|
|
|
Houellebecq and the narrow, very liberal culture of nationalism in America by Graham Lister It is my opinion that Michel Houellebecq should be on the reading list of any committed non-liberal - assuming, of course, this paragon of nationalist virtue is interested in culture. And I think people who are seriously interested in understanding the grotesque spectacle of post-modern, ultra-liberal, hyper-modernity should be so interested. Cultural values are at the core of self-conception and define the contours of the political imagination. The malaise facing the West goes far deeper than PeeCee and multiculturalism, even if they can be regarded as the most egregious symptoms of our total embrace of liberalism (that is, liberalism as the foundational paradigm for politics, culture, economics et al, rather than a secondary “corrective” ideology which is how classical liberalism arose). Unfortunately no-one has a positive agenda to rebalance the West upon a sustainable course. There are of course some excellent critiques of the problems but, as yet, no really credible, putative solution has coalesced into a substantive form. A comments elsewhere on the blog mentioned the spurning of Houellebecq, and I want to return to that. It strikes me that American nationalists in particular have a very narrow range of “cultural resources” that they bring to their politics. This also is true of many ‘nationalists’ across the board. How many times have the virtues of institutional religion (typically in the ‘Jesusland’ style) been offered as the “solution”, or indeed some bizarre “new” version of fascism offered up? Pardon the paradox but both are deeply trivial non-answers (for rather obvious reasons). The exhaustion of the already exiguous political and cultural imagination of nationalists is palpable (neo-Nazi techno anyone??? - Jesus wept). There is, sadly, a lack of genuine radicalism or innovative thought – in the true sense of thinking about these issues both deeply and widely, and in being ruthless in the analysis of old assumptions and outdated or discredited shibboleths. Returning to Houellebecq, he is deeply anti-American in outlook, and this animosity is not without very good reason. It seems that, in general, Americans - nationalists often included - completely fail to understand that their own nation is the most profoundly liberal nation in history. America was conceived as an inorganic “social experiment” in terms of Enlightenment-derived individual liberty. Individualistic liberalism is the true American ideology/religion. To be sure, it is not the only theme in American life but the others have been peripheral to the cardinal (liberal) impetus animating American culture and society. I have encountered very few American non-liberals (a Hayekian liberal who thinks he is a conservative is still a sub-species of the liberal genus). The axiomatic and defining role of liberal philosophy in American society is something that the overwhelming mass of American people, even self-described conservatives and nationalists, have a very hard time understanding. Collectively, America has drunk from that particular (liberal) well more deeply, and for longer, than any European society. Of course, all of the West has caught the liberal disease which is deeply corrosive to the collective well-being of ordinary Europeans – truly, we are Voltaire’s bastards. To be sustainable, any society must balance the collective interests - those unifying forces that build cohesion and social capital - and the legitimate individual impulses that invariably tend to differentiation and fragmentation. Equally, a balance must exist between the interests and desires of the present generation and those to whom we will bequeath our collective life and national community. That is why post-liberal politics is actually the “radical centre”. It is a fulcrum conceptualised, for me, in more Aristotelian terms. It is not simply the centre as conceived in the conventional political spectrum, which presently represents only relative variations of liberal political philosophy. A final thought on American nationalist thinking. I note that the ideal of white Zion has been floated on the blog. Nothing ... nothing illustrates the difference being the inorganic, propositional societies of the New World and the organic ones of “old” Europeans. The idea that whites should move to one place is the ultimate in white-flight fantasies, and is a council of despair. No European patriot could possibly think that abandoning our ancestral homelands represents anything other than the nadir of complete and humiliating defeat. Why should the British tribes (the Anglos and the Celts) give up our homelands? When I am in the beautiful Highlands of Scotland I reflect on all those generations that lived in this land before me and bequeathed it to us, and I feel deeply connected to the past. What right do we have to surrender our inheritance? Do we really want to run off like cowards scared into self-destruction when faced by some uppity Africans and Pakistanis? Our American friends must try to solve their own problems in a way they judge is appropriate to their situation. However as a European patriot, I for one, will never surrender – anything else is little short of traitorous. P.S. So we have Houellebecq as a dissector of liberal cultural values, and I would also suggest Ballard and Coetzee in this regard also. But who else might be on the “contemporary literature” reading list for the by no means narrow-minded non-liberal? Comments:2
Posted by adadadada on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:17 | #
Oh god, itz an invasion. Those kebab and slanina stand owners are rioting and invading and shit. 3
Posted by adadadada on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:19 | # High-IQ Poles taking Britain away from middling Britons. Sounds good to me. 4
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:17 | # “. . .inorganic, propositional societies. . .” The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”. Free WHITE persons. 5
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:22 | # Beautiful. A: Bret Easton Ellis. For starters. 6
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:32 | #
Some of us understand that and have written of it. I’ve referred to the Founding Fathers as a kind of proto-Marxists. And I firmly believe that if European Peoples survive, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest will be looked back upon as either history’s greatest buffoons or history’s greatest villains.
In Europe, I agree with you. In the New World, well, that’s another story. There have only ever been Canada and the United States. (no, Latin America has never been an extension of European Civilization). The United States as a White land is now gone forever. So the idea of “White Flight-ing” to a common location is no more a council of despair than suggesting we go about our business and try to vote our way out and around 150 million non-Whites.
7
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:25 | # P.S. So we have Houellebecq as a dissector of liberal cultural values, and I would also suggest Ballard and Coetzee in this regard also. But who else might be on the “contemporary literature” reading list for the by no means narrow-minded non-liberal? (Lister) Interesting question. Are you looking for dissectors of liberalism (and critical or sympathetic? an arch-dissector of liberal values in the latter category would be Updike; also, maybe Cheever), as you say, or really for anti-liberal writers? I would place Coetzee in the former category, not the latter (though I’ve only read a couple of his novels). I should read Ballard, I suppose, but haven’t. I generally hate postmodernity, so my literary tastes mostly tend to date to no later than say, about 1990, which is pushing it (and for books published in the 70s or 80s I prefer authors whose sensibilities were formed much earlier - Iris Murdoch, Graham Greene, Solzhenitsyn). Usually, whenever I do dip a toe into the pool of truly “contemporary” lit, I am annoyed by its sentimentality, affectedness, frequent opacity, and general ‘preciousness’ (eg, Beloved, a book I found excruciating to get through, or The English Patient, or even Atonement, which I did rather like all the same). I mostly try to read the acknowledged classics, and only occasionally read something that hasn’t survived the test of at least a few decades. Intellectuals like to pretend that they’ve read all the ‘old stuff’, but how could they? How many of us really have read (and labored over) all 37 (?) plays (I think) of Shakespeare, or all of the 15 or so mostly fat novels of Dickens, or even War and Peace, let alone more than a fraction of the 92 novels and novellas comprising La Comedie humaine? I saw a piece recently in the liberal/neocon The Weekly Standard where 70-something literary critic Joseph Epstein admitted that he had never read The Brothers Karamazov. The time for extraneous reading is limited; why risk reading something history has not yet vindicated when there is so much it has? As for anti-liberal writers (I’m partial to many more liberal, or at least not anti-liberal, ones - Hemingway, Maugham, Mann, Bassani, Robertson Davies, to name a few springing to mind), how far back is “contemporary”? Mid-20th century forward? Besides Greene and Solzhenitsyn (both of whom qualify, I think; Murdoch can in no reasonable way be described as “anti-liberal”, but she is very smart and enjoyable) I like Waugh, O’Connor, Faulkner, Bowles (he was on the ‘progressive’ side, but I think The Sheltering Sky is very suitable for nationalist purposes) Mauriac, Huxley, Gironella, the adult short stories of Dahl, Golding, Junger (like certain radio stations, he spans ‘classic to contemporary’), and Mishima (I’d throw in Lovecraft, every one of whose stories I’ve read, and Tolkien, but, in addition to not being contemporary, perhaps they aren’t ‘literary’ enough?). More truly contemporary (defined, say, as writers still alive) anti/non-liberal writers I like would include Raspail, of course, Naipaul, Eugenio Corti, and especially Cormac McCarthy (how should William Trevor be classified?). For some reason I’m really drawing a blank here. Any websites devoted to high quality literature? I’d like to review of list of authors, as I’m sure I’d have a lot more to recommend. Literature is a fairly big part of my non-professional life. 8
Posted by Helvena on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 12:53 | # There is an excellent article in THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY current issue summer 2011 by Sam Davidson “The Role of Jews in South Africa since 1948. If you replace “Black” with “Muslim” you will see history repeating it’s self. Control of the press/mass communications is vital. The group size differs between Black in SF and Muslims in Europe, but that isn’t important. The important thing is the propaganda value. The real enemy of the Afrikaners wasn’t the Blacks but the Jews. 9
Posted by Helvena on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:16 | # “Houellebecq is known for his provocative statements and has never missed an opportunity in the past to kick political correctness where the sun doesn’t shine, but now that he is coming to Israel, he has in fact chosen a positive message and says he “wishes the State of Israel a long life from the bottom of my heart.” 10
Posted by uh on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:41 | # Well shit, we regret not being the French, Guessedworker, to gratify your literary taste. But don’t write us off just yet — America has its own crop of vociferous, even frightening anti-liberals. You ready to enter their realm, babu sourpuss? http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com One day, don’t you fret arbiter of all that is real and has being, we anti-liberal Americans shall catch up to those progressives Céline and Houellebecq, combining elliptical literary décadence with crypto-right weltschmerz, to the astonishment of the American literary community! But wait — Constantin has already done it. Wowza!!!
I’m entirely certain that if the infamous young man who stripped for that negro in the photo had a house and a couple cars like you, he too would be loath to move away. Consider your trappings before you judge those not similarly favored by circumstance, babu. Some of your compatriots may just feel too exposed and endangered to linger for the sake of high sentiment. But don’t worry at all; “White Zion” is for we inorganic rootless propositionals without culture. No Briton would make such an horrific, traitorous mistake!! Which further begs the question: If that were true why we do we all speak English? Ah, yes, the colonists had bad genes or some shit. Their force wasn’t strong enough. They weren’t true Englishmen, therefore, and do not count against the proposition that leaving a failed state is treachery. 11
Posted by uh on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:52 | #
So Voltaire was American? The disease came from your side, babu. Englishmen made the mistake of founding a nation upon it. Not defective Englishmen, but plain Englishmen like you.
Exactly! America is responsible for this anti-specificity that led to the hell of admitting Irish and Italians into the august company of true good-gened Englishmen.
Well, they must have disliked SOMETHING about England — unless England is and was ever perfect? 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:57 | # What a useless fucking country Britain has become! Graham Lister’s tirades against Americans, set against the backdrop of Britons cowering and disrobing before their nigger masters, are simply pathetic. They might have some value if Britain were still the country it was in the war. But what about Britain today is worth defending - and anyway, who and where are the defenders? My view of Britain has undergone a sea change in the past week, not so much because of the virtually free pass given to violent Third World hooligans - with the ass-licking (Tory!) government debating whether water cannon and plastic (?!) bullets should be employed as riot control, as the police did nothing but sip tea - as because of my experience on that useless inspectorgadget blog. I pointed out that blacks were the cause of the riots, and wouldn’t Britain be better off without them? Virtually every response was negative. These responses were from anonymous posters, many describing themselves as cops. All manner of whining about “where’s your armband?”, and “brave black coppers are out there on the line”, and similar crap. Where is the outrage over there, where are the anonymous demands for DEPORTATION NOW, return of public hanging, arming of the native British population, or just ending the immigration invasion? Britain is dead. The problem is not even or primarily the millions (tens?) of racial (and white ethnic) aliens colonized on your shores, who could yet be wiped out if Henry V, and Wellington, and Nelson and past generations of redcoats could be resurrected (or, more soberly, their spirit). It is not the fact that Christianity has disappeared from your land, or that with it the whole historic British culture in one or two generations has likewise been eviscerated (no connection there, is there? ‘Course not. A culture and moral system can endure without the metaphysical superstructure supporting them - obviously!). It is the supreme spinelessness of the contemporary British people that is so shocking. The vast majority of whites have been utterly, to me shockingly, brainwashed. How did that happen? How could it? The white majority in the US, awful as we have become, is not remotely as supine. Europeans have the nerve to mock Americans, but we are much tougher than you are. We still have a spirit of rebellious independence (just go to the Vegas gun show, as I do every few years), that is reflected even in yahoo comment boards, where you will find far more conservative and racialist sentiment in a typical article about blacks, or even Obama, than I saw on any British news site at the height of the race war, including that ludicrous police blog. Britain is dead because no one will fight for it. No one will fight for it because most have been more thoroughly brainwashed into racial egalitarianism and universal brotherhood crap than the captive peoples of Eastern Europe were ever brainwashed into believing in communism - and because the rest are secularist bastards for whom life is accidental and meaningless, today is therefore everything, and the understandable attitude is thus to keep one’s head down, and just carry on (in this exactly mirroring the attitudes of the peoples caught under communism). True British patriots should stop fooling themselves. Your only hopes are for a revived and racially renovated Church Militant, exactly as the old CE establishment was (at least wrt the colonized races), to act as the moral guide for a revived British patriotism which recognizes that Britain has been both invaded by foreign armies, and betrayed by its leaders. The goal must then be to foment a second civil war to drive the invaders into the seas (and to convict and hang the traitors - Blair, Brown, Benn, all of them - who facilitated the foreign conquest). While I have no doubt that earlier generations of Brits, if time-teleported and forced to live in the present, would respond in exactly this way, I admit civil war to save Britain seems far-fetched at best. Your other option is White Zion, where at least you can live out your days with racial and ideological compatriots, taking some solace in the knowledge that though your nation is gone (but where are the Celts? Franks? Goths? Vikings? mere ethnicities do inevitably transmogrify and disappear over long periods), your race will endure, with consciously created ethnic revivals always possible in the future. Face facts. The number of British patriots is too small to win back the land. But this is probably true for most if not all white nations. It is only by relocating to a common area that we will have any hope of becoming a majority, and hence of reconstituting society according to our values and prerogatives - which is necessary if our race is to endure, given, as I repeatedly argue, that all endogenous as well as exogenous trends are leading ineluctably to white extinction. 13
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:35 | # The Enlightenment was a complex affair that had roots in the British Isles, France, Germany and so on, but even the radical French Revolution had to via with France’s own organic, non-liberal tradition of social and political history. By contrast America, as a socio-political project, had very little in the way of organic roots – rather liberal political and social theory was central to its foundation and has been at its core ever since. No European nation could possibly be described as a ‘propositional’ nation. Politicians try to do the whole propositional thing or ‘British dream’ nonsense in the UK and it simply does not work. It sounds pathetic because it is. But in America such rhetoric has real traction. And yes of course Bret Easton Ellis – how did I forget him? “American Psycho” is an excellent satire on contemporary American culture. 14
Posted by Charles on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:40 | #
Moldbug: “Bring back Monarchy so I can live out my dream of becoming a court Jew” http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/08/moldbug-bring-back-monarchy-so-i-can.html “Overall, I see no reason not to take Moldbug at his word: he identifies strongly as a Jew; his politics are based on what he perceives to be “good for the Jews”; and he feels (Jews are) more threatened by disorderly “NAMs” and democratic masses than by divine monarchs or corporations.” “Mendacious Moldbug” http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/11/boring.html “Moldbuggery” http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/05/moldbuggery.html “Moldbuggery Redux” http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/11/moldbuggery-redux.html “More tiresome calumny against New England Puritans from self-described scion of communist Jews “Mencius Moldbug”. Moldbug’s libels typically take the form of absurdly-reasoned ten-thousand-word posts supported by links to whatever obscure, barely-relevant, centuries-old text he happens to be browsing on Google Books that day. My impression has been Moldbug prefers to dazzle his audience with pseudo-erudition and sheer volume of words, leaving it to his dumber commenters to try to state his world-view in direct and concise terms. Because when put simply moldbuggery makes claims about history which are blatantly counterfactual and easy to refute.” 15
Posted by Len on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:27 | # “Our American friends must try to solve their own problems in a way they judge is appropriate to their situation. However as a European patriot, I for one, will never surrender – anything else is little short of traitorous.” I am new to Houellebecq and new to Lister as well. I am an American whose first life , 25 years , was British . I am one of those lucky , not quite , but nearly “white trash ” boys who managed to attend a university ( A polytechnic at first actually . ) At that time in the early seventies there was a fervent rumbling throughout the educational prisons of England , a grumbling which basically said , England is either going to be Maoist or Leninist and that’s all there is to it. My ancestors from Scotland had been very well to do right up to the early nineteens , only to fall at the battle of usury . My Irish side if thoroughly simian , as the Brits would say . Looking back into those years in the North East I see a dark and dismal place where the Jewish aristocracy ruled as doctors , teachers , lawyers and bankers . They owned the stores and all of the people in them . There were few Muslims yet and the C of E was coughing its last death throws . Skin heads were cracking the heads of white people in general and feeding off of their own. They were the only racially minded crew available , but did little to advertise any love of their own kind. The middle class were getting heavily invested in narcotics as both traders and users . The employers left town for Korea . Maggie Thatcher rode in and sliced the head off the Russians ( unions) by closing the coal mines. England rolled over and died and was immediately occupied by parasites. I would have liked to have been a Europatriot , but the bosses were Hell bent on making sure Europe turned brown. Who were the real bosses I often wonder. I see no hope for Britain unless the white people breed and start fighting the enemy instead of each other. In America I see a drug dependent culture which really has no intention whatsoever of giving up its television fantasy life . Most of the people are illiterate , regardless of class or skin color. There are no leaders of worth following. The hollywoodsters control the culture and all of its little minions. Daily more and more Muslims arrive to chomp on anything they can steal from our carcass . They were invited by the hollywoodsters to do this indelicate job. I live next to a majority white church which on Sundays sounds like a disco , with all of the paraphernalia of “rock” bleeding put of its 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:06 | # Charles, Moldbug is a mischling. Push him and out pops the usual evasive little alien, not unlike Mr Auster. I had the pleasure of a run-out against him a few years back, and he wasn’t very difficult to smoke out. I agree with the critiques you post. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:46 | #
Why so many chimpouts on your part lately, Leon? I thought the lesson of the London riots was that White men are best served by not following the example of nig…negroes. 20
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:47 | #
No comment. 21
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:25 | #
I never fucking heard of that guy. There, that’s my Confession.
The same could be said of English Moralism. You did used to draw and quarter dudes over there, ya know. Moral debasement up the yin-yang. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:54 | # CC,
Who’s “you”? And is the “moralism” of the English a counterpoint in your mind to the “racial destiny” of the Teuts? 23
Posted by Mr Voight on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:53 | # Our ancestors dumped Europe for easy money and/or cheap land in the New World. Being eternally deracinated is the price we pay. We’re Jews 2.0. Except with no sense of history. Or survival strategy beyond the family unit. 24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 20:40 | # I lived in America for a number of years and agree that in some ways the whites of America are much better off with regard to certain cultural factors. ‘Minnesota nice’ might be a bit of a cliche but it’s kinda of true. From the lowest to the highest strata of society contemporary British people are, in general, terrible rude and yobbish (no city or town centre can be visited on a weekend night by any civilised person for any length of time). The weekend crowds could not be described as courteous, reserved, and mild-mannered. But the difference with America is: (1) the largest Jewish population outside of Israel resides stateside (enough said), and (2) the difficulty in defining what and who is an American. Look at how the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are regarded as holy documents - additionally they are both defined in highly liberal and individualistic terms. America is a propositional nation. Most British people, at least those that are not mouth-breathing oxygen thieves or duplicitous scum that in some way are gaining from the situation, in their heart of hearts do not really think Jamaicans and Pakistanis are genuinely ‘British tribes’. Rather they are foreigners with passports. 25
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:09 | # Most white American unoffical conservatives believe that ‘real Americans’ are white. That may be changing with the under 30 crowd, though I’ve encountered a number of young, nonwhite females who have referred to whites as “Americans”, in the context in contrast to themselves and their ‘communities’, which they define racially. Certainly, blacks define themselves wholly racially, as “African-Americans” (they only emphasize the latter aspect when discussing, say, Caribbean immigrants with obvious accents). Likewise, Mexicans mostly see themselves as Hispanic, really Mexican, not American. It is only white leftists, including libertarians, evangelical spokesmen and neoconservatives, who desperately pretend that you can’t tell an American by physical features. This is changing rapidly, however. My point is that white Americans are now better as whites than most West Europeans (and I think Canadians). You would have to go way out to the Far Left to find a discussion like the exchange with Starkey that GW posted. For example, the dysfunctionality of black ‘culture’ is now widely noted and openly discussed. Unfortunately, it is discussed in every way but the correct, biological one - but I doubt that someone making Starkey’s rather mild comments would be jumped on in the way he was. Anyway, whites are headed towards extinction. I sensed this at least as far back as the very early 1980s, when I first became aware that the idiot Europeans were also allowing nonwhite immigration (why? why? I kept asking the adults). Crossing the line into anti-racism spelled the end of our civilization. I repeat: there is no hope beyond White Zion. Get used to it, and get onboard. 26
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:32 | # I refuse to voluntarily give up my homeland to the third-worlders - there is a connection, however attenuated, to the land. One feels ‘at home’ in some way that is hard to explain fully. Back to the books - yes Cormac McCarthy is an excellent writer. “Blood Meridian” is perhaps the best American novel of the 20th century. In terms of contemporary writers I was thinking from the 1960s onwards, but more specifically those writers whose themes are the social mores and cultural values of this period (the 60s onwards) I would dub the era of hyper-liberalism. My own feelings about Israel are ambiguous. It is a state based on ruthless ethnic cleansing but if Jews did the right thing and all went ‘home’ and only concerned themselves with their own affairs and nothing more that would be marvellous, but unfortunately it is highly unlikely. I suggest Houellebecq knows that the one group that cannot be criticized by a public figure (unless they want to be ruined) are the ‘chosen people’ - so I would not condemn him too much. Perhaps the best we can do is simply refuse to acquiesce in the shakedown scam of continuous moral/emotional blackmail propagated by organised Jewry. They are not the only people to have historically suffered, no matter what they say. Incidentally talking of books, Chris Hedges has a new book out “The Myth of Human Progress” - a very non-liberal sentiment indeed. 27
Posted by FB on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:38 | #
What do you have against Auster? [Besides that he’s ethnically Jewish.] 28
Posted by CS on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:27 | # Leon, Let’s get the webstie started. Let’s pick some countries and some cities. I’ve lately warmed to Belze and possibly Uruguay. I doubt those countries have PC crazy governments like Australia does. I imagine there are no “hate crime” laws and we’d to free to say whatever we want even in public. Belize has even less people than Malta and way more land. It is also far from the eye of the EUSSR and ZOG. We also have a poster here who is already there and can tell us what the situation is like there. Ultimately I think one place won’t fit all our people so we’ll try to narrow it down to as few places as possible that will suit everybody. 29
Posted by OT on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:34 | # Does anyone know where JWH, a Finn or Wintermute post today? Thanks 30
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:19 | # High-IQ Poles taking Britain away from middling Britons. Sounds good to me. High-IQ Chinese taking Israel away from middling Jews. Sounds good to me. P.S., I know you’re the same Jew who serially comments anonymously at Sailer’s to create impression of a horde of anonymous trolls. 31
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:23 | # Our ancestors dumped Europe for easy money and/or cheap land in the New World. Being eternally deracinated is the price we pay. We’re Jews 2.0. Except with no sense of history. Or survival strategy beyond the family unit. WTF is a Jew without a sense of history, or ethnocentrism? Certainly not a Jew. Post a comment:
Next entry: All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
|
|
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 Desmond Jones on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:56 | #
How to explain London then? English cowards that ran before the invading hordes of African, Pakistani, Greek, Turk and Pole.? No doubt they had the same abiding organic sense of being and connection to their old neighborhoods, bequeathed to them by generations past. No, no those Londonium cowards are slithering, slimy, traitorous scumbags, like their American cousins.
Up your kilt, Jock!