to be a joke and you saved the last sentence as your punch line, right? HAHAHAHA! BTW, Thorn brainstormed the best possible solution for the Israli-Palistinian conflict. It involves NO violence whatsoever and provides equity for all (well, almost all). Want to hear it? It’s genius in its simplicity!
47
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:09 | # Love to comment at length but cannot spare the time. Very briefly all ‘mass’ societies are marked by stratification and various forms of cleavages (forms of differentiation both of a horizontal and vertical nature). The issue is about the relative extent of of such cleavages. Do we have maximal heterogeneity or maximal homogeneity or what precise mix – the degree of heterogeneity - furthermore with regard to what forms of stratification and differentiation to we have and just how far society, as a whole, is prepared to let them ‘go’ and how far do we take collective action to attenuate or dampen down such cleavages? It’s obviously not an easy task to formulate what such a concept (the politics of homogeneity versus heterogeneity) might precisely look like or work out detailed policies, but really it’s much more complex than calling, Haller-like, for some ‘outcome’. Mr. Haller might as well join Mr. Linder in the street shouting racial epithets – his calls in bold type and the like are at the same basic level of banality offered up as Mr. Linder (but with a better vocabulary). Silver has interesting thoughts as always. One thing is true, offering a prospect of a radical decline in economic security to your own ‘in-group’ is political folly of the highest order. But such is Mr. Haller’s instinctive repulsion at ‘collectivist’ or communitarian notions that he can’t see the wood from the trees on this or many other topics. Racism plus Hayekian liberalism and a dash of old-time religion doesn’t make for a terribly coherent ideology - let along a pragmatically achievable political action-plan. I think of myself as a ‘radical centrist’ but by Mr. Haller’s definition I would be a ‘leftist’ - no doubt requiring elimination! P.S. Just on the point of reading philosophy etc., it’s not always absolutely necessary to read the original works to get the basic ‘gist’ of someone’s thought. Time is always a limited resource and there are many excellent secondary introductions/commentaries upon important thinkers or subject matters. And indeed by offering a context, historical and intellectual, for such thinkers such secondary material can often be more enlightening for the general reader than jumping straight into the primarily material and effectively being lost within it. With a bit of ‘background reading’ it then might be worthwhile and useful to read the original - yes I also have a copy of the Nicomachean Ethics, The Republic etc. in case anyone asks. For example, the excellent ‘Cambridge Companions’ series of books is very good (well at least the ones I have purchased have generally always impressed me with their scholarship and lucidity). http://cco.cambridge.org/collection?id=philosophy-and-religion But God alone knows why they have one about baseball! Oh and cricket too. Jesus! We must be in the ‘end-times’. 48
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:25 | # Posted by Silver on December 13, 2012, 06:44 AM | # daniel, when I cite peace, tolerance and equality I do so from the perspective of summarizing the social changes that occurred over the 20th century (particularly the latter part, though the seeds had been sown much earlier). This is not a summarizing of them so much as a (mis)naming of them, Silver.
Peace was and is, important from the context of inter-European fighting - and it should remain important to value inter-European, national concordance. However, again, the first three comments here are neither an accident, nor trivial: what we have now is not peace nor has it been. We already have a war on European peoples and those of us with any sense do not want to wave around the peace sign while our women and lands are taken from us, let alone being subject to violence; while we are violated in every conceivable way psychologically and quite literally to a an extent that it would have been enough to say enough - “gone too far!” - of a violation long ago and with only a relatively small sample of the pattern of such violations. We, the aware, do not have peace and we do not want peace: we want separatism. Not only do we realize that that will not come through peace, but that our enemies have long ago gone far enough so as to not merit peace. The best that they should hope for, is some sort of over-arching scheme of diversity and co-existence wherein those among them who are not flagrant violators, would be allowed to live in their own lands. And that, is as far as we should go in the semiotics of any word promulgated on the social capital in “peace.”
Silver, you are exposing yourself as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. You are not thinking wholly like a White man, it is clear - not a particularly conscious nor caring one. “Tolerance” is double speak for putting tape over the White man’s mouth and tying his hands behind his back while his women, his most sublime treasures are taken by his bitter enemies and raped before his eyes while he can say nothing. It is double speak for his lands, treasures and history being taken from him and his not even being able to say anything about it without threat of jail and loss of livelihood. It is his enslavement and his not even being able to object about it. It is hell. It is torture! And you want to do more of it!
Equality is not the issue. Its non-existence is trivial. To highlight this as an issue has been one of the right’s most foolish responses in reaction to the phoney “left.” It’s a tall order to deny that any of this occurred or to charge that people who saw real value in it were complete idiots. They were not necessarily idiots if they were not White - for non-Whites, including Jews, the Jews used these ruses to great effect to appropriate from Whitey what was his birthright. I see that this issue has got to be forefronted..
49
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:57 | # ....although, Silver, I did appreciate your awakening with regard to Blacks. 50
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:48 | # >> I believe your luck is about to run out
Now tell me what’s happening in Detroit, or in Montgomery Alabama? People who actually think that something is about to become of much less intrinsic value, can put their money where their mouth is. I’ll put you in touch with a brokerage that will allow you to lawfully “borrow” a condo in Ramat Aviv that you can then sell at today’s high prices. In a year or two years (depending upon which contract you select), you then buy an equivalent (they have a system for this, it’s fairly straight-forward) you actually buy a condo on the open market at the lower price, then “return” it (it’s actually mediated by a peice of paper called synthetic forward, but don’t worry about the chainsaw’s flavor…. keep your eye on the tree). You keep the price difference as your profit. Operators are standing by to take your call on shorting the Hebrew Republic I don’t desire to turn this interesting (well, sometimes. Philosophers seem to run into their glass ceiling on getting groupies) board into a Hadassah meeting. Next time you’re wrong, maybe I’ll just keep my mouth shut and make money off of your mis-estimation of market values. Enjoy your trip to Tel Aviv. I aplogize for the ridiculous price of hotel rooms. Must be all those Hebrew refugees racing each other to get out of the country and move to a safe place like London, or St Louis. PS - careful of the girls here: 51
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:54 | #
Of course, and understandably, one of Henry Kissinger’s staffers is denying he said what he said. I don’t know what to beleive in this case.
Yes, Hymie, Israel sounds like a nice place to visit (and I plan on doing so) but I definitely wouldn’t want to invest in real estate let alone live there. 52
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:41 | #
No it isn’t. Your opinions are based on the media-censored version of the world. White people are the only people who practise large scale voluntary reciprocity beyond kin*. (*In reality it will be a percentage with a tipping point above which it becomes the “norm” and below which it doesn’t.) Other ethnic groups - with Jews in the top spot - practise a great deal of voluntary reciprocity within their own ethnic group but not outside it and for many ethnic groups their concept of “ethnic group” doesn’t normally apply beyond their own extended family except in a crisis. Once the percentage of White people in an area drops below a certain point then everything starts to turn third world. There is a difference in form. With some groups it’s corruption and violence and that’s obviously what people fixate on as a priority but with most of the rest it’s corruption and fraud so either way the previous white level of prosperity isn’t achievable. So the cake will get ever smaller while the number of people wanting a slice will get ever bigger.
53
Posted by Silver on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:01 | #
Ignore the elimination bluster for a moment, but I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to define you as a leftist—certainly not if the same standard you apply to Haller were applied to you. Just consider some of the names you quote and link to approvingly. Chris Hedges Michael Sandel Sandel: “Well, this is one of the biggest questions of justice, including global justice, that we face today.”—12:00) GA Cohen Not once have you ever attempted to qualify your association with the ideas these men espouse. In contrast, Haller goes to great lengths to disassociate himself from the totality of the views of some of the libertarian thinkers whose ideas he subscribes to (and which you are ever so keen to chain him to). What can I say? It doesn’t seem very fair does it.
54
Posted by Silver on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:24 | # Wandrin, maybe we’re just talking about different things. When I say “reciprocity” I am thinking in terms of Golden Rule morality and Golden Rule negotiation and resolution of conflicts. You treat me fairly, I’ll treat you fairly. There are some behaviors of yours I don’t like and there are some behaviors of mine that you don’t like, and if you curtail some of yours, I’ll curtail some of mine. You can’t tell me this doesn’t exist because I’ve experienced on numerous occasions in my life. If you’re talking about something else it would help to know.
This sounds like racialist pseudo-economics. Look, you have no right to claim the cake will get “ever” smaller, because that implies it’s gettings smaller even now, as we speak. It’s not getting smaller. It’s continuing to grow larger. That’s a fact you deny to the severe detriment of your credibility. Of course, it’s quite logical to posit that at some point the cake will start to grow smaller if the ranks of the productive are sufficiently thinned and the ranks of the unproductive are sufficiently swelled. This is what WNs have been contending for 50 years. Their mistake was to assume the effect kicks in at the moment of their coming into awareness of it. (We saw this occur in the early 80s, for a brief moment in the early 90s, and again, more forcefully, from 2008.) In reality, no one knows when that day will arrive.
55
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:01 | # /.
The Silver Rule - “Do not do unto others that which you would not want them to do unto you” is more reasonable, makes more sense, as the rule applicable to out-groups. 56
Posted by Silver on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:02 | #
Whoah there, slow the fuck down. Forget about whites for a moment. Imagine there are no whites. Or imagine everyone is white. There are all sorts of tolerances that are possible that have nothing to do with race, but in such a world (no whites, or all whites) tolerance as a value and as a real achievement would still stand. It’s got nothing to do with any supposed desire on my part to tape anyone’s mouth shut. Just because tolerance most certainly is used today as a tool to fuck over whites doesn’t mean it should be completely jettisoned. Moreover, you seem to have missed the point that millions upon millions of whites today agree with me that tolerance has been a real achievement. I think we’ve seen the efffects of WN screamers cavalierly wade in and demand that everybody abandon tolerance wholesale because it implies unbearable racial costs. To extent that they even understand the argument, it’s quite clear that most people feel that those costs are worth paying if it means being able to retain such a cherished value. You can continue to butt heads with reality or find a workaround. As for this:
I guess that’s cos I’m not one. Look, how many times am I going to be forced to repeat myself? Why can’t you just get it through your head that I don’t claim to be White (not wholly), nor do I care about being “accepted as White” (not by you anyway—obviously I’d be more than a little bit peeved at being rejected by my own ethnicity on this basis, but there’s no real chance of that). This doesn’t change anything I’ve argued. If you think it does then it’s up to you to show how. 57
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:06 | # /. That is an important rule distinction for Whites to learn and put into practice 58
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:29 | # / That is the rubric we are under. Imagine there are no whites. Or imagine everyone is white. There are all sorts of tolerances that are possible that have nothing to do with race, but in such a world (no whites, or all whites) tolerance as a value and as a real achievement would still stand. I strongly disagree. First of all “tolerance” is not a word like ‘diversity” or “multiculturalism” which could have real merit if they were not misapplied, disingenuously-so by Jewish academia.
Bullshit. That is exactly what it is about.
They are wrong and I sincerely doubt the statistic. I think we’ve seen the efffects of WN screamers cavalierly wade in and demand that everybody abandon tolerance wholesale because it implies unbearable racial costs. To extent that they even understand the argument, it’s quite clear that most people feel that those costs are worth paying if it means being able to retain such a cherished value. Baloney
There are better values by which to establish negotiation.
You are not thinking wholly like a White man, it is clear - not a particularly conscious nor caring one. I guess that’s cos I’m not one. Look, how many times am I going to be forced to repeat myself? Why can’t you just get it through your head that I don’t claim to be White (not wholly), nor do I care about being “accepted as White” (not by you anyway—obviously I’d be more than a little bit peeved at being rejected by my own ethnicity on this basis, but there’s no real chance of that). This doesn’t change anything I’ve argued. If you think it does then it’s up to you to show how. From your self description, I am not sure that you do not qualify as a native European. Again, White is my short hand for native European - how many times do I have to repeat myself? Would you call yourself middle eastern? Thus, when I say you are not acting in “White” interests, I am saying you are not acting in native-European interests and therefore not in your own interests: which makes no sense - or, not to me. 59
Posted by Silver on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:40 | #
Lister, mind you, I’m not claiming that one can’t find a GA Cohen enormously enlightening yet still maintain centrist tendencies. I have (and do). But the average ‘village marxoid’ is not merely someone who abhors ‘excess’ productivity, he tends to abhor all productivity. He is a globalizing, race-mixing, faggot-worshipping lunatic who desires to do away with all forms of racial group belonging, wants to level all cultural distinctions, and, whiling his life away in the most disgusting decadence and degeneracy, will you tell you with a straight face that it’s in your benefit to link arms with him in solidarity. You might want to try distancing yourself from such views before you moan that Haller’s “Hayekian Liberalism” can do nought but sink any hope of a worthwhile racial future. 60
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:40 | # /. “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine” - K. Burke 61
Posted by Silver on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:56 | #
I assume you meant “to something to which one is naturally averse.” Well let’s see daniel, just how “naturally” averse is one to the idea that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Father and the Son but from the Father only? You don’t see any value in people allowing each other to believe as they wish on this point rather than savaging each over it (or, maybe better put, allowing those with ulterior motives to incite them into savaging each other over it)?
Do I get to do the same thing back to you? You don’t want separatism. That’s bullshit. You want war and genocide. That is exactly what it is about. Not very nice, is it? 62
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:25 | # Well, when I said bullshit, that “tolerance” as a concept is meant to tape over the mouths of White objections, I really aimed more at Jewish misuse and abuse of the term than at you, Silver. You caught a stray bullet. Not that you were a wholly innocent bystander. As for your allegation, well no, what I want is separatism indeed. While I am not David Duke, starting each presentation with a saccharine and disingenuous concern for every people’s rights, everywhere - and, indeed, if some of them were to drop dead, that would be just fine with me - it would be rather impractical to pursue a policy of genocide, particularly if non-Whites are in their own lands, maintaining their own business. 63
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:51 | # @Silver Guilty as charged - I’m fairly ideologically promiscuous in the sense of I do not think, ipso facto, that say all of what a Hedges or a Lasch et al., says is obviously wrong or self-evidently ‘nonsense’ tout court. But I also enjoy Roger Scruton - a fairly ‘deep-blue’ conservative. I read such people in an open-minded way. Do they say anything that is interesting or true and then ignore the less interesting or in my view misguided elements. Or sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak. One thing few people seem to know is just how much serious Marxists (of the likes of Perry Anderson) genuinely loathe liberalism both in theory and in practice - often in ways that are far more perceptive than ‘bog standard’ conservatives. As for the typical ‘activist’ village Marxoid yes I have met and known such people and yes they overwhelmingly tend to be intellectually dishonest, morally dubious, hate-filled people. Not dissimilar to certain ‘outsider’ types found within WN in their ‘emotional tone’. It’s one of those odd ways in which elements of the far-right and far-left converge. Such people have strange affinities at least in the area of some of the emotional and psychology factors involved in their politics. 64
Posted by Silver on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:47 | # Lister, I apologize for targeting you in that way. I’ve never doubted that your heart is in the right place, that it’s a heart that cares. I’m sure that for many of us it’s the nearness of the looming cataclysm that provokes reproaches we would not ordinarily express. I can tell you it has brought out a vicious streak in me that I never knew I possessed. Daniel,
I gather the phrase “on my part” was no indemnification.
How many of us can truly claim to be?
I appreciate the forthrightness. I feel much the same way, although I deny that there’s anything disingenuous about it. When I first heard news of the tsunami that struck Indonesia and other parts of southeast Asia near Christmas 2004 my first response was along the lines of “What exactly and to whom exactly? Oh, I see. Not my people. Not my problem.” It wasn’t a sentiment I dared voice to anybody for fear of eliciting moral condemnation. That’s not to say I felt glad it happened or that I was averse to anybody volunteering to aid the victims. But it annoyed me that I was made to feel guilty for my indifference. After all, there was no double standard involved: not in a million years would I expect Indonesians to rend their garments over a similar disaster befalling anybody like me. It would gladden me, I guess, were there to be an outpouring of sympathy, but I would not be troubled in the slightest if there wasn’t. I would, however, be more than willing to wish Indonesians happiness and prosperity and urge them to care for and value one another. What is disingenous about such sentiment? This world is big enough for all of us. Why shouldn’t I wish them well?
Look, when you frame the issue in these terms it tends to carry an implication—intended or not—that one can only care about racial issues or white racial interests if one is a “native European.” That’s problematic because (a) it’s not true; and (b) the definition of “native European” is no firmer than the definition of “White.” Race is difficult enough as it is without unnecessary complications. Your approach—and that of WN in general—cannot help encourage spitefulness and pointless bickering. This is especially true since WNs have strategically opted for a pan-European definition of whiteness. The resulting fracas from this embrace of what I think of as the ‘nouveaux blanches’ reminds me of the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy,” in which the appearance of a Coca Cola bottle upsets the existing status quo and sets the Kalahari tribesman at each others throats. Nevertheless, perhaps this is a stage that there is no choice but to struggle through. It’s to that end that I prefer “racialism” over “WN,” because the former term tends to urge racial identification and racial values among all peoples, rather than only among whites, with the attitude emerging being one of gain rather than loss, of contentment rather than dissatisfaction, of self-worth rather than self-loathing, of self-understanding rather than self-pity.
On this point you could not be more worng. Few people in history have been as absorbed in racial self-interest as I am. One last point, no, I wouldn’t call myself middle eastern, but that’s not to say I regard them as completely alien either. Of course, ‘middle eastern’ encompasses a fairly broad array of people, many of whom are decidedly alien to me. While I have no wish to meddle with their concept of racial self-understanding, there are those among them to whom I feel quite close, namely those who hail from the Levant and Anatolia. On a strictly racial basis (that is, ignoring cultural distinctions) I would be loath to tell them to get the fuck away from me. There are undoubtedly differences, but I consider them trivial differences. They are my racial next of kin, much the same as southern Europeans, generally speaking, are the racial next of kin of northern Europeans. While drawing racial distinctions is of utmost importance, one simply cannot adopt a binary schema of in/out, me/not me and apply it uniformally across all racial categories, such that the racial distinction between racial next of kin (Saxon and Sicilian, say,) is of the same class as the distinction between racial groups many times more distant (Cameroonian and Cambodian, say). 65
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:51 | # Look, when you frame the issue in these terms it tends to carry an implication—intended or not—that one can only care about racial issues or white racial interests if one is a “native European.”
I did not say it was.
It is not that hard. There are gray areas, and you are apparently in one, but it no insolvable mystery.
Stop there. I don’t know what YOU mean by “their”
I’m afraid that there is a line that must be drawn and the Levant and Anatolia are not native European. The sympathy here, at MR, is with Europeans (particularly with Natives of the U.K.), and with good reason. Here, how about this analogy for you: I am half Italian. I had cousins in Mussolini’s army. I do not say, “oh my god, why did the world not get behind them and help them to victory at Stalingrad?” On the contrary, I say damn, I wish they’d had a different concept of nationalism and all those lives had not been wasted. While I sometimes wonder why my German brothers do not have a similar angle as I do, I also wonder if you can see the analogy: Why must you be so loyal to the Levant and Turks that you must empathize with their incursions upon other, in this case European, peoples? Even if you are part of their genetic patterns? I wish the Italians had never gone to Stalingrad, and that they would have quickly gone home once they took up that ill conceived incursion. The Jews and Turks should wish to go home too. White/Not White, if you are decent, you’d basically agree. That’s not hateful. intolerant or any such nonsense.
66
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:06 | #
If and only if they will reciprocate (or if you can do it from long distance e.g. disaster relief). . Silver
It doesn’t exist once white people become the minority and can no longer act as umpire. Once white people become a minority everything reverts to balance of power and Big Man politics.
The cake is getting smaller and rapidly so. 1) There’s been an illusion of growth based on cheap credit which helped disguise the shrinkage but that growth wasn’t real - however the resulting debt overhang is real. A lot of the shrinkage is tied up in that debt overhang. 2) A lot of the cake getting smaller is tied up with housing. People living in a smaller living space (or shrinking their families to fit a reduced living space) isn’t obvious on the surface but reflects the cake shrinking. 3) Not only is the cake shrinking the rate at which the cake is shrinking is accelerating also since the cheap credit bubble burst. It is entirely self-evident that a society with a certain level of gnp per capita that has maximized public goods will not be able to sustain the same level of public infrastructure if the gnp per capita goes down. The only way your argument is even theoretically possible is if immigration is / was restricted to people who are capable of adding a level of gnp per capita above the pre-existing average. You’re talking globalist nonsense. ### TL;DR One word: California
67
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:59 | # OK, I’m at the busy end of my semester, and either haven’t read (or done so closely) all of the comments after the longish ones I left midway above. Just a couple of points. Silver, I don’t understand why you are apologizing to Lister. Your statements about his leftism were correct. But I need to clarify something about my own usages for the benefit of DanielS and Lister as well as you. I define “leftism” in primary and secondary senses. The primary sense is racial leftism, aka racial treason. Whatever the fundamental philosophical essence of leftism might be (and I think it is utopian egalitarianism, the aggressive denial of fundamental, politically ineradicable inequalities - between men, tribes of men, and men and women), I see its most intensely practiced essence as consisting in supporting all policies which weaken the durability and (physical/military, economic, political, and moral) power of Western Civilization (WC), which I in turn understand to be mainly (but not totally), white or European civilization. WC is a racial and religious civilization. It is white, Christian civilization. Every defining aspect of Europe for the past thousand years is derived from the interaction of Christianity with the white race, and the most viciously anti-Western movements (esp the Bolsheviks) were also the most explicitly anti-Christian. America adds the glorious concept of individual liberty to the mix; thus, the winner of the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates, the great Sen. Stephen Douglas’s description of America, forever unrivaled in sheer pith, as “free, white and Christian” (note how that phrase perfectly captures the three traditions of the modern, or post-Jacobin, Right in the West: the libertarian-indvidualist, the racial-nationalist, and of course, the Christian moralist). “Defense of the West” is the foundation of conservatism, of the true Right, which seeks to conserve our white, Christian, and, at least in the US (though really, in Europe, too, ‘only yesterday’), libertarian/bourgeois capitalist, heritage. I call this ideology “Occidentalism”, or, given that so many self-styled defenders of the West yet cannot bring themselves to acknowledge its foundational racial component, “biological Occidentalism” (I suppose I could say “racial (or race-realist) Occidentalism”, but I think a true conservatism is rooted in inegalitarianism, or better, in ‘qualitarianism’ over ‘equalitarianism’, and thus I think could possibly have - and ought to have - a eugenic component; hence use of the broader term “biological”). WN, OTOH, is something quite distinct and even alien from the mainstream of WC. WN rejects the West’s Christian (and not only “Judeo-Christian”) heritage, seeking to de-Christianize us along either Darwinian/Heideggerian lines (the MajorityRights position), or, still more ridiculously, neo-pagan ones (the latter the position of the faux-intellectual faggots running Counter-Currents, and their various, less talented rentboy-polemicists). The idea that the white race can best be saved by de-Westernization, that is, by distancing ourselves from, as against embracing and (racially/ideologically) recasting, Christianity, is one I find wholly unpersuasive, and will fight against the rest of my life (which is why I prefer to call myself, in racialist discussions, a “White Preservationist”, or WP (which can also be thought of as “White Patriot”)). [It should be noted that in discussions of the Racial Right conducted by the Left, the term “WN” is generally used to denote anyone who believes in genetic race differences in socially significant abilities or behavior, or even merely advocates resistance to antiwhite policies in the name of justice for whites. So by leftist standards, I would of course be a WN.] So I define leftism primarily in terms of race treason. I believe, incidentally, that most self-identified leftists or ‘progressives’ do as well, which is why no matter how much any particular Silver or Graham Lister might protest his leftwing credentials - “Look at me: I’m a global warmist, a Keynesian, a sceptic of capitalism, a social democrat, healthcare socialist, a dismisser of Christianity!”, or in non-Lister possibilities, “a feminist, a gay marriage supporter, a gun banner, a pacifist, Third World reparationist, anti-death penalty advocate” etc etc - he is ALWAYS treated as an extreme rightist, merely for recognizing genetic inequalities between men and groups of men, as well as for standing up for his own tribe in not wanting it colonized and dispossessed of its ancient territory via mass immigration. When I stated above that I hoped many millions of white leftists would be wiped out in any European war of racial reclamation, I was speaking of “leftists” in this first sense, and, if Dr. Lister and DanielS possessed better reading skills, they would further note that I was only referring to those white leftists who would engage in actual military/physical treason against their fatherlands by aiding the foreign colonizers against the patriotic reclamation forces, and this only in the event that the alien colonizers should refuse to leave Europe peacefully. Even if my writing is less than perfectly clear, surely my meaning is comprehensible. So, again: Europeans have the moral right to ask non-Europeans to leave Europe. Removal of non-Europeans from Europe is the sine qua non of WN. As a Christian, not to mention capitalist investor, I hope the race aliens leave peacefully (perhaps even with some European guarantees of limited foreign economic aid for a time). But I predict many will choose to fight the governments demanding their repatriation, and I further suspect many self-hating or brainwashed whites will join them. Does anyone here seriously dispute this? Those whites who would do so are traitors, and I hope as many of them as possible will be killed (as the fewer ‘progressives’ there are after cessation of hostilities, the easier postwar rebuilding will be, and the more viable the new Europe will be going forward). If the essence of leftism today is white treason, there is a second sense of leftism, one which more closely tracks the historical Left in the West. This leftism is not “cultural Marxism”, nor even Marxism proper (there were once white racist Marxists or at least socialists; do any still exist? I’ve never heard of one). Indeed, it is not necessarily race-treasonous at all (though there are often overlaps). This second left is essentially defined by its rejection of capitalism, though it does so on differing grounds - either ecological concerns, communitarian/social democratic principles, or plain trade unionist/governmental “worker” greed. Whatever the varying justifications, the core result is a desire to place the government, or democratic politics, in a position superseding free market-capitalist outcomes. Put another way, while the essence of leftism is militant egalitarianism, which gets practically expressed in race-treason, there are persons who are neither race traitors, nor, however, ideological rightists, persons who, in a Racial State democracy, would be on the Left (just as there are persons today on the Right who are genuinely not racists at all, even in the Christian-permissible sense of race-realism or WP). I can’t imagine that there are very many in the USA/UK today who are on the Left, but would be on the Right in White Zion. But I think there may be a fair number who are on the Right today only because of race (and/or Christianity; an ex-gf’s mother was like this - hardcore Republican, but only because of the ‘sanctity of life (abortion)’ issue; on economics she was very liberal), but who would be on the Left in WZ. I think Dr. Lister and some others fall within this latter category. I don’t think there is anything treasonous and therefore execution-worthy about non-racial leftism, even though I strongly reject it. But it should be clear that persons like Graham Lister, Daniel Sienkewicz, CC’s Greg Johnson, etc, and I (and other conservative race-realists and WPs, like the vdare.com crowd, Jared Taylor, some of the Chronicles crowd, etc) are only strategic political allies due to the foundational importance of the race issue. Without race, we would be on very different political sides (though I do salute Dr. Lister’s attachment to the intellectual High Culture of the West). 68
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:25 | # / I was speaking of “leftists” in this first sense, and, if Dr. Lister and DanielS possessed better reading skills, they would further note that I was only referring to those white leftists who would engage in actual military/physical treason against their fatherlands by aiding the foreign colonizers against the patriotic reclamation forces, and this only in the event that the alien colonizers should refuse to leave Europe peacefully. I understood you and I disagree with you. As for advocating “cultural enrichment” or any such nonsense, that would be cultural Marxist or liberal, but not White left. Your insistence upon Christianity as an organizing principle and upon using the term left in a strictly pejorative sense is perfect - for the enemies of Whites. I understood what you mean but wanted to make a point. If you can manage to avoid putting these two words together - White Left - in a pejorative sense we can avoid dispute. If not, I will have to repeat: Leon is referring to White liberals or those who practice Jewish Leftism as “the” left. As regards the White Left it is important to defend that term as being for Whites only (or for members of the particular native European national group, only). Leon, I think that you might like Alternative Right: they don’t talk about Jews, they have devout Christians and some competent writers there: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/our-more-perfect-union/ 69
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:54 | # In reality there is no expectation of return from the Golden Rule. It’s like making an imaginary deposit in an imaginary bank, there is no chance of a withdrawal. The value in the GR is through approbation that spreads the message far and wide that such moral character is worth copying because it is glorified by society. In addition, it is the act of individuals from which the value to the group accrues incidentally through promotion of the moral behaviour and the status that it brings. http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/lost-found-money-cash-bank-wwyd-15991498 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/nyregion/03life.html?exprod=digg&_r=0 And while it is easy to fall in line with “HBD Chick’s hypothesis, which posits that Northwestern European countries, with their long history of outbreeding (that is, marrying outside the family), have evolved a greater sense of respect for the common good and the well-being of all countrymen (well, all people in many cases)”...it does not answer the question why not so long ago “Westerners have opposed immigration from non-related peoples.” http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/finland-japan/#comments 70
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:40 | #
Exactly, anyone who thinks of it in terms of a conscious trade proves my point.
I think the base proclivity extends to familial only and hbdchick’s thesis is correct in how this proclivity went beyond familial to similar among northern euros but i don’t think it extends naturally to dissimilar *except* among a minority of outliers on the spectrum. This extended base proclivity then required massive active cultural manipulation from external sources i.e. Hollywood, television, schools, to make it extend to dissimilar peoples and it’s a constant battle to keep it there as i think the natural state is back where it was before. So the big difference between white and most non-white imo isn’t the mass extension to dissimilar (as i think that is mostly artificial apart from a sizable number of outliers) it’s more that for most non-white* the proclivity only extends to the familial - except temporarily in the context of group conflict - whereas with white people in a non-manipulated state it naturally extends to similar. *I think it’s percentages really with northern or northenified white people having a high enough percentage to pass a cultural tipping point. Interestingly the cultural manipulation is very focused on black people. Guilt-tripping white people over Asians or Mexicans or even Native Americans doesn’t seem to work anywhere near as well. I wonder about why that is - is it slavery in particular triggers something? or is it the feeling it wasn’t a fair fight? It’s definitely there though. One of the things YKW don’t get is they believe they’ll be able to do the same thing with muslims in Europe after they use them to replace white people but it won’t work imo while the muslims are marrying their first cousins. However trying to change that is a catch 22 as one of the reasons YKW want to destroy Christianity and western cultural traditions is they want to go back to marrying their nieces according to mosaic law.
71
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:08 | # Europe absent Christianity can only lead to Godless totalitarian communist rule (is that what “WNs” want?). Gramsci along with the hook noses at the Frankfort School knew that truth very well; that’s why they aim/ed their ideological poison at real, not fake, Christianity. Furthermore, cultural Marxists know very well it’s only whites that have the God given ability to maintain and adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Races other than white invariably pervert its teachings to suit their own proclivities. Moreover, the cultural Marxists are very well aware of that hence they’re not in the least bit worried or concerned about non-white Christians thwarting their grand scheme. Take Haiti for example: Catholic missionaries have been trying to Christianize the Negros there for centuries; but for some “unknown” reason (HEH!), their success has been of a temporary or limited nature. There is a saying in Haiti: Haiti is 90% Catholic but 100% Voodoo. That speaks volumes. 73
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:18 | # Interestingly the cultural manipulation is very focused on black people. Guilt-tripping white people over Asians or Mexicans or even Native Americans doesn’t seem to work anywhere near as well. I wonder about why that is - is it slavery in particular triggers something? or is it the feeling it wasn’t a fair fight? It’s definitely there though. I guess that it is not so much about pity and guilt as it is fear of Blacks. 74
Posted by Bill on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:10 | # It’s nearly a week since the the findings of the 2011 census hit the headlines and yet it is difficult to gauge what the general effect has been throughout the nation. Like rolling thunder, mainstream blogs are still rumbling down the threads, sounding the depths of feeling of the natives. There has been no rioting or mass demonstrations, no chanting ‘no more immigration, when do we want it….’ The BBC are quietly confident, there’s been little noise from Cameron other than diversionary toe down for gay marriage rights. There is still little sign from the commenting bloggerati of any consensual opinion on why immigration is continuing unabated. They are still as clueless as ever. Ed Miliband is contrite, ‘Perhaps we did over-egg the pudding a little, but we’ll put that right, trust us’. The polls tell us Ed is way ahead of the blue team, you really couldn’t make it up! The housing crises is not caused by immigration, it is a shortage of housing that is the problem. Boris says it’s not immigration that’s keeping the price of property high. We must have more immigration to attract foreign investment. It is not immigration that is keeping wages down. What triggered this comment is a piece in today’s Telegraph by Mathew d’ Ancona entitled ‘Where does Danny Boyle’s Britain go from here?’ He starts of by saying.
No they don’t. I stopped reading at this point and went straight to the comments. Having skimmed down a couple of segments of thread I can’t say I’ve seen one comment refuting d’ Ancona’s opening statement. It will be interesting to see if this topic silently fades away or still keeps rumbling on. Tonight, in passing by the TV to my computer I caught a couple of sentences from the BBC’s farming programme Country File. The subject under discussion was the browning of Britain’s rural areas, apparently, we needn’t worry it’s only 3%. But they’re working on it! 75
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:57 | #
Can’t be. It only works on white people who don’t live near them. The ones it works on the best are the ones who go and work as teachers in black schools i.e. the least fearful. 76
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:18 | #
If you imagine this instinctive reciprocating proclivity as a bell curve but flatter with longer tails either side and the x axis ranging from familial to similar to dissimilar then i think the human default is to have the bell curve centred on familial with some outliers into similar and a few into dissimilar. The northern and northenified white curve got shifted to the right to centre on similar - still with sizable outliers to the left who were familial only and also a lot of the more problematic outliers to the right of the centre point who extend their instinctive reciprocity to dissimilar e.g. Occidental Dissent’s yankees. The last stage is cultural manipulation forcibly dragging that proclivity to the dissimilar spot on the spectrum easily proven by the reality as recently as the 60s and 70s combined with white flight today. The last stage is culturally coerced apart from the 100% liberal outliers. 77
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:43 | # Posted by Wandrin on December 16, 2012, 06:57 PM | # I guess that it is not so much about pity and guilt as it is fear of Blacks. Can’t be. It only works on white people who don’t live near them. The ones it works on the best are the ones who go and work as teachers in black schools i.e. the least fearful.
Let’s try another one: guilt and pity might work more on Whites with regard to Blacks because Blacks are so different that Whites may see overlooking that difference as a way of easily demonstrating their “maturity” and difference from the petty ethnocentric. 78
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:46 | # ....Blacks, being an older pattern, may evoke pity and guilt through atavistic identification with base inclinations. 79
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:58 | # DanialS
that feels a bit warmer. 80
Posted by Bill on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:13 | # Hot on the heels of my @ 74 above another Telegraph article on the census result ramifications rolls of the the assembly line, this time from Boris Johnson. Johnson says OK the immigration dam has burst, so what? Let’s get over it and work with it. This man is a traitor pure and simple, as Mayor of London he has egged on immigration throughout his tenure, now he is saying without an iota of irony that it was all Miliband’s labour wot did it. Johnson has got loose bowel syndrome as have the rest of the elites, they’re crapping themselves. This is a definitive moment,and yet it is only beginning to sink in. Can UKIP under Farage make any inroads both on immigration and EU membership? I would like to think so but only time will tell. Hey! We’re not living in Kansas anymore. Let’s not dwell on immigration (it’s so yesterday) By Boris Johnson Wandrin. Be a good chap and reference your replies, I spend too much time looking for what/who you are replying to. 81
Posted by It's Got To Be UKIP on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:22 | # Yup, Boris Johnson is full of shit - although I usually like the man because of his bumbling amiability and his slaying of the Livingstone monster. 82
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:45 | # Thanks for the heads-up on the DT thread Bill, I’ve jumped in there. Are you on there too? 83
Posted by Bill on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:11 | # The war on discourse is on full throttle here, the language against is almost unequivocal but there are far too many commenters accepting the starting premise of the sophist Johnson. Once you accept such a premise, ie. agreeing to agree with your enemy it’s curtains, it’s goodnight Vienna for English whites, the gulags beckon. Johnson wants shafting for suggesting such things, so does that twat d’ Ancona on the other thread. It seems this ‘we’ve all got to rub along together’ is the latest driver of the MSM brainwashing offensive. Trouble is such stuff finds its target. Christ they must be getting desperate. 84
Posted by Bill on Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:18 | # Lurker @ 82
Sorry forgot. No I’m not. At my age it’s too much for my blood pressure. I’ve done several tours in the past though. I’m glad your in there pitching. Sock it to ‘em! 85
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:18 | # Kudos to this guy except he makes the same mistake as Daniels. He makes the GRAVE mistake of claiming “Jews are not white.” IDIOT!! MOST JEWS ARE WHITE!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=as5oh4CaLRs 86
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:41 | # Check it out. According to oddities like daniels, Leslie Stahl is non-white! Yes indeed, she’s a mud according to him and his ilk! Well, judge for yourself. 88
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:31 | # Thorn
There’s a genetic argument and a political argument. The genetic argument has fuzzy edges however when Jewish pundits in the MSM - including those who are mostly white by blood - or white anti-whites attack “White people” they don’t include Jews in that group being attacked. To repeat: <u>The anti-white culture itself says Jews aren’t White in the context of the anti-white culture war.</u> So Jews may be white enough to get attacked as white by a black gang on the street but in terms of the anti-white culture war and in most of their heads they’re not white.
89
Posted by Zeke on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:23 | # The issue is not phenotype but freedom of association. 90
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:57 | # Posted by DanielS on December 18, 2012, 03:49 AM | # Leslie Stahl’s Jewish 60 minutes colleague, Mike Wallace, mistakenly identified as White, corrects his interlocutor to note: “I’m Jewish” 91
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:52 | # Thorn, you might tell Kevin MacDonald that he is an idiot if he does not think Leslie Stahl is White. Is she genetically European? Does she identify as European? Is she empathetic with the interests of Europeans and against their antagonists? Data is as data does. Lesley Stahl fighting anti-semitism: http://www.anti-semitism.net/tag/lesley Leslie Stahl on Spielberg’s serious experience with anti-semitism 92
Posted by Bill on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:16 | # What the BBC don’t show you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB4pLnK_X4U Included in a Telegraph comment on the Boris show. 93
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:54 | # Wandrin @ 88 I understand all that you’ve said and agree. There’s no argument there. My main point is Matthew Heimbach, the student that is organizing the pro-white group is shooing himself in the foot. When anyone who’s NOT a Jew proclaims, or makes a blanket statement, that “Jews are not white”, they automatically—in the minds of the general public—paint themselves as irrational at best, or neo-Nazis at worse. Sorry but that’s the way it is. If he wants to attract as many people as possible, then he mustn’t say things that repel or scare away people. By him simply saying “Jews are not white” makes his attempts—be they ever so admirable—a nonstarter. If ‘n we are in this to win over hearts and minds, we mustn’t say those things in such a blunt fashion. At least not out in the real world. The better approach would be to present an intelligent argument then let the listeners arrive at their own conclusions. IOWs attack the anti-white ideology, but don’t single out Jews as a group. Again, people associate that with Hitler and the Nazis. PS, At least the young man was smart enough to not label himself or his org White Nationalists. Again, when people hear WN they automatically associate it with National Socialism. Of course that, to say the least, dosen’t make for a good first impression.
94
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:07 | #
Daniels, Outside of WN circles, KMac’s work, specifically wrt Jews, is pretty much cast into the realm of bias. Just the other day KMac came up in a thread at one of my fave gun/patriot blogs. Here I’ll let you read it for yourself:
95
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:14 | # /. They avoid criticizing Jews, they largely adopt the views that are considered conservative today, and they have some Christians among their regular columnists. You already have articles archived at the Gates of Vienna. At Majority Rights, that is considered “controlled opposition.” Look at your left hand column.
American Renaissance
They are not the only problem for White interests among elite choke points, but as others have said quite well: they are the best organized, they set the liberal agendas, they take the initiative and they grease the palms. They have hegemony in media (everything from liberal conditioning to flagrant PC, to porn), international banking/finance (From London, to Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and the rest of the US Federal Reserve, to organized crime), politics (e.g. AIPAC - the Israel Lobby), academia (e.g. Frankfurt School etc. etc etc), The Law and Courts (eg. Brown vs. Board of Education; The Civil Rights Act, Rumsford Fair Housing Act, The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965), religion (whether through Judaism, traditional Christianity or the even more perverted Zionist forms, people are susceptible to Jewish manipulation). It would be an evil disservice to not inform European peoples that Jews are not acting with European interests at heart. What way will work to awaken different European people depends. Some will respond to a soft, academic approach, others will resonate with their rage being confirmed. MR seeks to most clearly identify for people those who are not in affinity with our systemic European interests, who are antagonistic and who do not recognize common antagonists. There is no question that Jews are not us: experience will be corroborated by literature and trustworthy European advocates. We cannot forego discussion of this group of people as being distinct from us, as they have been so destructive to our interests - we cannot allow such a people within our camp. MR is more of a theoretical site than one experimenting with covert strategies of public relations. While we might be called upon to be subtle, tactful and tasteful, we cannot sacrifice honesty, particularly in unanimity - it is not something we have the luxury to play with. Establishing who we are not is crucial to establishing who we are. MR’s mandate is to flesh out definitive principles in the systemic form and patterns of native European categories; to provide for their defense and advance. 96
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:08 | # Ahhh, the JQ ... I’m really busy, only time for a quick note ... I adopt a middle perspective here. Kmac is not a nut. I read his sociobiological trilogy back in the 90s, and found it extremely persuasive. He is an excellent scholar. I do think WPs need to be very careful (I mean intellectually) about over-assigning blame to Jewry at the expense of being unrealistic about the shape and durability of Western societies themselves apart from Jewry’s influence. Our decline has substantially deeper roots than Jewish malevolence, or genetic interests conflict. It cannot be denied that Jewry has historically been a negative factor wrt white EGI. It is not so clear whether this will always be the case in the future, or must be. The possibility that Jews might one day come to identify more strongly with whites in conflicts with nonwhites must be considered, and left open. Certainly Jews could be occasional tactical allies of ours, and should be allowed to be if relevant. I know several Jews who identify with whites and are in nearly complete agreement with me on the issues. What more can I ask for? Paul Gottfried, for example, is an excellent conservative intellectual historian. I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with him in any of his writings (at least the major ones I’ve read). Of course, I think strategically as an American. I just want to prevent or delay the collapse of my country into multicultural socialism. I’d rather live in a majority nonwhite community where everybody is a good paleoconservative (I know obviously that most paleos are white, but I’m not going to chastise a paleo just because he isn’t) than in a white majority one where the whites are all left-liberals. I do understand a European’s desire to repatriate/remove Jews as well as nonwhites from Euro soils, and I would not oppose that. Indeed, I should like to see a fully Aryanized Europe, so that true white Western civilization can be assured of continuance. But that’s not going to happen in the US. Here I want all the allies I can get to resist Obamunism, and I think in time many Jews can be brought over to the Right. OTOH, the notion that the following
are “controlled opposition” is ridiculous. They do great work fighting for our race. Who cares if they avoid the JQ? 97
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:36 | # Paul Gottfried is a bag of books. He can be fun to listen to, but if you pay careful attention, you see that he cares about Jews and is probably most concerned to quell backlash where he can. Alternative Right seems to see him as their guiding light - since you never disagree with him, it seems that Alt Right may be the better place for you too, Leon. White conservatives can be fooled by the deluge of soft words: Gilad Atzman, for example, may be critical of Zionism, but he is a liberal.
In Jared Taylor’s case, he may not be the one doing the controlling. American Renaissance 98
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:51 | #
You misread me, daniels. I am not offended in the least bit by criticism of Jews. Not by you or anyone else here at MR. Rail away! What I question is is it to our benefit to be openly anti-Semitic in public? Is naked displays of anti-Semitism in the public square working in our favor? I think the answer is obvious….and for the obvious reasons. My recommendation to you, daniels, is stay out of the public eye. That is if you don’t want to harm our cause.
99
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:59 | # My recommendation to you, daniels, is stay out of the public eye. That is if you don’t want to harm our cause. That is a projection, Thorn. Firstly, we do not share the same cause, as you want to disseminate Christianity, tradition and conservatism’s losing hands. Secondly, it is you who should stay out of the public eye so as not to hurt the cause of White Nationalists - at least go where your views are appropriate: Alternative Right, The Gates of Vienna…
100
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:40 | # Re: controlled opposition. I have to put my hands up and say that was my choice, lumping them together there. Im not the only person to have that view of course, I went with the balance of opinion on those three. Its true they dont name YKW and maybe there are ways to be effective in following that policy. Ive no doubt they have done some good in waking some people up, but I worry they then try to lead them down a dead end. SBPDL & GoV both make it clear that our whole problem is white liberals. In the US white liberals are handing power to blacks (the SBPDL line), in Europe white liberals are handing power over to Islamofascists (the GoV line). Any suggestion that YKW might have a dog in the fight or that Israel isnt our greatest ally is not tolerated at either. AmRen sells a similar product. As I said, Im not denying they help wake a few people up but they are working hard to send them down a dead end. Also the comments at both revel in unhelpful racial slurs which may give them a thrill to write but alienate any passers by who are more used to mainstream sites. 101
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:55 | # What I question is is it to our benefit to be openly anti-Semitic in public? Is naked displays of anti-Semitism in the public square working in our favor? Nothing works in our favor. When we gonna pick that one up? 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:37 | # Nick Griffin protecting his cash-flow from the EDL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFyN9DmKbsQ He explains the background of the anti-jihad movement, and identifies “Baron Bodissey”, during the course of this three-part video. 103
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:46 | # Posted by Classic Sparkle on December 18, 2012, 10:55 PM | # What I question is is it to our benefit to be openly anti-Semitic in public? Is naked displays of anti-Semitism in the public square working in our favor? Nothing works in our favor. When we gonna pick that one up? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= I hear ya CS, but instigators like us haven’t given up trying. Not even close. The only way we’ll lose is if we quit trying. I think the key to our sucess is patience. I say that because radical egalitarianism/individualism is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. It’s just a matter of time. Amongst everything else in the rad-libs’ path, they’re destroying the economy. Radical egalitarianism/individualism is dependent upon abundance. Once that abundance dries up, it’s curtains for their insane social engineering. So in the meantime, we can wait—AND PREPARE—then cease on the opportunities the economic decline present us. 104
Posted by Bill on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:07 | # BNP - EDL - UKIP - ? Where now for the British far right? Nick Lowles 21/09/2012.
. http://extremisproject.org/2012/09/where-now-for-the-british-far-right/ 105
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:57 | # Nothing works for us because whites are psychologically maladapted to our present circumstances. We have gone from a race of winners to one of losers, and biological losers go extinct. We can endlessly debate the precise assignation of blame, but the reality is that ONLY WP/WN ingathering and secessionism can save us. White Zion is your only possible future, flail about on other matters however much you wish. BTW, Amren has reached vastly more persons with racial truth than other Judeophobic WN organizations. If enough whites got angry at black crime, white liberal complicity, and the “browning of America” (or Islamicization of Europe), and began to racially nationalize, it would spill over into how Jews themselves behave. The ‘race ball’ needs to get rolling. You don’t start that by directing your fire at a group whose threat requires a huge alteration in the modal white’s understanding of reality. You start where the dichotomy between govt propaganda and lived reality is the greatest and most visceral - eg, with black misbehavior and the easily understood issue of white minoritization via immigration. Don’t you people get it?! Once we can start winning victories on some fronts (which, in the case of immigration, is also by far the most important), we will find additional victories that much easier to achieve (and the Jews will start altering their own behavior accordingly). The difference between Judeo-silent and Judeophobic WNs is that the former are much shrewder than the latter (though of course the latter are incapable of seeing this). 106
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:34 | # Judeophobic - Oy! If you think Amren and the other “non-Judeophobic” sites are so great then go there.
Really Haller, Alt Right might be your cup of tea…you could be right in your element.
107
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:39 | #
Oh grow up Danny boy! Just about everybody on the ‘right’ has to say good things about her. 108
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:55 | # /. 109
Posted by Thorn the medioce on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:57 | # Peter Brimelow writes: It seems clear that Political Correctness in MainStream Publishing is getting more intense, but Jared Taylor and now Ilana Mercer show that the new technology is weakening the traditional gatekeepers.Ilana’s just-released new book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa, carries a blurb from John Derbyshire upon which I cannot improve (although we can add hyperlinks):
Ilana Mercer’s Preface to Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa
By Ilana Mercer on June 9, 2011 at 12:00am read more>>
110
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:00 | # As I’d said, she is promoting Jewish/liberal bullocks. You only prove the point with that blurb upon which you cannot improve. As for all of the right embracing her.. On the July 16, 2011 podcast of The Political Cesspool http://www.libertyroundtable.com/tpc/political-cesspool-sat-2011-07-16-0000/ , Kieth Alexander interviewed Ilana Mercer, ready to embrace her with open arms, only to be dumbfounded to find her a committed liberal, anti-“racist”, devoted to the American principles you cite, as they are in line with her Jewish heritage. I did not like what I heard from her from the beginning and all the while she spoke - it was clear to me that she is not one of us; and once she stated that she is Jewish, it was, well…oh, of course, she is not one of us. I attributed Alexander’s wish to see her as an allied person to his Christianity and perhaps a wish to welcome Jews as allies. In a subsequent episode, Alexander went on to express his dismay at having ever recommended her or her book. He veritably apologized for having her on the show. http://www.libertyroundtable.com/tpc/political-cesspool-sat-2011-07-16-0000/ “SECOND HOUR GUEST: Ilana Mercer - Ilana Mercer is a widely published classical liberal (libertarian) writer, based in the United States. She pens WorldNetDaily’s popular “Return to Reason” column and is the author of the groundbreaking new book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.”
111
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:48 | #
Thank yo SO much for the link, daniels. I listened to the whole interview and I MUST say I was ALMOST as impressed—and in absolute AWE—of Ilana Mercer as James Edwards and Bill Roland were. Ilana is a first rate intellect indeed! I strongly encourage EVERYONE to click on the link Danny provided and enjoy a truly honest and intelligent conversation. What a breath of fresh air! 112
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:59 | # ...and listen to what Keith Alexander has to say about her while you are at it, all… the philosemitic Thorn the mediocre doesn’t want you to focus on that part.. 113
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:08 | # Oh, I see what happened…that particular episode wast not the one with Keith Alexander… No wonder the philosemitic thorn the mediocre wants you to focus on it - because he/she has wanted to give people a bum steer from the start.. I will try to find the Alexander episode.. 114
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:27 | #
I’d like to remind the readership it was ‘Daniels the Silly’ that first _steered_ us to the Mercer/Edwards interview in his post @ 110. STOP LYING, DANNY! BTW, Thorn the mediocre is neither philosemitic or anti-Semitic. Thorn is a realist wrt the JQ. Some Jews I despise; some Jews I admire. Ilana Mercer happens to one I admire. 115
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:29 | # YES! TAKE THIS “THORN THE MEDIOCRE”, YOU LYING DOG! We have triumphed over you and we will triumph over you because we must. The episode was October 29th that reveals Mercer to be the liberal, anti-White Jewess that she is: http://www.libertyroundtable.com/tpc/political-cesspool-sat-2011-10-29-2028/ The comments are are resoundingly against her:
Anyway, Excellent job by Keith and Bill! At the start of the show Ilana told the audience she was a proud Jew then five minutes later claimed she was an “individualist” who eschews racialism. Huh? I think the two are mutually exclusive and an individualist typically believes that race and ethnicity play virtually no role in the basic character of people. Most of us know that most Jews and non-white minorities are racial and collectivist in their world outlook and don’t view whites as mere individuals. And contrary to Ilana’s delusions, American Jews are very racially conscious and inclined to network to advance their group interests in the diaspora and in the Middle East. Secondly, she says her anti-apartheid father was only following Jewish teachings of helping the downtrodden and oppressed. If that’s the case, the Boers and other whites are being murdered and persecuted by blacks in the new S. Africa, but I don’t see any Jews, orthodox or other, acting as their advocates and champions. Lastly, Ilana says if we simply dispossess the corrupt elites then we’ll enter an era of multiracial amity or something like that. Somehow I doubt that very much. Multiracial societies are a bust without elites or even with well meaning elites.
I have to wonder why the Cesspool has had this lady on multiple times as a guest. I find her intellectually dishonest at best. According to her Protestant societies inexplicably self-destruct. What a convenient open ended explanation. Her prescription for more individualism as a solution is laughable. The one thing that whites don’t need is more individualism. I definitely won’t be buying her book. Fireforce Says: November 1st, 2011 at 8:18 am Wow.
Thanks for inviting Ilana Mercer on a second interview at TPC. Her first interview raised some suspicions in my mind as to her motivation for writing the book she is now hawking everywhere. Keith Alexander did an excellent job attempting to interview the slippery and evasive Ilana Mercer. She was quite condescending to Keith’s pertinent questions(and to his “pet project”) which she deflected with much gibberish and meaningless meandering. Please let Keith know what a good job he did, as he usually does. However, there was an excellent article in the Fall 2011 issue of the Occidental Quarterly that shoots down Ms. Mercer’s main claim that the South African protestant elite were solely responsible for the downfall(“suicide”) of White rule in South Africa, consequently leading to the horrors that the better informed among us are all too aware of. But I realize that Keith could not press too hard on these matters for ‘political” and media reasons. By the way, I don’t intend to support her by buying her book. The title of the article in the Occidental Quarterly is ‘The Role of Jews in South Africa Since 1948″ by Sam Davidson. 10 Count Says: November 1st, 2011 at 12:59 pm Wow. I just read her blog entry and I have to wonder if she was talking about a different interview. Keith was a perfect gentleman during the whole interview. She was the one who kept bringing up the jewish/racial angle, Keith was the one who was trying to find common ground. In her blog post she can’t even mention Keith by name but instead refers to him as “white Al Sharpton.” Boethius brings up good points about her using racial symbolism on her book cover, then crying about racial overtones. How is it even possible to discuss the situation in South Africa without bring up race? Libertarians are a joke. Ms. Mercer should stay away from interviews entirely if she expects that she’ll never be challenged on her viewpoints.
In perusing Ilana’s “Barely a Blog” she indirectly refers to Keith Alexander as an “intellectually incurious dim bulb”. Pretty insulting remark if you ask me. She also bemoans the lack of open mindedness on the part of TPC hosts. Ditto for her since she didn’t even make a good faith attempt to understand and respect the point of view of the TPC.
116
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:57 | # Here it is: http://www.libertyroundtable.com/tpc/political-cesspool-sat-2011-11-05-2225/ The Political Cesspool, November 5th, 2011 – Keith Alexander 4:46: “We had an interviewee last week (Ilana Mercer) who apparently did not share our insights on issues of race and also on Jewish power and influence….we always give (individuals) the benefit of the doubt….but on the other hand, there is nothing invalid about considering people as a group, for heaven’s sake every other racial and ethnic group in the world besides White gentiles does it, is not only allowed to do it but encouraged to do it and the claim it as a right. That is what a lot of people like our guest last week (Ilana Mercer) don’t seem to understand. We are merely claiming for ourselves equal rights, we want White gentiles to have the same rights to collective action and to have the same sense of racial and ethnic solidarity that every other race and ethnic group in the world, has. We are not White supremacists”... 117
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:04 | # Luke Says: November 28th, 2011 at 12:38 pm “Why, even Ilana herself did everything possible during this interview to cast aspersions and to heap scorn upon the idea that Whites needed to regain a sense of collective, racial identity as a necessary step towards defending themselves against their racial competitors – and by implication, against the extremely predatory aggression coming from Ilana’s tribe. Conclusion: Only buy her book if you live on a farm and still have an old-fashioned outhouse.” 118
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:40 | # Nov 5, 2011, Political Cesspool - Keith Alexander, 22:09: “We were very polite, we tried to find common ground but on the other hand we were not shying away from issues.. or telling our guest when we didn’t agree with one of her (Ilana Mercer) points.. and the two major points were racial consciousness…she believes that racial consciousness is a bad thing for White people.. like everyone else…if its bad for Whites why is not bad for Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians…the silence is deafening about those other groups…but its definitely “bad” for White people. She says, “You are never going to sell it to White people of today in Europe and America.” ..but we are not doing this show to be popular…. we are here to be truthful. We have a calling and that is what we intend to do…it is absolutely absurd to ask White people not to have a racial consciousness when every other group does, when we don’t have one that is like disabling your immune system in the culture war. And one way they do that was her other big point and that is individualism. Individualism is a subtle poison pill that encourages White people not to have a racial consciousness, not to have a sense of racial solidarity, not to coalesce together to try to promote their interests with the government, with the legislature…and not to speak in terms of group consciousness publicly. I don’t care how good a soldier that you are, if you come up against an army on the other side you are going to lose. People (like Ilana Mercer) who urge us to be individualists are basically tying to assure that we are going to lose the culture war. We need to understand this as the snare and the pitfall that it is.” 119
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:56 | #
Wrongo, danny! She never indicates she’s anti-White. She said she’s an individualist, not a racialist. Moreover, as an individualist she dosen’t paint groups with a broad brush—as she made clear to Keith at or around the 24 minute mark. (Kinda smart on her part, IMO.) A few salient points: * She said she’s a proud Jew. (BIG DEAL, SO THE FUCK WHAT?!?) * She slams Abe Foxman and the ADL * She contends the SA whites’ downfall is rooted in its Calvinist Puritan roots. * Keith Alexander includes Jews in the white-fold of America (@17:35). Good interview. Ilana Mercer presented her thesis very concise and persuasive. Well worth the time. 120
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:09 | # As the late Robert Bork explains so well in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah: there are individualists (as in classical liberalism) and there are radical individualists (as in modern-liberalism). Ilana Mercer is the former, not the latter. I pays to know the difference. 122
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:28 | # Posted by Thorn the mediocre on December 20, 2012, 01:56 PM | # The episode was October 29th that reveals Mercer to be the liberal, anti-White Jewess that she is: http://www.libertyroundtable.com/tpc/political-cesspool-sat-2011-10-29-2028/ Wrongo, danny! She never indicates she’s anti-White. She doesn’t have to do it explicitly, Thorn, the quarter Jew. Read what Alexander says: He is right,NOT YOU. She promotes individualism to Whites only and that is tantamount to White destruction. She said she’s an individualist, not a racialist. Moreover, as an individualist she dosen’t paint groups with a broad brush—as she made clear to Keith at or around the 24 minute mark. (Kinda smart on her part, IMO.) Keith triumphed over her filthy self. A few salient points: * She said she’s a proud Jew. (BIG DEAL, SO THE FUCK WHAT?!?) * She slams Abe Foxman and the ADL Jews are adept at playing as if they are on our side, but she clearly is not. While Jews and Marxism had nothing to do with it. * Keith Alexander includes Jews in the white-fold of America (@17:35). r…he distinguishes her as pejorative, them as the most liberal part of ‘White’ America, he talks about Jewish power and influence… He is a conservative and a right winger, who does very well with antiquated tools. Her message to whites is as disgusting as it is Jewish, and so is yours. 123
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:34 | # Definition of WHITE SUPREMACIST (Merrium-Webster)
2) that white people should have control over people of other races I beleive that number one is of an empirical nature hence I agree with it. Number two is of a moral nature. Hence, as a Christian, I reject that part. Separation/segregation is the way to go. 124
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:40 | # Daniels, You remind me of the paranoid Jewish charactor Woody Allen played in the movie Annie Hall. Only you’re the flip side of the coin 125
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:45 | # Not paranoid, Thorn the mediocre. After abundant evidence, you prattle on with your pro Jewish bullshit. Go where you are welcome and take Thorn the Jewish converted Jesus freak with you… He says he is a supremacist - typical Jewish POV. Whereas neither I nor any other White activist that I know of is a supremacist - we are separatists. ..incidentally, that is Alexander’s claim as well. 126
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:24 | # If I didn’t beleive the White race was superior to all others, then I wouldn’t waste my time fretting over race-replacement or being genetically blended in with the muds. Dr Willian Pierce once said (paraphrasing): When I see a white women producing offspring from a black man’s seed, I see 100,000 years of evolution going down the drain. 127
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:28 | #
That may be your reason, but it is neither the only nor the best reason to fret.
I agree with him in that case…. However, he would not agree with you about Ilana Mercer.. .. you say that you do not want to make White advocates look bad…
128
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:31 | # Bye the way, if you think Whites are infallibly superior, why fret? 129
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:17 | #
Now now Danny. Who said anything about whites being infallible? Either you’re intentionally being a naughty boy, or you’re hallucinating….again. Which is it? 130
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:17 | # Posted by Thorn the mediocre on December 20, 2012, 05:17 PM | # Bye the way, if you think Whites are infallibly superior, why fret? Now now Danny. Who said anything about whites being infallible? Either you’re intentionally being a naughty boy, or you’re hallucinating….again. Which is it?
You are instructive in negative, didactic sense, however. People can see how a disinformation agent works. 131
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:44 | # A gift of wise advice for the pitiable and misguilded daniels: “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” —C.S. Lewis 132
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:53 | # daniels asked: “Bye the way, if you think Whites are infallibly superior, why fret?” I’ll ask you AGAIN: Who said anything about whites being infallible? (Let’s see how daniels, the real disinformation agent here, responds.) 133
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:50 | # What we need to do: 1. Politically: stop immigration. Nothing else matters as long as the bleeding continues. 2. Non-politically: start a pro-white, pro-Middle American social group cum ideological consciousness-raising (dare I say - “community organizing”?) organization the purpose of which is to bring likeminded whites together off-web, to meet and develop communal bonds (which can transfer to business, friendships, relationships, etc). Where is the white man’s NAACP? Or the equivalent of Jewish organizations? Where can WPs go to meet and socialize with other WPs? Where is our fraternal organization, like the Shriners, or Boy Scouts, etc? We must develop bonds between WPs. We are too atomized, isolated behind keyboards. The problem is that overt WN groups are the kiss of career death for all but the wealthy or totally self-reliant (eg, an autobody shop owner in a heavily white, conservative area - he could be pretty openly pro-white without jeopardizing his livelihood; that just isn’t true for most whites anymore). We need a ‘moderate’ organization, something to bring whites together, but which shuns the hard edge of WN. Thoughts? (I’m mainly speaking to Americans here, as we need to start preparing now for life as a (persecuted) minority group in the near future.) 134
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:13 | # Leon, As things stand now, any attempts to start a mainstream movement centering around white rights as its core mission is a nonstarter. I’m not saying it can NEVER happen, I’m saying the present PC situation prohibits pro-white anything. Like it or not, Ilana Mercer is dead on when she said whites in the West are not racialists rather they are individualists. Of course that will change once the prosperous times we are currently enjoying dwindle down to destitution for the masses. That’s when the time will be ripe for a great awakening of white consciousness. No longer will whites embrace individualism. They’ll HAVE to form groups out of necessity. In that respect, “worse is better”. 135
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:02 | # True to his disinformation and misdirection mandate, Thorn the mediocre plays the liberal game of hair-splitting, ignoring marked patterns, abundant evidence and advising more hapless conservatism or liberalism via the Jewess, Illana Mercer (who calls Keith Alexander the White “Al Sharpton”). It is supposed to be a significant point that that Illana does not overlty proclaim herself anti-White… ..that he did not explicitly say that Whites were infallible… The selection of thousands of years of pilpul have prepared him for this dissimulation… 136
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:05 | #
I think the the interview between Mercer and Alexander was going quite well until Alexander tried to drag the conversation into the gutter by quipping “blacks can’t even organize a two car funeral procession”. Right then and there the astute listener could detect Mercer lost a great deal of respect for Alexander. I beleive that’s why Mercer latter on refered to him as the white Al Sharpton. IOWs, she regards him as low class. BTW, I thought Keith’s joke was funny. But on the other hand, Kieth should have took into account the caliber of the person he was conversing with. Kieth should have known someone of her high social standing would never go down the road he was trying to take her. Bottom line. Kieth kinda deserved the criticism Illana directed at him. —— BTW, Daniels, you still didn’t honestly answer my question: Who said anything about whites being infallible? Or a better question for you is: Why do you always try to put words in other peoples mouths? 137
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:33 | # /. Illana Mercer (who calls Keith Alexander the White “Al Sharpton”). I think the the interview between Mercer and Alexander was going quite well until Alexander tried to drag the conversation into the gutter by quipping “blacks can’t even organize a two car funeral procession”. Right then and there the astute listener could detect Mercer lost a great deal of respect for Alexander. I beleive that’s why Mercer latter on refered to him as the white Al Sharpton. IOWs, she regards him as low class. BTW, I thought Keith’s joke was funny. But on the other hand, Kieth should have took into account the caliber of the person he was conversing with. Kieth should have known someone of her high social standing would never go down the road he was trying to take her.
If you think that Illana Mercer is high class, and that her estimation of Keith as low class, so low as to be likened to Al Sharpton is on target, then your assessment of the interview and its responses only reveals you as having a markedly pro-Jewish agenda/ and by dint of that, uncaring of White interests.
In your 1/4 Jewish estimation. —— BTW, Daniels, you still didn’t honestly answer my question: Who said anything about whites being infallible? Or a better question for you is: Why do you always try to put words in other peoples mouths?
I asked you - Posted by DanielS on December 20, 2012, 04:31 PM | # Bye the way, if you think Whites are infallibly superior, why fret?
138
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:18 | # First daniels tried to say I said things I never said. And then, when caught, he acted like the cephalopod he is and squirted ink all over the place in order to cover up his dishonesty.
Nosiree. For his next act he uses his super=power x-ray vision (fueled by LSD no doubt) to peer down into my DNA and determine I’m one-quarter Jewish. Not half. Not one-eighth. Not three-quarters, but one-fourth. How precise! The only problem with that is I’m ZERO percent Jewish. PS, WRT Ilana calling Keith the white Al sharpton I suggest you look up the word hyperbole. Moreover, try to get it through your thick scull that women are much more emotional than men. Are you capable of that? 139
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:36 | # Posted by Thorn the mediocre on December 21, 2012, 01:18 PM | # First daniels tried to say I said things I never said. And then, when caught, he acted like the cephalopod he is and squirted ink all over the place in order to cover up his dishonesty.
Ok, so stop acting like a Jew. PS, WRT Ilana calling Keith the white Al sharpton I suggest you look up the word hyperbole. It isn’t witty, it isn’t elucidating. To liken him to Al Sharpton is disinformation plain and simple - it is not a characterization, it is a distortion. Typical Jewish bullshit for which you have so much sympathy.
I understand, you are woman 140
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:46 | #
Stop acting like you have aspergers.
141
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:03 | # Thorn said: WRT Ilana calling Keith the white Al sharpton I suggest you look up the word hyperbole.
—————————————————————————-
a deliberate exaggeration used for effect Obviously she was using hyperbole when she called him the white Al Sharpton. Are you a negro, daniels? You sure reason like one. Daniels, a negro with aspergers. HEH! 142
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:51 | # Posted by Thorn the mediocre on December 21, 2012, 03:03 PM | # Thorn said: WRT Ilana calling Keith the white Al sharpton I suggest you look up the word hyperbole.
—————————————————————————-
a deliberate exaggeration used for effect Obviously she was using hyperbole when she called him the white Al Sharpton. Are you a negro, daniels? You sure reason like one. Daniels, a negro with aspergers. HEH!
She was saying Keith Alexander is comparable to Al Sharpton. Only one beholden to a Jewish point of view, as you are, would see the the slightest wit of hyperbole in that. And you will not spend chanukah with illana, despite all of your ass kissing..
143
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:11 | #
ROFLMFAO! Good one daniels! You’re on to me! So on that note, I have to concede. But even YOU have to admit she’s a hot babe, no?
144
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:26 | # Once one talks to Jewish women, the way they look becomes unimportant. If you care about European peoples, they are revolting. 145
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:46 | # Thorn@134
I disagree. First, there are more and more WP types out there already. A group like I envision is vastly more possible now than two decades ago, pre-internet, precisely because the internet makes it possible to extract people and categorize them in all manner of niches. Whatever you’re interested in doing, you could probably find some similar group via google. Second, I think a lot whites just want to meet other conservative whites - but not necessarily hard-edged racists. WNs scare off a lot of normal whites who are not PC, but who don’t want to be tagged as “extremists”, either (and who don’t think of themselves that way, and indeed, who aren’t). There is a desperate need for a ‘bridge’ organization between mainstream conservatism and WN. Third, there are a lot of white conservatives out there - I don’t mean whites who happen to be conservative, I mean racial conservatives. A “racial conservative” loosely is someone who is not a racist, not aggressive, believes in the possibility (if not - if you push ‘em - the desirability) of a successful, multiracial America, but who doesn’t want whites to be second-class citizens in that multiracial America, and who is open to the idea (if not already supportive of it) that we shouldn’t be ‘diversifying’ any further (I know a LOT of whites who fit this latter category). Such people have literally even less voice at present than WNs. Seriously, who speaks for for non-WN WPs? Maybe vdare.com, or altright.com. But there is no organization which seeks to bring moderate white racial conservatives together to meet other whites who themselves want to ‘live white’ - without going into the wholesale rejectionism that neo-Nazis or even A3P embody. Perhaps I see this more than most being a Southern Californian, but a lot of us are very isolated (less racially per se, than ‘racio-ideologically’). It’s hard to meet up with likeminded persons - other whites who are also pro-white, unless you go the extremist WN route. When I think of all my favorite friends, a few are WN hardcores, but most are WP ‘softcores’ - pro-white, but not militant, and not even all that ideological. I know a number of guys (women, too) who are just tired of diversity, tired of PC, who are conventional people, who like being around other whites for socializing - but NOT tattooed white power freaks who think Ilana Mercer, eg, is The Enemy. In other words, I think the modal white Republican is not a WN or White Zionist, may not even be a WP, but is a racial conservative against immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism, the way the mass media lies about racial ‘events’, such as the Trayvon Martin case, etc. We need to start consciousness raising with these people now - NOT wait until the shit is so bad that people are focusing purely on individual survival. My thought is an internet-based organization which tries to develop local chapter groups throughout the nation, groups which, like the John Birch Society in my dad’s day, or Bible study groups today, meet once per month to discuss particular issues and concerns, which in this case would be racial/political - as well as eventually to develop a common political agenda and base for community activism. That’s the official line. Unofficially, the purpose is to develop bonds between likeminded whites who really want to meet each other, bonds which can translate into friendships, relationships, networking and business contacts, etc. This is how Jews operate; why can’t we? Even if whites are by nature much less tribalist than Jews or blacks, there remain a lot of us in absolute numbers who are so tribalist. We need to develop regular contacts, in order to build a movement for racial change. Just throwing up one’s hands is what all but the neo-Nazi wing always does, which is why nothing ever gets done. 146
Posted by Silver on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:24 | #
Yes, you’ve stated this opinion on a few occasions now. I’m not sure why you think it bears repeating so often. It’s not a particularly persuasive argument on its own (in fact, it’s decidedly counterproductive on balance, I’d say), so your repeating it really only manages to betray a stunning lack of imagination on your part. You’re free to believe as you wish, but please don’t pretend there are not numerous other (and far better, imo) justifications for preferring racial views and values over aracial views and values—views and values, btw, that most certainly do not hinge on a conviction that one’s race is objectively the greatest (‘in the eyes of God’).
147
Posted by Silver on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 07:20 | #
I think Takimag is probably the most representative voice of the sort of positively identified white you describe. There must be millions upon millions of such whites throughout America. It’s quite extraordinary that so few organizations exist to represent them, and that those that do wield so little influence. There is, of course, Conservatism Inc. which claims to speak for them but, as we know, most assuredly does not. I’d say that’s the major reason for the paucity of quality pro-white organizations. Another major reason, I am sure, why positively identified whites are so hesitant to ‘come out of the closet’ as white is fear of being associated with views they consider too extreme or more extreme than they’re comfortable with. Another problem with views that are ‘too extreme’ is that the people holding them create a kind of ‘adverse selection’ problem for budding pro-white organizations. That is, organizations that strive to represent white interests have a tendency to attract some serious lunatics, whose voices tend to drown out all others. It’s a sort of ‘Gresham’s Law’ effect: good racialism is driven out of circulation by bad racialism. As serious a problem as that is, there is good news in that a great deal of the work towards effecting cultural change in the direction of normalizing and valuing white identity and white racial concerns can be done without organizations. The people at Resisting Defamation pursue such cultural change through the use of what they term one’s ‘white voice,’ guiding people towards finding it and encouraging them to use it. While I agree with their strategy, I think their means leave something to be desired. The language they employ is simply too formal. Though it’s not completely ineffective it tends to make voicing pro-white thoughts seem ‘dangerously new’ or ‘risque’ rather than the ‘unusual, but commonsensical’ and ‘somewhat regretful, but clearly necessary’ vibes that I believe are more representative of the racial attitude the above-mentioned kind of white would most comfortably take the next step into. Btw, Haller, you’re astonishingly ideologically blinded if you imagine only conservatives harbor such genuine but cautious racial views and feelings. I bet there are nearly as many ‘liberal’ whites who feel very similarly about race, but who are even more easily put off by the idea of becoming politically white. They are hardly the devout anti-racism-at-all-costs anti-racists of the WN imagination run wild. The fanatical insistence that white liberals absolutely must be written off is just another in a long list of goofy WN convictions that bear only surface resemblance to reality. 148
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:22 | # Silver@146 Are you quoting me? I certainly agree with that statement about white superiority. I don;t recall writing it. It is indeed the ultimate justification for white survival. The West is the world’s most valuable civilization. The West = white civilization, and will not endure apart from white majority territories. Therefore, to preserve the best civilization, we must preserve whites, even if that entails coercion against nonwhites. Thus, my racial patriotism/nationalism. A lot of patient ethical analysis will be required properly to elucidate this position. But that is my position in a nutshell. 149
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:59 | # Silver@147 I agree mostly, esp re “adverse selectionism”. Just think how many converts a JRichards or Captainchaos or Alex Linder or Kai Murros must bring to the cause of white survival - NOT! Gresham’s Law is only too true. We’ve seen it even at MR (see above). But here you betray your naivete:
The only person I can think of who possibly fits this description is our own Graham Lister, who would object to being called a “liberal” (I think you mean “generic leftist” anyway; Lister is a true rarum avis, a member of the already tiny political economic non-liberal Left, but also simultaneously of the cultural Right; a very, very rare creature, with even fewer kin than the sasquatch, I suspect: Christopher Lasch, possibly, then we must go further back - Werner Sombart, or else the 19th century conservative anti-capitalists, George Fitzhugh, maybe, or closer to home, Ruskin and Southey - the latter two he would find most congenial, no doubt). Modern white liberalism, of the ‘progressive’ Democratic Party type, is virtually defined by its race treason. The only facet of the modern American Left true believers (as against the nonwhite nationalists biding their time) upon which ALL can agree, and to an even more furious extent than white dispossessionsism, is feminism, esp abortionism. I don’t think this will last forever, though. Right now, white women have the upper hand over ‘minorities’. Thus, cultural diversitarian arguments defending Third World wife abuse (right up to genital mutilation) are still in the West overridden by feminist obeisance. But not forever, I predict. The old days of “hardhat white Democrats”, guys who vote Left for economic reasons, but are racist, sexist and anti-queer, are just that ... old. There are a few left, just as there are some genuine nonwhite conservatives (including nonwhite anti-immigrationists - I’ve known some). If you really think there must be “nearly as many”, then you are sorely lacking in astuteness. That said, I do grant you that there are some social, economic, cultural lifestyle liberals who are not racists, but also don’t like antiwhite hypocrisy, not to mention nonwhite criminality. I’ve known some of these, too. These were the types Clinton was appealing to with his overrated “Sista Souljah” Moment two decades ago (look it up if you have to). But their numbers don’t seem to me to be growing. The group that could be large, but remains ill-formed and leaderless, is that of non-WN, white Racial Conservatives. Basically, people like me and Thorn (I’m much more extreme wrt Europe, of course, but I’m not talking about Europe here). If White America is not going to be a completely atomized and severely persecuted people when we lose our majority status, sometime before 2030, then it will be because of Racial Conservative awakening and “community organizing” starting now (I think the Obama reelection is actually having a very positive awakening effect). In this effort, WNs are either irrelevant or absolutely harmful. 150
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:29 | # in this effort, WNs are either irrelevant or absolutely harmful. White Nationalist: Someone who believes in defending the interests of traditionally White Nations and their native’s sovereignty; and also the creation of new, sovereign White Nations. I can’t see anything wrong with that. Silver, while I am glad to see you taking the position that supremacism is not the best nor the necessary position for separatism, you seem to be slanting White Nationalism’s portrayal as something particular, and perhaps other than the definition that I submit above. ....now it seems that Leon is proposing to define it as something negative as well.
Nation - a delimited and sovereign territory of kindred folk. White Nationalist - I don’t see the problem. No, the term does not automatically conjure “Nazi” or ignorant. More, we have been working out a provision to flesh out states or regions for qualitatively different kinds. Whites needn’t be stuck with a particular kind they abhor. In fact, I doubt that most people are even familiar with the term White Nationalist. When confronted with it, however, it should be fairly self explanatory. Where people misrepresent the term, we ought to recognize that their motives are not really in White interests; but rather perhaps in Christian interests, mixed-race interests, sheer capitalist interests, etc…or even misrepresenting the term in enemy interests - quite possible
151
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:04 | # Silver @ 146 First off, I regret and apologize for using the term “muds”. However, I stand by my statement. I’ve stated that position here exactly twice. I found it necessary to repeat it because I had a slippery little stiff necked anti-Semite nipping at my heels. Hence I made my stance, unequivocally, wrt how I view racial differences. Secondly I made it clear I’m against white supremacism; rather I’m for racial segregation/separation (see my post @ 123). Furthermore I’m well aware of numerous other reasons or justifications for preferring racialism over “anti-racism. But like it or not, my reason is the one I;ve stated @126. The question of why God blessed Europeans to evolve into the most creative/innovating race on the planet, then choose them to spread His Gospel worldwide is one only God Himself can answer. What I do know is there are allot of followers of anti-Christ ideologies in the world trying to stop what God intended—Cultural-Marxists and radical secular-liberals are the first two that come to mind…..
152
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:16 | # Semantically-speaking, I could be considered a White Nationalist, as I am more interested in maintaining the genetic purity and perpetuity of the white race than I am of preserving the cultural traditions of particular white nations (though I support that, too - it’s just much less important to me). Thus, I don’t care about Irish unification, or whether Poles are getting too much welfare in Surrey, or whether French cuisine is being polluted by American fast food, etc. RACE COMES FIRST. When I use the term “WN”, however, I’m speaking sociologically. The typical open WN is a weirdo - at least if my internet experiences have gained me any insight. Look at the seriously weird people even MR attracts. I think this is more true for the self-identified Americans than the Brits. A lot of WNs are ex-criminals, too. This is not true of WPs. I met a number of great people at AR conferences, a couple of whom have become my friends (one is a Jew, though you wouldn’t know it to talk to him). Anyway, even if every WN were as civilized as I assume GW is, the ideology itself is not appropriate to the US at this particular historical moment - and it’s not what I’m envisioning for the organization I sketch out above. I repeat: what is needed is an ideo-cultural bridge between desperately non-racialist mainstream conservatism, and hard-edged WN, between the present and the farther future. Something that is pro-white without being genuinely racist. I don’t care about white racism; it certainly doesn’t offend me. But it does offend a lot of otherwise reasonable whites, and any real evidence of it (ie, not PC hysterics, which white conservatives dislike), such as WNs parade openly, is enough to scare away the majority of whites (and thus continue to keep white patriotism a thoroughly extremist preserve - which is precisely what I seek to change). 153
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:25 | # I’ve stated that position here exactly twice. I found it necessary to repeat it because I had a slippery little stiff necked anti-Semite nipping at my heels. I’m not nipping at your heals, Thorn the disingenuous. I have given lengthy proof that you are dead wrong and providing a disservice to White interests. I’d like for you to go where your views would not clog up the channels (as you are doing here, with your disinformation) of worthwhile communication - among fellow Christians and persons who are as naive, inarticulate or disingenuous (take your pick) as you are about the JQ. Leon, it is a presumption on your part that people will shy away from honesty - honesty is a great ally of ours - it matches the truth (unlike Christianity and unlike Jews). Some of the people you list as being detrimental to the cause in that you suggest they would turn people away probably do not - it is rather the case that they are saying some things that people would like to say but do not feel safe saying at this point; on some matters, yes, they may be saying things that they disagree with. But people can and probably do like some, if not many of the things that they say; and have the capacity to be selective. I remember when I had a chance to hear some of these people unfiltered by the mainstream media, I was surprised that my perception of them changed drastically; thanks to the Internet. Moreover, there are a great deal of people who are going to be turned off by Christianity and by getting too chummy with non-Whites (yes, like Jews for example). Normal people who are able to think and analyze the situation are not going believe Christianity; and, sooner or later, are not going to see Jewish interests as matching ours - talk to enough of them; often you will find them absolutely unable to understand why you care if White people die-off; unconscionable that you would be so “racist” as to defend White people - the rank, Illana Mercer is a typical example…calling Keith Alexander “Al Sharpton”... I should not find it hard to believe that she would render such a dishonest characterization - the woman is an a-hole. But what do you expect from her kind or from a dishonest creep who would defend her.
154
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:45 | # For those of you unfamiliar with Al Sharpton, he is the fat one getting knocked off of his chair and the stage, by Roy Inness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJBXHDYU0KA
155
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:19 | # Leon, I think with a little fine tuning and smoothing out a few rough edges, you’ll be ready for prime time. Might I suggest you write a few articles and have them published on mainstream internet websites such as Lew Rockwell or American Thinker. From there maybe a booklet explaining your philosophy and your plan outlining your vision of the path forward? Speaking of “weirdos”, I think if a person CANNOT understand why the label WN causes a negative reaction in 99.9% in people of all classes, then those “weirdos” are almost hopeless. WP as a lable, OTOH, can easily be both explained and defended on intellectual, ethical, and most of all on moral grounds. Furthermore, most fringe WNs tend to be sooooo lacking in the flexibility of their thinking that they refuse to accept anything whatsoever—no matter how useful—from high quality thinkers such as Jewess Ilana Mercer or Paul Gottfreid. Given mindsets that, is it any wonder why “WN” is going nowhere? or even losing ground? The “weirdos” are functioning as gigantic targets that the Left uses to discredit us. The Left effectively use them to effectively deploy the guilt by association tactic that they’ve mastered so well. For example: The liberal- racist race baiters did it with the very race neutral TEA Party, so how much easier is it for the smear merchants on the Left to discredit WN? Especially when WNs give them great big gifts like ... well… I’m not going to name names.
156
Posted by Thorn the medioce on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:10 | # If only the world were as simple as our struggle being between Us vs the Jews. But of course the world is a complicated place. Leftist, anti-White Jews are only one part of the problem. FWIW, as recent as three or so years ago I was a proponent of the “sole cause” too. That being the source of all our problems can be traced to Jews. IOWs find something rotten and peel it open and you’ll invariably find a Jew at its core. Unfortunately I’ve since learned it’s not that simple. The problems whites face run much deeper and are vastly more complex than simply “the Jews did it to us”. BTW, Just being curious but how old are you daniels?
157
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:20 | # Thorn the disingenuous, I don’t say that the Jews are the sole cause of our problems - there are elite White traitors and several other key causes. I have said that repeatedly. /. But for those of us who are already there it is a backwards drag. Speaking of “weirdos”, I think if a person CANNOT understand why the label WN causes a negative reaction in 99.9% in people of all classes, then those “weirdos” are almost hopeless. It is you who does not understand, Thorn, the Jewish wannabe - as such, it is to your wish that White Nationalism is so abhorrent to normal White people; that is how dishonest that you are. You would try to put across the Jewish line that “nobody believes” x, y, and z”...e.g. “nobody” ascribes to “racist” thinking anymore.
White Patriot? Are you serious? Are you going to wear a powdered wig and read from a scroll to appeal to the younger generation? You are a fool. Patriot is an insipid word. Furthermore, most fringe WNs tend to be sooooo lacking in the flexibility of their thinking that they refuse to accept anything whatsoever—no matter how useful—from high quality thinkers such as Jewess Ilana Mercer or Paul Gottfreid. Given mindsets that, is it any wonder why “WN” is going nowhere? or even losing ground? Thorn the stupid, if a Jew has an idea that I can use, I will use it. I have not found anything useful from Paul Gottfried; though he is an amiable guy and may have some useful ideas - however, I have not heard anything salient from him as yet. Illana Mercer - forget it. That you insist on her goes to show that you are bad news for Whites; its clear. You are not honest. That you would say WN, or White advocacy of whatever stripe, is losing ground is the Jewish fantasy and psych-out line that you’ve swallowed and regurgitated. It isn’t true.
You are the one who discredits, Thorn the disingenuous. “The Left” of which you speak, is using you. Liberal race baiters undermined the Tea Party? Not liberal Jewish race panderers, PC and corporate interests (was it the Koch brothers or people like that who co opted them away from the Ron Paulers and instead on behalf of the republicans?)? Do you think that I, or anyone like me, would wish for the tea partiers to insist on having Blacks on stage, or to pay homage to Martin Luther King? ...to denounce racism so adamantly? ...to embrace the Christianity and the Constitution in all its indiscriminate benevolence…whereas someone like you, Thorn the disingenuous, just might - probably would. I do not discredit them, Thorn, they discredited themselves by being co opted through the disingenuous likes of yourself; I could see you right at home at the Glenn Beck restoring honor rally, sobbing for Israel and the long suffering Jews. 158
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:43 | # How old are you, daniels? and Do you get out much? (I ask the second question because you said you never heard of Andrew Breitbart) 159
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:52 | # Go to hell Thorn. I never said that I never heard of Andrew Breitbart. Lying is like second nature to you, isn’t it? I heard that Andrew Breitbart was a Jewish fella who had some supposedly controversial ideas; he died and was talked about some among conspiracy minded circles… I don’t know how true any of that is; I was not especially interested…
160
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:35 | #
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_white_genocide_evidence_project/ @ 80 Thorn said: “Back to Breitbart. A true right-wing warrior/general that is sorely missed in the war against the Cultural Marxists. He had the balls to get right up in the leftist freaks’ grills.” Danny the slippery responded: Not familiar with him, but you must understand that Jewish interests play both sides. They can make very clever arguments against either side. —— Caught ya again, danny boy!
161
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:08 | # Not familiar with him, but you must understand that Jewish interests play both sides. They can make very clever arguments against either side. This is what I said about Breitbart. “not familiar with him” it is not that same as saying that I’d never heard of him, as the walking piece of dog shit, Thorn the disingenuous, would have it… Rather, Thorn in the side, like the virus he is, is looking for any possible way in…
don’t you love Jews and Negroes, faggot? 162
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:49 | # Eh! not familiar v never heard of = some say tomato, some say tomAto. IOWS, it’s for all intents and purposes the same difference. Brietbart, BTW, was one of the MOST well known and effective right-wing activists in contemporary American politics. Thank God his legacy lives on! Now, since it’s been establish you never heard of (or are unfamiliar with) Breitbart, that’s why I asked your little 18 year old punk ass if you ever get out much. Judging by your juvenile response/answer, you fail miserably on all accounts. FAAAAAAAAIL!!! 163
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:02 | # /. Eh! not familiar v never heard of = some say tomato, some say tomAto. IOWS, it’s for all intents and purposes the same difference. You are one dishonest piece of shit. I had heard of him. And from what I’d heard of him, I recognized the truth - that he is not important.
FAAAAAAAAIL!!! right, Jew-bag 164
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:12 | #
There you go man. You’re starting to assume your rightful place in society. Kudos! 165
Posted by DanielS. on Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:46 | # Thorn the mediocre, indeed, your rightful place is “not of this world.” 166
Posted by Thorn the sarcastic on Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:50 | #
Would anyone nominate Daniels as the poster child for there cause? Is he the PR representative of MR? Just askin’ 167
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:52 | # Thorn@155 Thanks for the vote of approval. Once I reach the dissertation stage of my program, I intend to start publishing more mainstream articles (under my real name, which is only slightly different), preferably for paleocon publications and websites. In the meantime, I am working on turning one of my essays from last year into an article, but it is for a Catholic journal and has nothing to do with politics. My dissertation will intentionally not be (overtly) political, as I want to publish it as my first book, and don’t want any PC-flags getting raised which might stall or prevent publication (my professor-mentor is confident that, based on my work quality thus far - a few papers of which will eventually form part of my dissertation, and thus book, I will be able to get a book ‘deal’). I’m going to work my way into formal racial intellectualism gradually (informally, well ... here I am). I need first to publish a couple of books that are completely mainstream. I already know what I’m going to work on. The first will be in the ‘philosophy of religion’ area (my dissertation field); the second, only slightly more political (but well within Catholic mainstream intellectual parameters), an analysis of an aspect of Catholic natural law theory. Everything I do beyond this will likely be political, though even then I will be getting more extreme over time (eg, my projected third volume will be decisively paleocon - probably in the field of ‘philosophy of punishment’ - but not yet openly racialist). I hope my fourth work will be my life’s work, Racial Ethics from a Christian Perspective. Of course, when I actually get to that 4th volume depends on how I’m supporting myself postgrad (I may do a “Prolegomena” soon after graduation, just to ensure that my radical ideas are out there in case I predecease completion of Racial Ethics). If the real estate market returns, and some of my portfolio finally and fully recovers, perhaps this won’t be an issue (sadly, I think the opposite is more likely, especially since Obongo’s reelection). I do want to try to earn some money in paleoconservative journalism, and especially, I want to try to break into some kind of talk-media. I’m a good writer, but a better speaker and discussant. I honestly am not intimidated by most of the talking heads I occasionally listen to, and cannot understand why they are so successful (I admit, Rush has his lock as the first major radio voice, and as an appealing guy to Middle Americans, and Savage and Levin are both pretty good, with Savage being the more entertaining). I want to give radio a shot at least. At this point, I’m basically just living for the day, while being as frugal and productive as possible, without necessarily knowing exactly where my current somewhat risky career path will take me. So be it. Life’s short, and should be enjoyed.
168
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:30 | # /. Thorn the mediocre, indeed, your rightful place is “not of this world.” Would anyone nominate Daniels as the poster child for there cause? Is he the PR representative of MR? Just askin’ I’m not seeking the poster child position. In terms of public relations, your imputing the “the” word to me is perhaps a means of interjecting opinions that are diversionary from MR’s best interests. MR has multiple voices for its public relations - for its public relations; which in many respects takes the form of conversation and arguments that the public may eaves-drop or comment upon. Majority Rights is concerned for Western societies, its peoples, not the Levant. First and essentially it is concerned with indigenous persons of the UK - and essentially with all persons of European descent as long as they are of an allied position on behalf of their sovereign territories and in separatism from non-European peoples. For my part, I do my best to honestly advocate that position. Since this is an English site, I defer to their concerns and discussions (I guess that about 50 - 75 percent issues regarding U.K. natives would be appropriate - just a guess; when and if the figure is somewhat more or less, it is fine with me); while I try to add broader/other perspectives where I can, when they are in harmony with English and other native U.K. interests. 169
Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:50 | # Look at the “Best rated” comment on the linked article: We’re on our way to Britain: .... Can the nominally “non-racist” majority who form the “enough is enough” brigade help turn off the immigration tap? I wonder also if the right and proper indignation expressed in the comments will translate into votes for UKIP. 170
Posted by Silver on Sat, 29 Dec 2012 06:45 | # Haller,
No, it’s just your opinion that it is.
There is no such thing as a permanent, unchanging ‘white civilization.’ White civilization can only be defined as whatever civilization emerges wherever whites live, and which is then valued by and perpetuated by whites, but which nevertheless undergoes significant changes with the passage of time as it is modified by new information, ideas, and preferences. Your argument then becomes that whites must survive in order for it to be possible for whites to enjoy a white civilization. That’s fair enough, but it has little do with whites being objectively best. Indeed, the argument that the best civilization must survive seems to me more an argument for eugenics than for white preservation. desmond,
The GR wouldn’t have been invented if there wasn’t. “I don’t understand why he is treating me badly. I’ve never done anything to him.” That is probably the most common form of popular moral reasoning in existence. Its growth into the moral precept we know as the GR isn’t as obvious a next step as “eye for an eye”, but it is the reason the GR is universally so easily grasped and valued. 171
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:13 | # A sensible and ethical/moral eugenics policy is MUCH preferable to the dystopian genepool the liberal-nazis are forcing on us. Purging or rooting out the radical-egalitarian ideology from the thinking patterns of the “intelligentsia”—specifically the white “intelligentsia”—would be a good place to start. ——— THE MISFITS, THE LOSERS, AND THE SOCIAL PARASITES By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”
August 8, 2009
But the implied symmetry ends right here, as the Nazis were a pathological offspring of non-Marxian socialism (see references [1] and [2]), with which “Liberals”, particularly the “progressive” ones, flirt increasingly, while the conservatives seem rather vehemently opposed to any form of socialism. Let’s see. The main, albeit untold, objective of “Liberalism” is to stop social evolution in tracks by helping the least fit (which term includes such categories as: the least intelligent, the least talented, the least rational, the least productive, the least responsible, the least civil, etc.) to survive and multiply while preventing the most fit (an antonym of least fit) from succeeding, and discouraging them, however implicitly, by means of state-mandated socio-demographic policies, from having kids that tend to inherit their parents’ fitness. And it shows. The world’s once most advanced U.S. economy is slowly but steadily deteriorating as the size of Democratic constituency, which includes the misfits, the losers, and the social parasites (that learned how to parasitize on generous government handouts intended to support the misfits and the losers), both domestic and imported, is growing. Working together under the “Liberal” leadership, stupid or asocial as they are, they will sink it (the economy) completely and wreck the American society that depends on it, blaming the “white right-wing extremists” for the failure.
“But what does it have to do with the Nazis?” one may ask. Well, the Nazis were very much like the “Liberals” and embraced similar socialistic agenda (see [1], footnote 1), except that they (the Nazis) were claiming to help, as opposed to derail, the evolution by eliminating those that they declared as the misfits, the losers, and the social parasites.
This, and the level of brutality (or a lack thereof) in implementation of the “correct” ideology, were about all that differentiated the “Liberalism” from the Nazism. In the simplest terms, the Nazism was a brutally implemented non-Marxian socialism + nominal eugenics (state-mandated elimination of the declared “least fit”) while the “Liberalism” is a relatively mild (so far) form of non-Marxian (so far) socialism + actual dysgenics (state-mandated selective support for the actually least fit at the expense and to the detriment of the most fit and their progeny).
So, when you look at the facts, the two allegedly opposing ideologies, the “Liberalism” and the Nazism, did have quite a bit in common. And we haven’t seen everything that the “Liberals” will do to us, yet.
172
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:36 | # @Thorn Well that’s all very nice I’m sure. Now don’t you have a service at ghastly mega-church to attend? I sure the sermon will be on your theological duty to genuflect before Goldman Sachs and other masters of the ‘free-market’ - Walmart perhaps? The Coca-Cola Company? Some nice multi-billion hedge fund perhaps? Hosanna for the free-market entrepreneurs behind brazzers.com, yes sir! It would be something of a shock - to say the least - for the ancient Greeks or even Shakespeare to be told that buying and selling crap is the ‘essence’ of Western Civilisation. I doubt anyone, other than a culturally illiterate philistine, would make market-exchange their ‘highest’ value in whatever hierarchy of values they subscribe to. Let alone approvingly cite such low-level trash as Rush Limbaugh! Whatever next? Glenn Beck’s thoughts on Spinoza’s concept of the multitude? Sarah Palin’s insights into Sophocles? Sean Hannity on Kierkegaard’s concept of anxiety? Then again you are an American I presume? I believe the apt phrase on this occasion is ‘Jesus wept’. I of course cannot totally eliminate the possibility that your last post was for comedic purposes only. If so you got me! 173
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:23 | # Hey, Dr. L, I’m no fan of globalism. Far from it. I think it’s a frightening that much of our manufacturing has been transferred to China and elsewhere. The trade off of losing our manufacturing base for the TEMPORARY benefit of Americanos being able to fill their shopping carts with junk imported from China (along with a few fat cats making easy profits from the process) is a disgusting turn for the worse. I say temporary because that cheap junk aien’t gonna be cheap very much longer given the fact the USD is being devalued steadily and swiftly. Globalisation sucks; it’s a massive tragedy in the making. Speaking of tragedies, if Sophocles were born in this day and age his doctors would probably have him doped up on Prozac; and instead of the Bard being a great playwright and poet, he’d probably be on the same career track as Marilyn Manson. HEH! Moreover hardly anyone—from high school drop outs to PHDs—reads the writings of folks like Sophocles, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, etc. Most people—if they read books at all—read what’s on the NYT bestseller lists. Lastly: No, that last post of mine @ 171 was not meant for comedic purposes. It accurately describes whats taking place in America today—especially wrt the the nature of the “liberal” tyrants running things. PS, I’ll leave philosophy to the soi disant philosophers here at MR. 174
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:21 | #
he said as the Mayan high priest ripped his still beating heart from his chest and chewed on it. The reason it ‘evolved’ in savage man is approbation…the human love of praise and glory. Thus in civilized man it becomes codified, a moral rule that compels a certain type of socialized behaviour. When those British tourists dashed into the frothing waters of the Atlantic to save illegally migrating SSAs from drowning off the coast of Spain, it was not because there was an expectation that those same Africans would one day return the favour. It is because that is how their society believes they should act, and the niggling doubt that if they behaved in any other fashion, then that behaviour would be held in contempt. As we’ve seen with the appellations of ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semite’ disapprobation of certain behaviour is a powerful tool for shaping that behaviour. 175
Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:00 | # 176
Posted by Bill on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:15 | # @175 Yes I saw that. But where’s the anger, the demonstrations? Where have the replaced whites fled to? There’s no signs of resistance, not a dicky bird anywhere other than we intrepid keyboard warriors hunkering down behind our keyboards. But we’re just as culpable as they. Everything is so normal out there, turn on the television and there are quiz games by the bucket load, there’s celebrity cooking and christ knows what else, but everything is so normal. The role of the media in all of this is pivotal and indispensable to the programme, without it they simply couldn’t carry it through. Surreal doesn’t come into it. The funny part is at least 50% of the public won’t know what’s hit them when it hits them. They’ll never see the elephant. What is occurring defies explanation. Another take could be the place is falling to bits under its own dysfunction, we may not have to do anything, it’ll give one mighty groan and implode. The whole thing is falling apart on its own as we speak. The people supposedly controlling this managed deconstruction haven’t got the nouse to manage it. They themselves may well become consumed by it in the end. I once asked here what the replacement phoenix would look like, a body of opinion reckoned the powers that be didn’t know either. As long as what is is no more then they would just wait and see what emerged from the wreckage. This was before such talk of a NWO became common currency, opinions may have changed since then. How the people cannot see through this austerity nonsense really takes the biscuit. Rant over and out. 177
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:24 | # Why have the white British left London? The report has reimagined white flight as doves of aspiration seeking more elevated perches. The highest-rated comments are those which take a more realistic view of white flight.
178
Posted by Bill on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:03 | # Standard fare from Easton. Hell, he did say dramatic though when describing London’s white’s disappearance. I skimmed down the article, no sign of the ‘I’ word. You’ve got to hand it to them. An interesting take currently is the focus on the oncoming hoards from Bulgaria, you’ve gotta laugh when there’s a thousand a day coming through Heath row from all over the third world. Just shows how the media can skew the debate in any direction they choose. This is the hallmark of the liberal media, they only discuss what they wish to discuss. One day the Easton’s of this world will get caught up in it all. Hey! you can’t do that to me I’m on your side. As for myself, I’m reduced to lurking among the Telegraph threads, I don’t see much improvement of awareness. Perhaps those that do get it just leave and get on with their lives best they can. I guess we’ll all be flies on the wall at the upcoming Eastleigh by-election. You never know, It could be the end of the beginning. But I won’t be holding my breath. 179
Posted by Penally, Wales on Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:35 | # Post a comment:
Next entry: The Folie of Existence: Hilbert, Husserl, Heidegger, Syntax and Semantics
|
|
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 DanielS on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:42 | #
/.
Inasmuch as it is difficult to go on the offensive against the immigration invasion, what forms might tactical retreat and regrouping take?