|
|
|
Four possible paths for the United Kingdom Independence Party This post is a response to a multi-part question posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on the after Eastliegh thread. I am only setting out the four possible paths that UKIP can go, or be driven, down. In the conclusion I will also reply to another multi-part question asked on the same thread by Leon Haller. So ... The path to marginalisation ... is the Conservative Party’s preferred outcome for UKIP. Conservative MPs and party managers seem to believe that it is in the gift of the party to engineer it (which it isn’t if the UKIP phenomenon is fundamentally a rage against the political class). Conservatives must, of course, believe in the marginalisation thesis or they have to relinquish all hope of a 2015 election victory. In reality, though, there is little hope. First, quite without the UKIP problem, the Conservative Party is in terminal decline electorally. Eddie George has turned out to be right when he said in 2010, prior to the General Election, that the party which entered government would be picking up a poisoned chalice, given the unpopular decisions that would have to be taken to pay-down sovereign debt. He may have signalled some small change in that last week, with the BoE’s forecast of growth. But the damage is done. The coalition government has served only to confirm the public in its contempt for the political class. Even prior to the UKIP explosion, Opinion polls have shown support for the Conservatives only hovering around 30%. The first ICM survey after the local authority elections had them at 28% as UKIP surged to a new high of 18%, since when a (possibly rogue) Survation poll has put them at 24% and UKIP at 22%. The Conservatives will not recover popularity now and the Prime Minister will not suddenly become liked or respected (though he may be replaced by someone who is). Second, this bleak picture masks a bleaker crisis in the Conservative election machine itself. Local association membership has halved in a decade, and it is the younger and more energetic members who are deserting fastest. Conservative activism is grey-haired and suffers joint pain in many areas of the country. It is also outrageously abused by the leader’s inner circle as well, of course, as utterly confused by their liberal metropolitan appetites. Yet, to be in any position to form a government in 2015, the party must fight an aggressive campaign on the ground and win votes off the other parties. Lose their own core constituency to UKIP and that’s it. They can’t get back from that. Third, there is very little room for political manoeuvre in any drive to marginalise the upstarts. The austerity straitjacket is, well, a straitjacket for government as it is for the economy and the people. The Lib-Dem coalition partners simply will not contemplate an in-out EU referendum in this parliament, and while the LibDems would be eviscerated in the general election that the collapse of the coalition would trigger, so might the Tories (projections based on long-term polling suggest something like a 90-seat Labour majority). As for immigration, yes, all the parties concede that the excesses of the Blair/Brown era went too far too fast (entirely intentionally, of course). But Labour, without the burden of office, has had the freedom to re-invent its image, issuing an apology and taking on-board the widespread criticisms of multiculturalism. In the next phase of the Jewish programme for the raceless gentile, Ed Miliband has now incorporated Maurice Glasman’s integrationist Blue Labour into a political project that goes by the name of One Nation. By contrast, the Conservatives are trying to fix things with some managerial tweaks (notwithstanding David Cameron’s candidness in India last February). Numbers of unskilled migrants from outside the EU are down by 30%, we are told. The “pull factor” will be weakened by making landlords check for illegal status, apparently. But these kinds of petty managerial adjustments, while possible in the present poltical climate, just won’t fix the slow-burning disquiet among natives who now feel perfectly foreign in many parts of their own cities and towns. In other words, we have a de facto situation in which on-going immigration is the wrong target. Race is the real issue, and British governments simply cannot go there - something I will return to further on. Still, all life is struggle, even for Tories who don’t have any room for manoeuvre. There have been two readings of the UKIP phenomenon to emerge among those of them who have been talking to the press. The first - and the leading voices in the party took this line in the immediate aftermath of the May 2nd elections - was to see it as a cry from core supporters that they must try harder ... produce some economic growth ... deal with the welfare issue, the education issue ... get the message out. Most of all, they must appease the lost voters on the EU, although the means to do so (legislation before the next general election for an in-out referendum at some point in the next parliament) has since been put to bed by David Cameron in a letter to his MPs stating that his LibDem partners will not countenance it, then raised from the dead via a legislative gesture that cannot succeed in the House, then put to bed again, then raised again via a tacitly encouraged Private Members Bill that also has to fail in the House. Meanwhile, the parliamentary party was split over a wrecking amendment to the homosexual marriage bill, which was saved only with the help of the official opposition. It’s soap opera politics at its absurd best. This view that the government just had to “get on with the job” has been quickly and mercifully forgotten. In any event, it was only ever a form of denial whereby the typical, supposedly Thatcherite UKIP voter’s disaffection with the “modernised” party was seen as shallow, and the problem wasn’t “modernisation” - progressivism, actually - at all. Not every Conservative agreed with this analysis, of course. Or to put it another way, some Conservatives comprehend that progressivism isn’t conservatism at all, but its opposite. Accordingly, the eurosceptic right of the party operates from the assumption that the UKIP voter’s disaffection is about the the things they don’t much like about the modern, progressive party. This is a bit nearer the mark. But two decades before Cameron became “the heir to Blair”, even while Margaret Thatcher was making her Bruges speech and Jacques Delors was the bogeyman of Brussels, the eurosceptic right was signally failing to halt the process of ever-closer union. Its sole achievement these past twenty years has been to correctly discern the character of that process and talk about it (something the europhile left, busy enabling the process, could not afford to do). What’s new now is not just that UKIP’s rise has forced Downing Street, much against its better judgement, to debate Europe in public. It’s that after three, four, five decades of seeing English public opinion as a grenade with the pin missing, the party is now seeking, in the case of the progressive Conservatives, to make it safe, and in the case of the conservative Conservatives, to claim it was in their armoury all along. In neither case, let it be said, are they seeking to actually represent public opinion. Nor can they do so because opinion is not merely anti-progressive but anti-political. It holds in contempt a political class that rejects conviction for centrism and service for careerism, that develops policy positions rather than policies (the latter being, in the main, the prerogative of the Commission in Brussels), that esteems international institutions above their own nation .... banks and corporations above their own voters ... African and Asian immigrants above their own people. The conservative half of the party understands this. But nobody can do anything practical about it. In the not at all proven event that the Tories need only develop viable, credible policies to draw support away from UKIP, should they ever manage to do so, UKIP will have to start talking much more about anti-politics. They will have to talk up their opposition to the political class, and the clean sweep solution they present. There will have to be some clarification as to what UKIP really is: a party of protest or a party of political and national renewal. In recent weeks Farage has claimed both that his party is a protest movement and that it has moved on from same. The more successfully that Conservatives apply policy pressure and the more successfully they move on to what they perceive as UKIP’s ground, the more decisively Farage and Co must opt for renewal ... for fresh ground upon which no Tory foot can tread. Therefore, expect a more distinct line on the party’s mission. The extent to which that mission can be communicated to the British public, and chimes with their own rough and ready calculation of the way ahead, will determine the future viability, or otherwise, of the party, and of the bid for sovereignty and freedom for Britain’s peoples which it represents at this time. The path to re-absorption There is a second scenario in which UKIP could immolate itself through a formal electoral pact with the Tories. The temptation to enter into such a pact is driven by the sheer difficulty of overcoming the First Past The Post system, which confronts any minor party. Even if the levels of support achieved by UKIP in the local elections were repeated at a General Election, no Commons seats would necessarily be won. It is hard to see how any minor party, so cruelly frustrated in the very moment of its long-anticipated triumph, could pick itself up and apply itself to the electoral process all over again without optimism and belief draining away. Farage, meanwhile, has made it clear that he wants a UKIP voice in the House of Commons, not least because there must be other strong characters in the party to stand before the public with him. Representation in the Commons is a rite of political passage for his party, without which it will always be thrown back upon its status as a recepticle for the protest vote. So an obvious solution is an electoral pact with the Conservative Party in 2015, whereby ten or twelve winnable seats are given up by the Tories in exchange for UKIP standing down in all marginals the Tories have to win to enter office. Another is standing joint Conservative/UKIP candidates. Almost as soon as the local election results were in, Stuart Wheeler, the party treasurer and its main donor, let himself get carried away about life at Westminster ... a hung parliament after the 2015 election ... UKIP entering government in coalition with the Conservatives ... an in/out EU referendum ... a block on all the liberal nonsense ... a UKIP minister in one of the great offices of state. It is a heady prospect. The only objection to it that Farage has raised in public is that no formal pact is possible while Cameron remains Conservative leader. Plainly, there is still a great deal of anger at the treatment UKIP has received from Cameron. But if Farage was truly interested in a pact, one would expect him to say that he could not cooperate without, at the very least, an admission from Cameron that he had made a mistake. Leaving doors open is, after all, the politic thing to do. He could, of course, merely be sowing division in Tory ranks - a sound tactic since, as any MP in a marginal constituency will tell you, the electorate never fails to punish a divided party. But I think one need only look to UKIP’s growing electoral impact in Labour areas to see why Farage isn’t expressing more interest. He is confident that his party is taking votes off Labour just as it is taking votes off the Tories. The prospect of a national party, or a least one national to England, is shimmering in the mists ahead. But it isn’t going to become a reality if the party formally allies itself with the Conservatives. Worse than that, the miserable condition of the Liberal Democrats is the clearest possible sign that coalition with the Conservatives would end the UKIP project entirely. Of course, if a referendum on leaving the EU is held and won, there will be those who say the party has achieved its primary purpose. On what ground would the party campaign as an independent entity? Even, if by some political fluke, it could survive, it could not expect to achieve power a second time. The classic case of the small third party, liberal by name and nature and forever in coalition with one of its larger competitors, was that of Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s Free Democratic Party. But the genscherisation of politics is only possible in a proportional voting system. FPTP is too hostile to parvenus but nevertheless popular with the electorate, for which reasons Conservatives and Labour will now never give it up. The path of Establishment culturisation Daniel Hannan wrote something interesting on his DT blog three weeks ago about why politicians admit to being Eurosceptic only after leaving office:
For Friedman’s status quo and Hannan’s immense apparat read “the forces shaping the [new] world” in Tony Blair’s speech on faith and globalisation at Westminster Cathedral on 3rd August, 2008. Politics, far from being an immovable object, wilts into servitude before the irresistible force of the Establishment, however it is apprehended. For Blair - and for the “intensely relaxed” Peter Mandelson - it was international finance and the corporate titans of the oil, pharmaceutical, mining, communications, and arms industries, among others. All this has to be taken alongside the usual consolations of power and proximity to power. Westminster’s clubable quality, its crusted patina of age and tradition, its meaning in the national life, its sheer, physical fact are highly seductive. Then there is position, prestige, respect, and for some the scramble up the greasy pole, the trappings of office, “making a difference”, the chance of a place in history, a legacy even ... shiny baubles which so impress, and come to possess, the kind of men and women who are attracted to party politics. Quite apart from any personal vanity and ambition they may have, and which will certainly prepare the way, the party political type is invariably conformist. It lacks the substance to interrogate the world. But without that, the encounter with position and power will quickly degenerate into a slow, de-moralising accommodation with its too, too Faustian realities. There is certainly nothing special about most UKIP folk in this regard. They too would be susceptible to the seduction, and fail by degrees to distinguish between, on the one hand, the Established fact and character of power in Westminster and Whitehall and, on the other, the necessary minimum for a political structure of the state. They would very likely be tempted to protect the source of their advantages from their own cause. And where would that leave the anti-Establishmentarian and libertarian minority in the party, but at war with them? On this note it is well to return to the psychology of human personality, and remember the formative nature and truly gravitational power of the noumenal world of which the political is just a tiny sliver, and which not only negotiates with the natural and instinctive in us at every instant, always pulling the personality away towards the surface, shaping it, informing it, creating not a man knowing his own truth and permanence but a man - one among the multitude - merely of his time and place. This is the ultimate and universal enculturalisation, from which in general only the most subtly perceptive of us may detach for a while; and from which in any particular detail - freedom of the political mind, say - only those with a question, a Heideggerian sense of being-at-odds, a sense of the absurd or the tragic or the historical, may stand apart. Conformists need not apply. For this is the stuff of which revolutionaries are made. The question is: do UKIP’s leading figures have it? Do they truly understand the revolutionary moment which is presenting itself in Britain and all across the European world, and can they seize it? The revolutionary path Ex-ProWhiteActivist asked “what are the best case scenarios you see for UKIP?” There is only one. Simply to force an EU referendum upon a Conservative leader in Downing Street ... simply to remain the party of protest at Britain’s subservience to Brussels, popular at each European election, popular in mid-term, is to miss that revolutionary moment. It could easily be missed. With no doubt now that members of Cameron’s circle routinely disdain their own party activists as “swivel-eyed loons”, there must be many active members who are considering the switch to UKIP. A resultant infusion of right-wing Tory voices, if substantial enough, could crystallise UKIP as “the real Conservative Party” with selected libertarian instincts, anti-Brussels instead of anti-Establishment, anti-left instead of anti-liberal. That would mire UKIP on the traditional right and stunt its development. It seems to be a risk that has to be taken in the drive to grow the party:
At present UKIP takes 60% of its support from disaffected Conservative voters. The rest are non-ideological Labour voters, nationalists, protest voters, and new or elapsed voters. This is a unique and, obviously, highly dynamic profile. It might need another four or five years before the form of party support finally crystallises, though things are moving at a hell of a lick. We can say two things about it today. First, the concerns of UKIP supporters are ordered somewhat differently to the stated priorities of the party itself. According to YouGov’s on-line panel-based polling, the ordering of the former is:
Compare this with the conventional view of the voter’s priorities from a generally sampled Ipsos MORI poll for the Economist, conducted by face-face interviews in April:
There has been one serious, polling-based attempt within Conservatism to understand this phenomenon. It’s author is former Conservative Party chairman Michael Ashcroft. He privately polled 20,066 adults between 9 and 19 November 2012. He writes:
While this is insightful in its way, it stops well short of explicating the emerging spirit of the age. As we see below, Ashcroft can’t bring himself to say “Look, this is England and these people are English. Why the hell should they want Africans and Asians running around everywhere? And why the hell should they cheer on politicians who have made it happen?” Instead, “life” has mysteriously and “simply” changed. It has not been changed by politicians of all three parties following policies that have never been put before the electorate in the pursuit of objectives that have never been disclosed:
There is probably little love lost between Ashcroft and Michael Howard, who was Conservative Party leader when"Tories said once before that Britain was becoming a foreign land”. They clashed in 2004 over a £2 million donation that Ashcroft, the party’s biggest donor, wanted channelled to his preferred candidates, not into party coffers. In actuality, in his leader’s speech to conference that year Howard opened his remarks on immigration in his customary oleagenous style:
What followed was a standard plaint against the border management of the party then in power:
He then made just two commitments: to “signal Britain’s intention to pull out of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention”, and to “enable Parliament to put an annual limit on the number of people who come to Britain.”
Its closing paragraph stated:
... as if we didn’t know. The only sentence in it with any real radical edge was this:
But the thought was left hanging there, unexplored. The hard promises the Manifesto actually made were:
... all of which are completely uncontroversial eight years later, and some already law. Howard foreshadowed the future of immigration legislation. So what is Ashcroft really saying when he writes “there is no future in that kind of approach for a party that aspires to govern”? He is saying - although he does not know it - that events are running beyond his party’s consciousness of them, beyond the electorate’s consciousness of them. He is saying he is not interested in those events because they are the wrong events. They are not events associated with the perpetual left-ward migration of the polity with which Conservatism has to grapple. He is saying that he cannot think beyond his party’s deep, historical conviction that it must affect the political demeanour, the very rictus, of a Uriah Heep, only less sincere, to ingraciate itself with what it sees as a permanently hostile, centre-left electorate. In repudiating the “disgruntled minority”, therefore, Ashcroft is making more than just a move in the electoral game. He is doing that very Conservative thing of accepting, without demur, a demographic, moral and economic status quo imposed by anti-conservative forces. He is ceding the discourse, and any suggestion that, notwithstanding the graphic ideological successes of the Thatcher era, Conservatives can ever be an author of it. This is the true condition of conservatism in a liberal thought-world. It applies to the GOP as much as it does to the Tories. It constitutes an abbrogation of the politician’s function of re-creating the world out of his own principles. It reduces conservatives to mere idolators of power. We are back to the culturalisation of the Establishment, and to this moot question of the real nature of UKIP. Can it break the mold? Of course, the nature of UKIP is still a work in progress. I said that there are two things we can say about that, and the second, very important one is that it is a party of synthesis. This is unique. Forget the old One Nation Tories and the new One Nation Labour. Forget the Thatcherites, forget New Labour, forget Red Tories, forget Blue Labour. Nobody, absolutely nobody, has succeeded in performing the alchemical feat of synthesing electoral support from the broad left and right which this party is developing. Electoral synthesis is the philosophers stone of British politics. Its secret appears to lie in a commonsense understanding as to what is “centrist” and what “extreme”, an understanding which is, once again, quite at odds with the presumptions of the mainstream. From the YouGov research cited earlier:
A functioning definition of revolution in a democratic structure is precisely the making of a popular orthodoxy, of which the political centre is an expression and a source of legitimacy. Orthodoxy in our time has become associated with neo-Marxist diktat and coercion. It is unnatural. Its primacy is illegitimate. Its purposes are elitist and criminal. Politically, it is a sitting duck, and UKIP is trading up from popping away at it with an air rifle to shelling it with a mortar. It is not, of course, UKIP generating any of the freeing events that are coming to pass. It is merely benefitting from them. We have reached a point in the metapolitical cycle when the dissonance between the political class, its interests and its projects and the interests and will of the English electorate have separated in a final way, and are moving into opposition. Issues suppressed by the Establishment are coming to the fore. The control mechanisms are failing. The press is weakening. The political culture is disintegrating. With few exceptions, Westminster politicians are written off as corrupt dissemblers. I mentioned above the freedom of the political mind, the concept of a “question”, a “Heideggerian sense of being-at-odds”, a sense of “the absurd or the tragic or the historical”. All these disaccommodations are making their appearance. We are approaching a moment of a paradigmatic shift, and it is UKIP’s moment, if it can navigate its way through the dangers that await it, and become the party of national and political renewal. If it works for them and the world changes, what will it mean for nationalism? Well, it will mean a beginning. Leon Haller asked me some questions, starting with: Will England ever have a nationalist government? It is now surely clear that nationalism in the English-speaking world does not have the political impetus to break the Establishment stranglehold. But anti-politics can, it seems, cleave blind loyalties and bring aching questions into the open. If UKIP succeeds to its fullest potential, then nationalism will have a clear run. Then the great existential questions which find their place only in nationalist discourse will be heard, and will be answered. The pendulum will swing onward. UKIP’s civicism, libertarianism and multiracialism will have become responses to the past and will crumble because, in the new world of possibility, each is gutless and a lie. UKIP’s party will end here. The polity will re-form and, to answer Leon’s other questions, England will shake with a new and vivifying radicalism. In a heartbeat she will repatriate and relocate the peoples colonising her, and all their seed. But that will be only the beginning, the bell tolling change, as the politics of emergent identity clarify and energise. Leon’s last question is: Will England have a domestic race war, and, if so, in which decade? I have said for many years that the political opportunity must be seized and meaningful progress entered upon by around 2025. If that does not come to pass, then the very forces of disintegration that are generating the opportunity today, given new force by the inevitable, dehumanising political and technological oppression to which the waning Power will turn, will cast aside political efforts and politically-thinking people. Other men with other methods will step forward, and within a decade there will be open conflict, with all the suffering and uncertainty that brings. Everything is at stake. We must be free. But more than that, we must live. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:48 | # Not to disregard the post (though I remain disgruntled about my earlier comment’s disappearance), but I wonder how true the following is, and where, if it is indeed other than neoliberal wishful thinking, it fits in with GW’s analysis? Graham Lister’s Worst Nightmare
Wait until the young Mohammedans outnumber the young natives. How ‘liberal’ will England be then? 3
Posted by Bill on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:43 | # @ 2 Leon
Very true, but this has not been a natural occurrence, it has been deliberately engineered since the 60’s by the BBC and its ilk. And they’re still on the case. I know it doesn’t matter, even if has been deliberately engineered, it’s in situ, so what! Waddya gonna do about it? The media have brainwashed at least two generations into what they are today, and the conservative’s allowed them do it. Liberalism has won out. Why do I think this? Because I’ve seen it happening over the years with my own eyes. I would have liked GW to have touched on how our political system has been hijacked by a bunch of thugs forming a cabal and stealing any pretense at people democracy right from under our nose. When and how did this happen? 4
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 13:49 | # GW, read and appreciated the essay. I’m happy to be that much more informed about British politics. What I might add is that perhaps the war might not be waited for, but rather instances of it cited into a fact of consciousness that it is here now. In response, these above ground political efforts are necessary. Who but the most dishonest could argue politically, that Britain should not be openly and honestly for the native British? However, given the dishonest nature of what is being dealt with, an underground, infiltrations and so forth, rather many individuals underground, are also necessary - coordinated only by a background of common narrative cause. With that, in addition, parallel efforts, plural, are necessary: parallel politics, cultural efforts, ways of making the points of European nativists.. 5
Posted by wobbly on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:11 | # Good stuff.
Quite. In a way it’s not so much UKIP itself as those tectonic plates shifting and UKIP benefiting - which is unsurprising in a way as nationalist sentiment has been deemed immoral but at the same time the enemy is engaged in an anti-nationalist genocide so any opposition even explicitly non-nationalist gets pushed into an implicitly nationalist direction over time. 6
Posted by Jon on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:57 | # “Wait until the young Mohammedans outnumber the young natives. How ‘liberal’ will England be then?” If all Muslims converted to Christianity, They would behead anyone who criticised Jesus or questioned his historicity or ridiculed Christianity in any way — after all, they would want such people to “do unto [them]” the same if they were heathen, pagan, blaspheming, idolatrous, atheist sinner scum They would, rather than keeping their reactions to it mostly at the discursive level, firebomb the museum that exhibited the infamous “Piss Christ” piece and execute the artist, museum director and all staff for reasons outlined above They would continue to halal-slaughter goats because it’s great fun and good eatin’ too They would continue to stone adulterers, homosexuals and girls who were raped and cut the hands off thieves for reasons outlined above They would in general take literally biblical proscriptions against sex outside marriage but interpret the text as figurative as regards serially gang-raping heathen, pagan, blaspheming, idolatrous, atheist sinner scum girls They would stricktly construe the parts of the Bible concerning the man being the head of the family such the women would have the same lowly place in Christian society as they had in Muslim society and the girls and women would continue to wear the Ninja suit as a cultural thing and symbol of women’s same place in society under Christianity. Leon, you knucklehead, this is not a religious board. It’s a race board. They’re not Muslims, “Mohammadeans” or Allah-worshippers, they’re Arabs and Negros. Go to one of your zombie cannibal cult forums if you want to talk about the problems “Mohammadeans” cause. 7
Posted by Morgoth on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:28 | # I believe there’s a possible ‘‘wild card’’ going make an appearance in the form of Scottish Independence. I think that is the primary reason for the traitor class (in England) trying to save the Union. Here’s the problem, if Scotland gains independence and the Union dissolved, then how do we define the millions of non English living in England? The time has passed when they could ‘‘unpeople’’ us as the Swedish traitor class did to Swedes a few years ago. I enjoyed the optimism of this post, in 2025 I’ll be 50 years old and, hopefully, spending my time brewing beer, walking in the border country and reading and writing sci-fi/fantasy, instead of sinking hours and hours into reading essays on Jewish psychology, debating ‘‘trolls’’ and generally wading through the misery of the multicult. First, however, there is much work to be done… 8
Posted by The Only Way is UKIP on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 07:50 | # What most commentators seem oblivious to is the sheer demographic revolution that faces the British electorate in the span of a couple of generations. To put it bluntly, the non-white vote will, inevitably, increase to the point where it is *the* decisive factor in all British General Elections. The number of non-whites in Britain now stands at around 10 million. It reliable doubles every 15 years. You don’t need to be Einstein to figure out that in around 30 years (no more distant from us than the Falklands were in the past), the non-whites will constitute an actual majority of the British population and electorate. Way before that day their votes will be the difference between winning and losing. Even if my quick and dirty estimates are wrong, the general thrust is still there. That cannot be denied. As we all know, the non-white vote goes to Labour. Ergo, a permanent in-built Labour Party majority. Plus the fact that Britain’s myriads of welfare claimaints and public-sector windbags plump for Labour. Concomitant with the ethnic explosion is the masked, but very real, fact of English demographic collapse. The likely outcome is to be the bifurcation of British (or English) politics into Labour (the invaders’ party) versus UKIP (the English party). The Tories will likely wither and die. The explicit racial animus between both camps will only get rawer and more obvious as time passes. My money is on the Invader Party (Labour) eventually prevailing. Things will probably get nasty, in a way nastier than normal British politics. Interesting times ahead. 9
Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:27 | # Like immigration itself, the full gamut that passes for democratic party politics is being used by the power elite as just another (albeit important) weapon it its armoury. Maybe the evolution of party politics, whether genuine at the outset or no, was bound overtime to morph into a dictatorial cabal such as we see in Western politics today. Looking back over several decades, I doubt whether the people has ever had any meaningful contribution to make other than providing a bellwether for the elites. Red team-Blue team revolving door politics, as Carol Quigley wrote, was never anything other than a scam. When the going got tough, vote the red rascals out, and vote the blue rascals back in. This way the project continues seamlessly.
And it came to pass the political class lost faith in their people and declared war upon them, surely, they thought, our planet would be better off without them. They hatched a cunning plan. The scope of this plan goes way-way beyond national party politics, as already mentioned, the scam that is party politics is nothing more than an enabling mechanism to deceive the elite’s enemy, their own people. For years this website has chronicled the success of the machinations of the elites in its mastery of hoodwinking the herd into colluding with its own demise, nothing quite like it has been seen in the whole of history. Party political manipulation (along with a myriad of other scams) has outlived its usefulness, it has played a vital role in the elite’s success so far, but its usefulness has come to an end, no longer can the elites maintain the illusion. The war against their own people is entering a new phase. Persuasion is to give way for coercion. The moral of the story so far is this. There is no longer any point in investing one’s hope in the party political system in the belief of solving the problems that are facing millions of people in an effort to regain their freedom. The elites know this, that is why they have collapsed the system. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:34 | # ONLYUKIP@8 What is the real UK nonwhite population? This? or this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/18/non-white-british-population-ons or this? http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/population/size.html The latter contains, inter alia, the following information:
OK, so the latter is 4 years old. Also, they are obviously including non-British Europeans in the “white” category. Finally, how many of those counted “white” are actually nonwhite (eg, Jews, possibly Roma? others like Chechens or Turks or even Hispanics?)? Even so, has the “nonwhite” number in the UK (even without Ulster included) really reached 10 million in 2013, especially as Scotland is overwhelmingly white (per Dr. Lister - I haven’t visited since 1994, though it was gloriously white then)? The trends of course are all negative. Huge continuing influxes, wildly divergent white/nonwhite fertility, ever increasing miscegenation, and finally the growing age differential between white/nonwhite. But there still seems to be time for the indigenous to prevent Britain’s becoming The World’s Most Diverse “Nation” (I have to think the US is going to win that dubious title). 11
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:42 | # @ 8 Agreed. Unfortunately, all one has to do to accurately describe what’s taking place in AmeriKWA is exchange a few key words in your comment. Specifically: Labour to Democrat, Tories to Republicans, and the English demographic collapse to White demographic collapse, and there you have it. Of course this is not a coincidence. The high financiers, as necessary condition for doing business, insist on government enforced policies that are designed to obliterate nationalism and replace it with multiculturalism. That explains why the Conservative side of the equation does virtually NOTHING to stop the massive influx of non-whites into white homelands - they are bought and paid for. Bottom line: It’s a power play agreed on by those in the ruling class; of course the ruling class’ motivating factor is to maintain their status - that’s top priority! The illusion of an opposition party (such as the Tories or Republicans) WRT fighting against multiculturalism (race-replacement/white genocide) is just that, an illusion. But there is hope. The only constant in this world is change. And hopefully—with the right moves by nationalists—the change will work in our favor…........FOR A CHANGE!
12
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:50 | # Ah oh, Leon. The ever so diligent and attentive DanielS is going to accuse us of ‘working in tandem’ again. LOL! 13
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 13:18 | # I don’t accuse, I note the fact, whether it happens deliberately or by natural happenstance. When the chips are down this other character, Thorn The Whatever, will be brought in and perhaps advise on the side that you might try to assimilate more closely the concerns of the secular WN’s, biding your time until the next opportunity comes where you can preach Christianity and thereby make the world safe for.. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 13:47 | # Note who is doubling its population at a rapid clip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism Secularism more than anything else has, purely objectively, spelled the end of the West. I would be militantly proChristian (traditionalist) even if I were an atheist. GW’s hoped for “Golden Dawn” (see above) will never occur without a religious Great Awakening to accompany the race awakening. The genius and enduring power of the Jews comes from their unity of race and religion. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:06 | # “The genius and enduring power of the Jews comes from their unity of race and religion.”
It is what White Nationalism is about: our race is our religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is not about our race. It is not our religion, but an alien imposition. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:16 | # Leon Haller: GW’s hoped for “Golden Dawn” (see above) will never occur without a religious Great Awakening to accompany the race awakening. I may be more religious by orders of magnitude than you, Leon. The millions of mere believers simply don’t perceive that belief in the notion of “God”, however intense the emotional loading associated with faith, is only the love of a totem in the wasteland. 17
Posted by Silver on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:53 | # Haller’s not entirely wrong, I’m sure. But you have to take anything he says with a grain of salt, otherwise you’ll be as deluded as to the profundity of his cocksure accounts as he himself is. 18
Posted by Jon on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:53 | # “The genius and enduring power of the Jews comes from their unity of race and religion.” The überidiocy of Christianity is that not only will they passively but reluctantly let any and all Third-World detrius become members of the church, they actually go out and actively recruit them. Seriously, Leon, you can come up with something better than that, can’t you? 19
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 18:37 | #
I agree and disagree. The Jews are more like a perpetual mafia. Even though they are VERY diverse group, both racially and religiously, they still can function as a close-knit group of people whom look out and protect one another’s interests. Whatever their religious beliefs or their ethnic origin or their political affiliations, they look upon themselves first and foremost as Jews. A wise Jew once said: Jews can be defined more by what they are not rather than what they are. And what they are not is Christians.
20
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 19:02 | # Its been noted that Jews like to pretend they cannot possibly be organized against Whites because they cannot even agree amongst themselves. However, what they are arguing about is “what is best for Jews?” The reason that they are able to act consistently in their own interests and against European interests is because they are a biological system, genetically patterned in antagonistic, parasitic relation to indigenous European peoples. 21
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:46 | # Thorn, Thanks for that great online book link! Every WP should read it. I don’t know that Jews “are VERY diverse group, both racially and religiously”. The former claim ought to be examined genetically. I believe such studies as have been done show strong Jewish commonality. As to the latter, I don’t know enough to say. I’m aware of religious divisions within Judaism, but I wonder how different they really are at bottom? I agree though that a huge element of Jewish identity is ethnocentrism and rejection of Christianity. I have often said that Jews have no place in Europe, and must, like the Muslims, be repatriated. One could fairly make an argument that this is for their own ultimate safety in the event of indigenous racial uprisings, but really it’s for the Europeans’. Outside of Europe, however, I think Jewish ethnic cleansing would be both morally problematic, and extremely improbable. In the US, I favor WPs trying to persuade Jews that their own communal interests align with those of whites, esp wrt ending nonwhite immigration. WN antisemitism in the US (I suspect also Canada, and probably Australia) is just a guaranteed tactical loser. WN will never grow strong unless it relentlessly keeps the focus on RACE, and away from the JQ. Doing so might find many Jews are our allies (eg, Michael Savage and his “Borders, Language, Culture” mantra). 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:45 | # Leon, You appear not to realise that when nationalists interested in the Jewish Question say that Jews are evolved to compete as a group with the European host, their meaning is that the European psychology and traits are the Jewish environment of evolutionary adaptiveness. By this reading, the “positive” ameliorative behaviours you are familiar with (humour, personableness) and the negatives of exploitation of European self-criticism, trust, compassion, guilt, etc all appear as fruits of adaption. By way of this mirror image what you see, therefore, is the sincerest Jewish view of the European race, and it is not an unflattering picture. Of course, no race of Man should suffer such attentions. There has to be a solution so that Europe’s peoples might finally live sovereign and free. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:01 | #
What moral obligations the Christian white man owes to nonwhites are very complex issues, implicating some of the deepest elements of theology (although they are almost never addressed in the terms WPs would like), like the value of the temporal world, and the legitimacy of a secular realm. Is patriotism theologically allowable? Is it mandatory? (I hold that race realism is a necessary part of any national patriotism.) What are the ethical obligations that different tribes owe each other? Are they the same as those owed within the tribe? What are the scope or limits of individual and communal rights? To what extent must Christians accept existing social or political conditions, even if they have arisen from past injustices? What methods can they use to change those they find disagreeable? There are a lot more fundamental questions, of course. I haven’t fully worked out my analysis, and won’t be finished for many more years. Like any theorist, I start with certain hypotheses, which I seek to prove, but which I might at some point conclude I must discard (though I rather strongly doubt it). My metathesis is: 1) that Western Civilization is uniquely (objectively) valuable (not merely precious to me subjectively); 2) that it, in the words of the late Sam Francis, “could not have been created [nor will it survive - LH] apart from the genetic endowments of the European peoples”; 3) that for a Christian, any political agenda must be ultimately justifiable theologically; 4) that the racial diversification of white societies has been unethical, esp insofar as it has been coerced (though perhaps also even if it had been democratically supported - a much more interesting inquiry); 5) that it is morally allowable (I would say “mandatory” - again, a tougher but more interesting argument) for whites not only to stop all immigration invasions, but, at least in the ancient, ‘thick’ ethnocultures of Europe, to demand the reversal of the previous ones (geographic repatriation); and finally, 6) that there is an absolute moral right to freedom of association and disassociation, both individually and ethnocommunally (at least for the culturally superior: ie, those who are bearers of Western Civ, ie, whites), in “New World” or originally uncivilized territories [“uncivilized” defined as those places which either lacked settled existences and defined property rights, especially where sparsely inhabited (eg, North America, most of South America, Australia, Southern Africa), at the time of European contact, or whose civilizations were irredeemably barbaric by Christian (ie, ontologically eternally true) moral standards (eg, the Meso/South American civilizations)], such that whites may (though are not required to) disunite from larger national wholes to form their own racial states (ie, recreated miniatures of the larger Western Civ). Obviously, my target audience is white Christian conservatives, like me, who know in our hearts that immigration and diversity are bad for us, and threaten all we hold most dear, considered communally and over time, but who are morally-racially confused as to the proper response in light of the intellectual dominance of the (ridiculous, if not completely incoherent) antiracist narrative (which is really just antiwhite, but does contain enough kernels of legitimate Christian concern to be plausible, at least to the intellectually superficial majority). A lot of recent opinion surveys in the US have shown that whites overwhelmingly believe that America’s best days are behind us (I certainly do). I emphatically hold that the reason for this pessimism in contemplating the future (along with the fatal political apathy and quietism it breeds) is simply that most of the conservative majority of whites know that nonwhites are both alien as well as civilizationally inferior to us, and that their presence makes the US a crappier country for us - yet we resignedly think that to oppose ongoing diversification, to standup and fight for our whiteness, is somehow morally wrong. So we sigh, quietly shake our heads, and do nothing. I said that a majority of white Americans are politically/culturally conservative. That is a sociological fact. A further fact is that a majority of that majority is Christian (I suspect that a majority of non-conservative white Americans are non-Christian, whether Jewish or secularist). If WNs idiotically succeed in associating in the public mind (perfectly legitimate) white rights advocacy and racial preservationism with opposition to Christianity, then they will have consigned whites in America to permanent communal powerlessness. So my work, at least in America, is far more useful than other types of white racial politics or theorizing. It is, indeed, the only game in town. I would argue the same for Europe, too - though that is a much more involved discussion, and I’m wanting my supper fairly soon.
24
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 01:03 | # Leon, your Christianity is increasingly tiresome. Give it a rest. When the war discussed here eventually begins, what good will your Christianity do? We need men and women willing to do the unthinkable, in order to live. Christians aren’t up to the task, seeing as they will perceive any and all methods to fight back, to survive and prevail, as “morally problematic.” Jon writes: “The überidiocy of Christianity is that not only will they passively but reluctantly let any and all Third-World detrius become members of the church, they actually go out and actively recruit them.” Not only that, but they often marry, breed with, and adopt such creatures. Here are Leon’s beloved Christians at work: Truly, Christianity is an illness. 25
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 02:30 | # SelousScout@24 I would say it’s the anti-Christianity amongst nationalists too stupid even to correctly repeat my own positions before criticizing them that’s the problem. Why don’t you and others actually attempt to assess and critique what I write on the issue of Christianity and WN, esp, eg, the following:
My grandfather was a staunch Catholic who volunteered to fight in WW1. He was a tough guy his whole life. My dad was not much of a Christian (a lapsed Protestant), but he certainly revered the achievements of Christian civilization, and always thought the decline of TRADITIONAL Christianity a huge loss for America and civilization in general. He killed Japs in the Pacific War, and never regretted it. My uncle is a staunch Catholic who volunteered for the military, and stayed in to fight in Vietnam. He is still a hardcore white preservationist who likes to shout “Remember the Liberty!” and “Israel is an enemy”. Innumerable Christian men have fought the alien repeatedly throughout our racial history, from Poitiers to Fallujah. They saw no conflict with their religious ideals. Every day in the US a Christian white man kills a mud criminal in defense of life or property. The notion of average Christians being pacifistic Jesus freaks (Christian pacifism is itself a heresy) is totally belied by history and commonsense. Using the fact that some Christians are pro-immigration disloyalists (I reserve the term “traitors” for those, like Tony Blair, who actively sought to undermine their race, not for well-meaning fools) to impugn all Christians, would be like me pointing to those secular liberals advancing the antiracist agenda as indicative of all secularists. The knife cuts both ways. 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 02:49 | # SelousScout@24 Anyway, the whole point of tough WN poses in the USA may not amount to much. I repost an earlier comment:
27
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 02:59 | # SelousScout@24 I believe I already had responded to Scout on another thread. But as these matters never really go away ... The Scout obviously has nothing on ME in terms of recognizing the brutality of what will be necessary to secure white perpetuity:
28
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:23 | # GW@22 Not sure what you’re getting at. Jews do well for themselves in white societies. I understand. Jews will always be antinationalist when they are minorities. Got it. Jews need to be expelled from Europe. Got it. Masterful OP, btw. The key takeaway for me was this:
Yes, we are always fighting on the other man’s philosophical terrain (I’ve said something like wrt the ethical status of antiracism - it’s ‘in the air’). But changing that thought-world requires first understanding how thought-worlds as a general matter come to be, and that, too, is a very large issue, on which there is no settled consensus, as far as I know. 29
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 06:47 | # If WNs force a Christian to choose between Christ and race, most are going with Christ (myself included). - Leon Haller
30
Posted by Jon on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 06:52 | # “Not only that, but they often marry, breed with, and adopt such creatures.” True. If we’d had a racially exclusive religion throughout our history, Mestizos would be few and far between instead of poised to take over the US. 31
Posted by Jon on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:26 | # “The obviously more intelligent tack (even for atheist WNs) is to work for the realignment of Christianity with race-preservationism.” Mass marriages of Spaniards to Indios is not consistent with race preservation, with which Christianity was never aligned the first place. Throughout Christendom, masses of racial aliens turning up on European shores would have been rightly seen as an invasion, with or without Christianity. In the place where we find ourselves now, any religion that’s not explicitly racially exclusive is a liability, no matter whatever other redeeming qualities it may have. Let the Christians who can’t appreciate that drown in the Third World sea. 32
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:31 | #
You are welcome, Leon. And yes, every WP sould read it.
Of course I’m not an expert but from what I’ve learned about Jews is Jews, genetically, are not a homogeneous group. In fact, where there is strong genetic continuity of Jews going back to Biblical times, their group is very small indeed. Most Jews’ genetic commonality today is very tenuous - for many, it’s non-existent. The genetic diversity of Jews span all races. The Ashkenazim, the Sephardic, the Mizrahim, and the Falasha. For example: I’ve seen pictures of Jews in the far east that have a distinct Han Chinese phenotype. Jews’ religious beliefs are varied also. It spans from Hasidim to Orthodox to Reformed to agnostic to atheist - with many Jews in the mix who practice all sorts of pagan, eastern, even Christianity (Lawrence Auster for example). Their diversity extends to the political arena also. Albeit most Jews (70%) are leftists (half of those are radical leftists), many are on the right. That said, the one issue 99.99999% of them agree upon is massive immigration into white homelands. Therein lies the rub. 33
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:56 | # Disinformation Warning: Thorn, a dedicated advocate of Jews and their disinformation, has posted. Jews have a consistent and identifiable genetic pattern. 35
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:49 | #
Going senile - year old story. Ignore. Still a witch though. 36
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:07 | # GW, Thank you for this survey of the situation.
In the USA the GOP has gone much further in that direction. The party primarily exists as virtual reality entity with no functional existence below county level. Is UKIP making any progress at forming cohesive local association groups?
Is there any sign of former Labour supporters enthusiastically switching to UKIP? Most importantly, is Farage trying to make a coherent appeal to the remains of the white working class?
This certainly seems to be the thinking of those American WNs adhering to Ron/Rand Paulism and political Libertarianism in general. 37
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:52 | # GW,
In the “USA” as defined by maps the time of “political opportunity” is long past. I continue to think an English nationalist revival in the presence of significant numbers of non-English is an oxymoron. An extremely minimalist Little England shorn of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales might at long last be able to generate a truly English nationalist revival. Might. But it seems to me the “Public Order Act” mentality will become ever more acute as conditions worsen. What will the default choice be once the potential for a real internal war rather than a few nights of molotov cocktails manifests itself as a likely consequence of open political debate of fundamental issues? Technology however is a two-edged sword. In my view the dominant technological trends are no longer the Judeo multi-racial regime’s friend.
38
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:19 | # What is the balance of “diversity” at this point in the entire UK? Considering “English”, Welsh, Scots, Northern Irish, blacks, Arabs, Semites and various Asians in the UK… Are the “English” still 70% of the combined population? Leon cited statistics that in Little England alone the English now only comprise 87% of the population. fyi, that was about the USA’s maximum percentage of ‘whites’ circa 1958.
I certainly agree with all that, Bill. We can only move forward. 39
Posted by wobbly on Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:15 | # XPWA
For a long time i think people asked themselves why they couldn’t radicalize the mass whereas the real question was why weren’t events radicalizing the mass. Given that there is a corrupted elite actively seeking White genocide White people should have radicalized on their own. Britain is currently changing at a faster rate then the US was in the 60s but apart from that i’d say on the ground Britain is more or less where the US was after the 60s riots when White flight separated White people from inner-city crime. The big difference between the US and the UK is there’s nowhere to run. White separation in the 1960s US *prevented* the natural White radicalization that would have resulted from events and what’s worse their kids growing up in those completely safe all-White suburbs had the effect of stripping away all their immunity to the school’s and media’s anti-white lies. The lies only work on White people if they’re physically separated from the problem. The radicalization effect is still only partial in the UK. The majority are still separate and don’t realise the political elites are lying to them but enough do to give a “respectable” party a chance.
Numbers are mostly meaningless as they don’t include age distribution or illegal immigrants. The gist is in terms of young men on the streets the native population is massively out-numbered in the cities but not the towns. In terms of electoral numbers it’s maybe 50/50 in the cities and 90/10 in the towns so still time - but changing very fast.
This is true however it leaves out that the other side (other sides plural really) will attack when they feel they have the strength. This is the downside of not having space for distant suburbs. They can attack Whte neighborhoods easier.
Quite, and important. White people can’t just rely on the young men duking it out in the street because our side will be out-numbered. The older people need to help - not necessarily out on the streets - but using brains over brawn.
It’s a question of morality. White people form groups based on a common LOGOS with a common priesthood. The priesthood says what is right and what is wrong. You can’t replace the existing priesthood until you have destroyed their claim to moral authority. The other side did this via their dominance of the electronic media. They destroyed the moral authority of the old pro-white priesthood and replacing them with their own. nb when i say priesthood i don’t mean literally priests i mean politicians, academics, pundits etc. The anti-white priesthood has made nationalism, ethnic cohesion, national pride etc taboo (for White people only) and it has worked. People who feel a natural nationalist urge shunt it sideways into something non-taboo like libertarianism. One answer to this problem is to focus on destroying the moral authority of the current priesthood. Another answer is to go with the flow. The other side is intent on genocide and so their actions will - unless it is prevented - gradually stimulate the nationalist urge of their intended target. That urge will be directed at self-preservation while trying to stay within the limits of the taboos so you end up with movements like Ron Paul which are ultimately safe but partial radicalization is better than nothing as long as it targets at least one component of the problem e.g. the banking mafia.
The most critical point and yes.
Like most political parties they feel the need to campaign in a way that costs a lot of money and so they will probably be bought out by the banking mafia but in the mean-time it’s still one step further forward to a clear national consciousness of being under existential attack. nb I think Griffin is wrong to tell ex BNP people to infiltrate. I think they should aim to maintain local associations as a backup for if/when the state breaks UKIP. 40
Posted by Morgoth on Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:37 | # Emma West has pleaded guilty, finally, though they’ve managed to combine it with an assault on her husband. Emma is certainly a troubled young woman but this article is a master piece in total bullshit. According to this writer West was feeling suicidal because of the support of the ‘‘Far Right’‘. Scroll down to the comments, however, and it is revealed that Wests defence team were concerned because West has been physically attacked by the Far Left who also threatened to burn her house down. So if Nick Griffin sends you money and flowers it makes you suicidal, if the Anti Fa beat you up and threaten to burn your house down it isn’t worthy of mention at all. 41
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:14 | #
Such a sick joke when you compare it to something like the youtube clips of one of the Woolwich guys shouting about “kuffar pigs.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQRYHVboSSQ The BBC would never show that clip. 42
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:38 | # ...wanted to mention that I understand Emma West and I admire her. 43
Posted by Bill on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:14 | # After neoliberalism? The Kilburn manifesto Edited by Stuart Hall, Doreen Massey and Michael Rustin I say this because a bunch of people here in Britain have declared economic neoliberalism has been catastrophic for people globally and has gotta go. Rather than use the term Thatcherism, they say neoliberalism should be the universal term of reference. They, (authors of neoliberalism’s critique - as in the Kilburn manifesto) acknowledge neoliberalism is much more than an economic ideology, but in fact is a full blown all embracing ideology encompassing a whole way of arranging society. The author’s also say it is this hegemonic societal ideology that is barely acknowledged and is the most insidious. It is this aspect they fear most and the toughest nut to crack. What do they intend to do about it? It it is no less than to slay the neoliberal dragon and create a new religion. DanielS take note. http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/pdfs/manifestoframingstatement.pdf I have often wondered how such enterprises get off the ground and enter the realm of governments and become ruling hegemoney. Here we have an opportunity to see the process from the beginning. What sort of people are they? What do they look like? Well here’s your chance to see them in action. 44
Posted by Bill on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:02 | # Having read, and re-read The Kilburn Manifesto’s critique of neoliliberalism and am once more drawn to the ubiquitous herd of elephants forever present in the musings of the left. Political correctness once more rears its head in this critique of neoliberalism, thus rendering it useless. Great play is made of something called common sense in this article and refers to making capital from the store of Britain’s innate wealth of conservatism. Perhaps common sense is code for conservatism (or vice versa.) These people are blinded by political correctness as only a slight nod was inclined in the direction of diversity, immigration, multiculturalism, burgeoning population etc. They live in an elephantine world and never catch site of one. Farage somehow finds the ball at his feet and and an open goal yawns. The goalkeeper’s gone walk-about. 45
Posted by Bill on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:39 | # There’s a very strange comment up at the Telegraph this morning by grandee Telegraph journalist Charles Moore.
. Is he really telling us he doesn’t know what’s going on? It beggars belief that this man who is at the pinnacle of his profession is unaware of the elite’s world view. He writes about the BBC’s expeditious burying of the beheading of a British soldier from the public psyche, under a mountain of obfuscation double-talk and spin. How could he be so crass in his observation (which we all know) of the BBC practice where any perceived negative connotations projected to the vibrant enrichers is thrown down the memory hole and capped with 6 feet of concrete. Is this man disingenuous, naive, treacherous or just plain stupid or what? He’s conflating political weakness with political treachery. I don’t buy it. 46
Posted by Bill on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:41 | # Anarcho-Tyranny—Where Multiculturalism Leads The seething media today. Liberalism has handed Nigel Farage a gift from the heavens, the EU being the mortal bearer. Will Farage go down on bended knee at such salvation and make hay? Only time will tell, history tells us (c)onservatism will cave. Anarcho-Tyranny http://www.vdare.com/articles/anarcho-tyranny-where-multiculturalism-leads Post a comment:
Next entry: The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction
|
|
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 Bill on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 08:40 | #
Thanks GW for this opus, I thought you’d gone walkabout. Now I can see what you’ve being doing all this time absent.
Of course I have not read all of your piece, even less absorbed the content.
But this is what has caught my attention so far. It is this…
My mood is one of the hour is late, the architects have irrevocably broken the mould of Western civilisation, there is no going back to what was.
The party political system that has endured has succeeded only in delivering failure, it is breathing its last, as you have indicated clearly above.
The elites vision is world run by themselves, for themselves, as for the teeming billions it will be serfdom.
Can humble UKIP sow the seed of realism sufficiently to raise the conscientiousness of white people everywhere?
This problem is not confined to Britain alone, the solution will be brought about elsewhere, UKIP will be a transitory enabler. Let us wish it well.