Posted by AWM on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:21 | #

Thank you all for your hard work and time making this website what it is.  And the next five months are going to be interesting, not to mention the next 5 years.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:25 | #

I couldn’t begin choose a short list of favorite entries — there must be hundreds I’ve loved.  Not to mention dozens of fantastic thread commenters who’ve enriched the discussions here over the years, many of the original guys still around and only getting better, and thousands of great individual thread comments posted. 

I’m home here, this is my home. 

Thank you, GW, for building it. 

Congratulations.

Posted by Q on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:33 | #

Of course the highest accolades should be bestowed upon our gracious host and his outstanding writers. Too, the caliber of the people that comment in the threads are extremely intelligent and informed. Thank you GW for providing this invaluable venue.

Posted by Prozium on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:53 | #

Congratulations on the five year anniversary. Any thoughts on the next five years? What direction would you like take?

Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:43 | #

Congratulations.  I shall never forget the day I touched down here at MR.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:48 | #

The world may have gone mad but here there is sanity.  The best minds gather here to restore sanity to our people.  Thanks for doing what you do.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:36 | #

Congratulations on 5 years!

The commenters here are certainly engaging and courteous in ways that few other sites can boast.

Thanks to Guessedworker for hosting the site. It can’t be easy to post regularly, converse in the comments and keep an eye on the flow of various conversations going on across just about every time zone.

And on a personal note, thanks goes to Guessedworker who not only accepts my submissions here but cleans up my bad grammar in them and makes them, all around, more presentable. 

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:47 | #

thanks goes to Guessedworker who not only accepts my submissions here but cleans up my bad grammar in them and makes them, all around, more presentable.

That’s odd.  I don’t remember any of that.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:21 | #

Yes congratulations. I’ve learned a lot on here and it’s helped me sharpen my thoughts on things i already knew. Three cheers.

Posted by AgainsTTheWall on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:58 | #

It was a couple of comments by GW on other sites, several years ago now, which led me to MR. The comments were of a character quite different from anything I had read before. They were clearly the remarks of an educated man, professorial really, and were unabashedly pro-English, pro-white and untainted by any genuflection to the Multicult.

The unapologetic opposition to the Final Solution of the European Gene found here is refreshing to say the least. I stop by most days.

Thanks very much to GuessedWorker for your efforts and to all the contributors.

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:01 | #

Congratulations, GW.  Thank you for creating a space for intelligent discussion about, what you rightly call, the greatest issues of our European age.

Posted by john on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:53 | #

Thanks Guessedworker, good job. I came to the site after reading all of Matts stuff.

Posted by Euro on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:47 | #

Congratulations to MR and all of its editors and contributors. My only regret is that I wish I had discovered this site sooner.Seems I’ve missed out on quite alot.

Posted by Jupiter on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:31 | #

Guessedworker

Far out man, groovy, I mean really really groovy. I really dig it man. Power to the People-WHITE PEOPLE that is.

warm regards
Jupes

Posted by Jupiter on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:51 | #

How does the Jessie Collin Young song go….Let me see…Oh yeah I just remebered the lyrics:

“Come on White people now lets get together now..and..kick out..all ...the darkies right now…right now…right now” It doesn’t get more lyrical than this,now does fellow White Nationalist. Extreme imtolerance these days is a virtue. Can’t have enough of it. White survical requires it Ladies and Gentleman.

Fred

Are these the right lyrics.

Kieth Moon hated the fucking hippies.

Guessedworker
I just want to take this opportunity to commend you for all your efforts for resiting the race-replacement of European people at the hands of the post-1965 darkies of all breeds.

Again Warm Regards

Jupes

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:53 | #

I was already in the process of an ideological shift when I found this site in 2008 thanks to CC’s efforts over at Takimag.  But this site, it’s breadth of information, was what pushed me over the edge into a new, explicitly-racialist worldview.  The amount of material here and the quality of it, are truly things to be proud of.  Admins and commenters alike have shared many priceless insights over the past few years.

Congratulations, GW, James, Soren, and the rest.  And thanks to the commenters who’ve stayed active.  May your work continue to inspire all those who come with open eyes and an open mind.

Posted by fellist on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:36 | #

It’s nice to have an excuse to thank all you guys for the often brilliant stuff you put out. Cheers!

Posted by wjg on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:41 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on October 14, 2009, 05:48 AM | #

The world may have gone mad but here there is sanity.  The best minds gather here to restore sanity to our people.  Thanks for doing what you do.

GW,

I agree with the Captain here.  Though I have not posted for a while I often visit and am grateful that there are still Men of the West here grappling with our plight and trying to work through it.

Keep up your excellent work.  You are building a cadre as I see it that is/will play a role in our liberation.

Posted by Thom in GA on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:39 | #

I find it hard to believe that your superior intellect group shows up very much on this page.  Maybe if you stopped being the master of the ad hominem you would be more effective.  Or maybe you’re the only true American & everyone who opposes you really are Marxists.

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:32 | #

I find it hard to believe that your superior intellect group shows up very much on this page.  Maybe if you stopped being the master of the ad hominem you would be more effective.  Or maybe you’re the only true American & everyone who opposes you really are Marxists.

What’s this then?  Is this another antifa troll?  I think so.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:19 | #

Thank you all.  But I’m not sure all these kind words should be directed at me.  I pay the bills and edit a few bits and pieces, along with others, and do my share of writing.  But the blog owes its design to J Richards and its maintenance too - and sometimes, when things go belly up, to James.  If it was all down to me we’d have been off-line years ago and I’d still be fumbling with the php.

Proze asks a big question, in keeping with his recent run of posts at OD.  He deserves an answer, and I’ll give that some thought.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:31 | #

I’d like to add my own congratulations to Guessedworker for the past five years in which MR has made a unique and original contribution to nationalist discourse. As for Hunter’s question, I’d like to proffer two suggestions for the consideration of our esteemed host.

First, I wonder what it might it take to entice back into the fold some of the extremely gifted earlier contributors whose writings turned us all onto MR in the first place but who now, for one reason or another, no longer grace us with their presence.

And second, it would be a tremendous coup if MR could metamorphosise into a venue where proponents on both sides of the existential question can present their respective cases for critical review and analysis. The invitation to Mehdi Hasan obviously fell on stony ground, but it seems to me that there is an obvious niche for a platform on which the arguments pro and contra could be aired, free from polemic, ad hominem and sloganeering. All of course free from the censorious moderation that is such a prominent feature of mainstream commentary such as the Guardian’s Comment is Free website.

The benefit of such a vehicle is that obviously self-serving propaganda would be exposed for what it is, and that those who are open to persuasion would have the opportunity to judge each side of the case on its merits. Certainly there is nothing that comes close to performing this function anywhere in the mainstream or alternative media to my knowledge.

Posted by White Preservationist on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:13 | #

Echoing all the others, much congrats on the 5 years ... and I raise a hearty pint to GW from here across the Atlantic hoping for the next 5!

I am with the commenter above named ‘Euro’ though—my only regret about this site is that I didn’t find it 5 years ago.  However, this site was (and still is) one of a small handful that was instrumental to my racial awakening over the last couple of years. 

Thank you all for your work and dedication to the pro-White cause.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:51 | #

Dan, Dasein,

This is the question to which the argument, if prosecuted with sufficient acumen by our side, always returns:

Does the end of eliminating a perceived racism in Europeans justify the means of actually eliminating them?

And, of course, it doesn’t.  That is the difficulty the anti-racists have.  They try to defend their position with lightweight and easily disposable arguments.  We get the deathless Lewontin Fallacy and other attempts to deny race - claiming that genes only cline is a favourite one, and “geneticists” agreeing that there is no basis for racial categorisation is another.  We get professions of complete relaxation about the demographics.  We get attempts to put down white chavs while lauding the wonders of Indian friends.  We get attempts to shut down debate, either by ululating the letters B ... N ... P or by labelling any espousal of European interests or any profession of European survival as “fascism”, “racism” and “hate”.  And, of course, we get censorship and various kinds of bannings (there are three levels at CiF, I have discovered).

But we never, never get a proper argument for European genocide because, obviously, there isn’t one.  It’s all religion.

But let’s put this thesis to the test.  CiF has an op-ed today about the forthcoming Question Time with Nick Griffin on the panel (which, btw, will also include Jack Straw, Baroness Warsi, Bonnie Greer and Chris Huhne).  It is titled “The BNP on Question Time is the wrong party on the wrong programme”:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/15/bnp-question-time-bbc-griffin

Let’s some of us venture on to the thread and see whether we can elicit any coherent and principled arguments for race-replacement, then return here and discuss the experience.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:21 | #

Dasein - I’m not sure there is any high-quality opposition.

Most of the other side’s arguments are not arguments at all, just appeals to emotion or verging on a quasi-religious belief on the rightness of their cause. Not that those are not powerful weapons but they fall apart in an argument.

I’m sure I’ve said before that on the liberal/left, the very lack of good arguments for their position is a seeming strength. A liberal type can turn up here and defend their position with absolute confidence, without making a single concrete point. Why? Because they are entirely confident that somewhere else the liberal/left heavyweight thinkers have already won the argument, it doesnt need to be gone over again, therefore their petty emotional gambits are merely the mopping up operation in the debate, taunting those right wing losers who dont know theyve lost the argument. It doesnt occur to them or other more neutral readers/listeners that in fact these arguments have not been heard at all anywhere. Its enough for them to believe that they have.

One some threads Ive been at recently, the liberal types are getting themselves very excited by the prospect of Nick Griffin on Question Time. They are sure that this will expose him as - whatever it is they think he is - once and for all. Why? Because the great n’ the good on the panel will see him off with all those devastating arguments. I like to ask them what those arguments might be and why dont we have it out right now online. To be fair we are not talking about any intellectual heavyweights but that’s not the point, the same weak emotive points are made eloquently or crudely but they are still weak.

And of course it turns out that they cant really think of any serious attacks at all. It all comes down to the usual; insisting the BNP are nazis and why-oh-why cant the plebs see that? In other words the same old emotive crap we are already fed 24/7.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:26 | #

Oh yes, and well done on five years. Im amazed to think its been that long, Ive been here for most of that time, I’m happy as one of the grunts, but I look in to see what the heavyweights are saying.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:16 | #

Congratulations David! You are a very special person.

Posted by Nein mein Herr on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:01 | #

You are the anglophone equivalent of the Scandinavian web portal http://www.motpol.nu

If you have any ability with these languages (mostly Swedish) do yourself a favor and look thru the archives there. Oskorei is a brilliant writer, and there are many others.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:43 | #

Banned by the mod already!

Nein mein Herr,

I don’t think we have many Swedish speakers.  But if you have the time to translate some of the best work at that motpul I will certainly look at cross-posting it here.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:52 | #

it seems to me that there is an obvious niche for a platform on which the arguments pro and contra could be aired, free from polemic, ad hominem and sloganeering.

There is no argument. The people who want White genocide are quite aware of what they want. Their only aim in a debate is to disguise their intention. In a debate with someone stupider than them they’ll word-juggle to try and confuse and disguise their genocidal intent. In a debate with someone smarter they’ll back off into ad hominem, polemic and sloganeering or they’ll ban, if applicable, in a flash.

There’s an obvious niche for learning those debating points and techniques which drive the enemy into ad hominem or banning as fast as possible. This is useful when there are neutrals watching. I don’t see much point in debating the enemy otherwise. Once they’re pushed back to ad hominem we then need (well-crafted) counter polemic and sloganeering to make them run.

Any of our blood who are less good at word-juggling need to be provided with well-crafted polemic and sloganeering and trained to use it from the start with no attempt to debate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:06 | #

Wandrin,

If you recall, we ran a short series of posts under the heading “Snappy Refutations”.  They can be found by searching through the “Activism” page, under the “Practic” heading top left.  Perhaps it’s not enough.  But if you are interested in creating a resource of debating postures and points we will certainly host it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:28 | #

Das,

I am somewhat shocked to report that the mod actually published the comment ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/15/bnp-question-time-bbc-griffin?commentid=cb47d1d4-01b4-4664-8657-09bb518feb36

... to which pdfp was responding.  That is very rare, and usually when the first-stage ban greets one’s attempt to publish that’s the end of the affair.

Gastarbeiter will reply to pdfp later this evening in the hope that the duty mod will be as interested in ideas as the day mod.  In any event, Gastarbeiter already has a close relative posting sparely on two other BNP threads running at CiF today.  It pays to travel in these climes mob-handed, I find.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:10 | #

“these guys you’re debating won’t even acknowledge that the English exist.  Genetic nihilism is the foundation of their argument.”  (—Dasein)

Once you assert that race-replacement is the issue, the other side has no recourse but to deny race.  They can get around anything but that.  Of course once they deny race there’s no way you can make them retract their denial, because they simply won’t listen to any supporting proofs, Psycho Tim Wise being a typical example of how they operate.  When that impasse is reached, the exchange ends with you opposing race-replacement and they denying that there are races.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:43 | #

@GW

Yes i recall and a useful exercise it was. I’m reaching at something else which isn’t completely focused yet.

Most of our people are like brain-washed sheep who’ve been demoralized by decades of media-induced White guilt. There’s no point debating with them in the usual sense because they’re too demoralized.

The enemy are the shepherds and wannabe shepherds - debating with them has value if there’s an audience of sheep as it’s good for their morale if you win. The enemy themselves will never change their mind so it’s purely for the audience (hence why you get banned so fast at Cif). This is where the exercises you mention add their value.

However not everyone on our side will have to ability to word-juggle effectively and they need something else to use.

Also if, as i believe, you can’t really debate with most of our people because of the brain-washing how do you get them to snap out of it?

I think there’s a need for something akin to verbal shock tactics e.g an activist gets called a racist and they reply “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white”. They don’t argue or debate they state an aggressive point and repeat it whenever the same situation happens again - repeatable mantras rather than debating points. I think a list of simple repeatable mantras that can be learned by rote and used when they apply could kill two birds with one stone: give non word-jugglers on our side simple attacking points they can repeat and (i think) act as a kind of counter brain-washing on the audience.

I’m not quite clear enough on it to explain properly but there’s elements of what i mean at:
http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/
and a google of “active measures demoralization”

I don’t think it’s an either/or by the way. I think the mantra side complements the debating side.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:52 | #

I’m sorry GW, but CiF is a perfect example of what I am *not* proposing. I commend your dogged persistence in showing the flag there as going above and beyond what might be reasonably expected, but isn’t it all rather futile? Whatever nuggets of good sense do make it through the moderation screen are subsumed within the torrents of dross and dreck.

This may be somewhat heretical but I’d even question the utility of leading off with the ‘race replacement’ card or voicing anxiety about ‘genocide’ when confronting the opposition in such venues. All that ever seems to do is to prompt the other side into a yet shriller recitation of their pro-forma slogans and irrational pronouncements, and probably frightens off the non-aligned punters as well. The all-too-predictable outcome is often reminiscent of two immobile armies lobbing howitzer shells at each other from the safety of their trenches. Might not Softly, softly catchee monkey be a a fruitful approach?

Far better, it seems to me, would be to play on home ground. I think some kind of setup along the lines that Dasein suggested, with a limited number of nominated spokesmen (perhaps nominated by your goodself according to the subject matter and perhaps the geography) engaging directly with the guest in a moderated format, together with an accompanying unmoderated open thread in which general commentary and partisan support can be offered.

As someone else has remarked, the objective of such an exercise is not to convert the unconvertible but rather to have an opportunity to properly set out our case while at the same dispatching the opposition’s, all within plain sight of the uncommited.

It would be very satisfying to have a blabbermouth like Sunny Hundal show up here, have his case shredded and then have to slink off back, tail between legs, to the comforting embrace of his sycophants at Pickled Politics and Liberal Conspiracy. It might even be worth matching the £75 honorarium that he gets each time he posts one of his pieces of self-serving propaganda on CiF.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:32 | #

Something I find effective is if you say that calling a White person ‘racist’ is like calling a black person ‘nigger’, it’s something used to shame someone on the basis of their race.

Yes, it’s a similar sort of thing. The distinction i’m looking at is almost an educational one. The aristocrats can debate with rapiers and developing/practising debating points can be helpful in that. What i’m edging towards is more the creation of the verbal equivalent of the longbowmen bashing the enemy on the head with their mallets. We need aggressive repeatable mantra like statements for the people who have mallets rather than rapiers - verbal storm troopers.

I commend your dogged persistence in showing the flag there as going above and beyond what might be reasonably expected, but isn’t it all rather futile?

It may be different now if the ban hammer on various sites has become more extreme but i remembered the screen name GuessedWorker long before i found this site. I’m not sure what effect it had but it must have done something because i remembered the name so clearly.

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:03 | #

5 years yet not one Alexander Dugin/Eurasian interview.

Actually I don’t subscribe to Dugin’s thought of how a Eurasian sphere should develop but I do think the concept of Eurasia is the future.

Also forgot top mention that KLA regime has implanted a North Korean style dear leader or Saddam style statue of the tyrant Bill Clinton in Pristina.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:25 | #

This may be somewhat heretical but I’d even question the utility of leading off with the ‘race replacement’ card or voicing anxiety about ‘genocide’

I’ve debated with leftists on other blogs, it is often their approach to play down the demographic threat so as to neuter the necessity of urgency in advocacy.  Inspiring a sense of urgency in those one wishes to mobilize is of the essence.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:59 | #

I often wonder when I’m reading CIF or listening to an interview such as Simon Darby on Radio Leicester, or to any of the useful idiots who are so vocal in mouthing off their brainless leftist rhetoric.

At street and blog level or even in a BBC studio, I consider them to be just useless idiots, fodder of the uni’s or wherever they obtained their brainwashingology.

I repeatedly ask myself, why are you idiots running pell mell, cheer leading your own suicide, can’t you see that our future is your future? - They obvious cannot and do not.

Why do the think they will escape our fate?  Why do think they will get a free Pass?

Do they really think that at the end of it all they will get a pat on the back and invited to a seat at the top table.

Has anyone detected yet that they just might suspect - they in turn will get replaced?

To me, it defies explanation.  Surely there must come a time when, like the Road Runner, they will screech to a halt over the cliff-top, threshing mid-air - looking down in horror at the rocks below.

I’m confused - again.

Posted by Q on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:04 | #

Dasein,

We’re neither right-wing or left-wing on political issues, we are centrists. On the issue of race, we are normal. It’s as simple as that.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:05 | #

Inspiring a sense of urgency in those one wishes to mobilize is of the essence.

Yes of course, Cap’n. But there is a very fine line between projecting a sense of urgency and appearing hysterical, histrionic or even simply unhinged especially to the uncommited or unawakened.(*)

Not that I am suggesting of course that GW’s interventions at CiF and elsewhere even begin to approach that line.

My point is really that if we overegg the pudding that only encourages the other side to enter into bile-spewing bunker mode when what we really want is to coax them out into the open where their ideology can be forensically examined and properly refuted with reasoned argumentation.

At present that happens nowhere, to my knowledge.

(*) Not that I am suggesting of course that GW’s interventions at CiF and elsewhere even begin to approach that line.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:20 | #

This may be somewhat heretical but I’d even question the utility of leading off with the ‘race replacement’ card or voicing anxiety about ‘genocide’.

In terms of a mallet mantra i’d say accusations of genocide and replacement are very good.

In terms of a rapier debate i think it depends on circumstances as using the argument reveals your position straight away.

Fred, you don’t like the term leftist

I think it’s vital to talk about leftists, reds, left-liberals or whatever you want to call them on the one hand and big business on the other. To the average person politics is about left and right, Democrats and Republicans, Labour and Conservative. I think it’s vital that people view the situation as being one where they and their family are under attack from both sides at once with the only solution being a party promoting a third position.

I’m confused - again.

Consistent message - media, politics, education, all pushing the same repeatable mantras.

I read once that Aztecs (or some similar group) had a culture where people were brought up to believe if they were picked for human sacrifice they’d go straight to heaven so those people picked by lottery to be killed were overcome with happiness when their number was up.

Consistent message - priesthood, chiefs, parents and educators (priests again i assume).

Posted by SK on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:38 | #

Here is an aggressive, repeatable mantra.  Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”

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

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:58 | #

Dan,

A few observations in reply.

1. Talking about the demographic gun pointing to our head is, I think, the most efficient way to change the rules of the game.  If there is one message that has the power to enter a reader’s mind and slowly curdle his relations with the anti-racist Establishment and with immigrants in the wider world it’s that.  “Race-replacement” is a powerful replicatory meme, and the racist left do not like it one bit.  They also do not like that they can’t find a counter to it.  Use it as much as you can wherever you can.

2. As has already been said, the left-racists and self-loathers are not the main target.  Look at the recommends on these race threads and see to which comments the largest numbers always go.  Bear in mind that the majority of these recommenders do not comment themselves.  Doubtless, many are intimidated from doing so by the left-racists ready recourse to verbal violence and, probably too, by a lack of confidence in their possession of the facts.  We have a duty to demonstrate that the survivalist argument is powerful and compelling, and the cause is just.

3. The Guardian, like the Independent, is fascinated by the race issue, and left-racists are driven to react to hostile incursions like soldier ants.  On the other hand, the opportunity to debate at any depth is missing completely at, say, the Times.  The Daily Mail is more heavily moderated than any other paper save the Mirror.  But the thicker dailies are impossible anyway for us.  The Telegraph is a rather poor debating platform.  So if it’s an indepth debate before reasonable numbers of readers we are interested in, the Guardian really is the best medium.  The only problem is the heavy moderation.

4. One reason I have been attracted to CiF is because it, in turn, attracts humanities graduates and faculty members who are the best the other side has.  They provide a means by which we can measure the power and efficacy of our arguments.  Unfortunately, it’s becoming hard to get them to engage these days.  But others might have more luck at it than me.

5. It would be good to debate with the racist left here.  But I do not believe that they will ever come.  We are the hated Other who cannot be redeemed but must be placed beyond the realm of the human.  They have no need to debate with those they also dehumanise.

Posted by Thunder on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:38 | #

GW,

these were great selections, thanks for pointing them out.  For me it is too often a rare thing to be thoroughly entertained while getting a good education.  These posts certainly provide that.  I was just now laughing tears reading some of Svig’s replies to a few numbskulls on the http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/oh_for_g_ds_sake/ thread.  Tough love he calls it.  That thread in particular had some great comments by many players.  I have to get back to the entertainment now.  Cheers.

Posted by Thunder on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:47 | #

Once againg kudos to everyone involved in the following thread, even the opposition proved entertaining, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/oh_for_g_ds_sake/ Having gotten my fair share of entertainment today was an extra treat because I promised to take my wife to movie of her choice this afternoon, and that will not be entertaining. Thanks guys.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:18 | #

Quality or Quantity? (Hat tip to HW.)

After reading the interchange between GW and Dan (see 10.58 pm above) I got to thinking about the huge amount of time and effort which has been invested by participants here in what essentially is how are we to get our hands on the levers of power.

Lee J Barnes has put up an interesting post.  http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/

Hunter Wallace (we have to get used to Proze’s new handle) has a lengthy essay on the same topic which I have only skimmed.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/10/15/quality-or-quantity/#comments

‘Another group of White Nationalists believes in building a mass movement, moderating our rhetoric, contesting democratic elections and rising to power through sheer numbers. This is the BNP approach. They dismiss the idea of a “collapse” as little more than a myth or a fantasy. Although they share the belief of the vanguardists that the system is rotten and rigged against us, “mainstreamers” see no alternative but to roll up their sleeves and work within the status quo. The “mainstreamers” are convinced the masses privately sympathize with us and will rebel if prodded to do so in the right set of conditions. As was the case with the Civil Rights Movement, they believe a cultural revolution will follow political victories.’

This is a fascinating question.

At this stage of the game, horses for courses, I think the BNP have it right.

We need to mobilise the masses as HW’s post writes above, sheer numbers is name of the game.  What other option is there - other than the ballot box?

Admittedly, the intellectual elites commenting at CIF have great influence in their respective fields but they are so small in numbers to effectively counter mass support for the BNP.

We are not far off that dreamed of breakthrough, and if we keep focused and use the language that the people of the streets of Bradford, Leicester and Birmingham and the whole Britain understand - it will come.

This was never in doubt from the moment of awakening - only the time scale was unknown.

Time and time again, when watching the BBC interviewer thrusting his mike into the face of the BNP and hisses, is the BNP a Racist party?  It never ever occurs to the BBC man that millions of ordinary uncommitted people might lean toward the same views as the BNP man.  Is it beyond the comprehension of the liberal mindset for them to imagine people do have an alternative to their world view.

This is the liberals Achilles heal, their default disconnect.

There are millions who detest what is happening to their country and their grand children’s future..

Posted by Thunder on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:03 | #

Fred,
I know it spoils a good line to have to explain it but I am sure I am missing something.  I would appreciate an explanation here.  One more laugh before the movie Fred, please.

“The title of the entry linked above by Thunder (an entry critical of Alon Yid’s Alon Ziv’s contribution to Jewish psyops efforts to get Euros to change into Negroes) gets my vote for the best title of a log entry since the site began:

Oh for G-d’s sake: insane miscegenation propaganda

I dunno, maybe I’m wrong but I love that title!”

Posted by Bill on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:41 | #

What I think the mainstream in the West doesn’t really understand is, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, (1989) communism did not collapse completely.  No, it was only the economics of the Soviet system which failed and was discredited.

The social side of communism remained alive and well and was mothballed for another day.

Then along came Gorbachev, Reagan and Thatcher in a group hug.  A deal was done!

Behind the scenes throughout the ‘90’s, details were worked out.  The old Soviet style social communism would be wheeled out and funded by Western style Capitalism, the two systems were to be fused into the one new system - fit for the coming century of change.

The Left were to realise their Utopian dreams and the Right would have their no limits bottom line.

In short, a totalitarian cross dressing regime had replaced what once passed for a democratic political system.  Post democracy reigns! 

The players (actors?) maneuvered into position, Clinton for the US, Blair for the UK, and of the remaining white world - all hunkered their nations in compliance of the new order.
 
The new Communism was born, it was the Invasion of the Bodysnatchers and we are now living the history.

One seldom hears of the word Communism being uttered these days, I’m sure our populations are totally unaware of the transformation that has taken place in both America and Britain’s societies.

It looks like Obama’s change is being sussed out as not the change the American people voted for, in Britain the people have long since resigned themselves to the notion that there’s no difference between them - but that’s as far as it goes.

I think someone ought to tell our respective captive peoples they have been hijacked by communism - but I’m not sure of what good it would do.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:43 | #

Is political correctness to blame for lack of coverage of horrific black-on-white killings in America’s Deep-South?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220695/Is-political-correctness-blame-lack-coverage-horrific-black-white-killings-Americas-Deep-South-Tennessee-Channon-Christian-Christopher-Newsom-carjack.html

Believe it or not, this case is one of the more mundane involving black on white violence. And of course it’s not reported because of political correctness and a fear of what white populations would do if they knew the truth. I could write so much more here but the DM, despite highlighting the evils of political correctness, wouldn’t print it for reasons of political correctness. The DM is the arch-expert in leading it’s readers to water but never letting them drink..
- Derek S, Dundee, 16/10/2009 09:23

Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:27 | #

@Bill

Communism was pretty much dead after 67 when it stopped getting International Jewish support when Communism shift its power base in the USSR to Jewish organised crime.

“An American of Russian Jewish descent, [Robert] Friedman is remarkably well positoned to report on the [Russian] Mafiya, since most Mafiya members are themselves Russian Jews. This curious fact owes its origin to the efforts, during the Nixon administration, of Democratic Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson to link trade concessions with Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union ... While the Italian Mafia has a singular link between Italy and America, the Russian Mafiya is more international. Ironically, in a Jewish transit camp near Rome, many Russian-Jewish career crirminals met, exchanged information and departed ... The Russians seem crazier than do the Italians. While the Mafia uses violence to punish enemies ... surgically, the Mafiya will kill the enemy, his wife, his children, and his friends, both as a theatrical warning to competitors and for the sheer joy of tyrannical violence ... Now 30 Russian crime syndicates are operating in at least 17 U. S. cities.” Houston Chronicle,
5-14-2000, p. 15

To think all our problems suddenly happened after 89 because they wanted to integrate to opposing systems is laughable you are just rehashing the old Neocon propaganda of secret Neo-KGB agents and influence who doesn’t support unrestricted free market multi-nationalist buying up countries assets and US global hegemony is a socialist. 

In fact the Bolshevik Neocons are anti-Communist now due to the fact that a) liberals tend to be anti-Israel b) seek to dismantle countries and create pro US vassal states in strategic geo-political location like they did in the former Yugoslavia and c) practice protectionism of state assets.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:13 | #

Quality or Quantity?

I think we need both - a mass party with the sort of nationalist program that would be (just) below the NATO bombing threshold if the party came to power - stealth entryists infiltrating various state organisations - the equivalent of think-tanks detached from the official party line - some quiet cadres maybe maintaining international links that need to be kept separate - other semi-detached cadres who take the part-radicalized and bring them on. All of the above working around the core purpose of trying to draw in large numbers of moderate people and part-radicalize them. Winning power comes second.

Another group of White Nationalists believes in building a mass movement, moderating our rhetoric, contesting democratic elections and rising to power through sheer numbers. This is the BNP approach. They dismiss the idea of a “collapse” as little more than a myth or a fantasy.

The two aren’t inconsistent. If there’s a collapse then the mass movement becomes an instant nucleus.

Posted by Prozium on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:42 | #

GW,

I seem to have lost your email address. I can’t find Tom Sunic’s either. I’ve finally gotten back in the habit of checking my email on a regular basis. If you get the chance, fire me off an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) sometime. I’d like to catch up.