St Leonards-on-Sea unseen

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 16 April 2005 08:49.

Last night I found myself explaining the facts of MR life to Birch of GNXP (see latter part of thread). He had visited us armed with his co-bloggers’ rather puerile and, probably, resentful smear that we are a WN site - meaning a racist, hating sort of operation obsessed with race, race and nothing but race.

I don’t know whether I adequately dealt with this brickbat. If not, I point the GNXPers and our own readers to the Telegraph today. It offers a more wistful and eloquent reply by the splendid Charles Moore. There, I think, one can hear the authentic voice of a mild and much put upon “majority”.

Moore himself concludes:-

There is, at heart, a simple reason why immigration has more than doubled under Mr Blair. It is because Labour wants it. Its current policy states: “Controlled and managed immigration is essential to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and the health of the public services.” This sentence sounds reassuring, but actually it is saying that mass immigration is a good thing. I do not believe that most British voters accept this. It is high time it was submitted to a clear electoral test.

Alright, Moore’s little survey is completely unscientific. Politically, it is not very deep. It does not peel back the layers of blank slate egalitarianism which underpin Labour’s creaking model of Man, nation and race. But it does shine a light into corners where party polling cannot and

does not wish to

venture. We, of course, do. It is our function to examine as best we can the sometimes hidden, oftimes ignored will and interests of the majority.

This is something that GNXP fundamentally opposes. It is something, actually, that almost the entire political establishment of the western world opposes - along, as we know, with most of academia, the mainstream media, etc.

They, though, are not in the slightest concerned to answer the question which Moore places in the mouths of those he encountered in the rain of St Leonards: “What can we call ours?”

“WN” or not, race-obsessed or not ... we are.

Tags: Immigration

Comments:

Posted by Stuka on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:10 | #

There, I think, one can hear the authentic voice of a mild and much put upon “majority”.

“Mild and much put upon” is an apt decription of pussified whites. When will the white majority awake from its slumber and begin to act?

And, why the worry over the “WN” label? Accept it, wear it, proudly.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:49 | #

Stuka,

The worry, as you put it, is the dual personality of WN. One aspect draws its energy from love of kind and love of country, and that is acceptable. It is a tributary feeding true Conservatism.

The other aspect of WN flows in the opposite direction. It fails the anti-liberalism test because it is of liberalism. It proselytises an unacceptable, narrow, even singular solution - “Get the Jews”, by way of an obvious example. It is contemptuous of broad-based Conservatism without pausing to reflect upon what Conservatism should really be.

Furthermore, as we all know, it causes people who want to oppose the Multi-Cult and the destruction of the West no end of extra work. And, whilst it is all very well to say ignore these difficulties, our kinfolk are very effectively warned off their own salvation by the ease with which such nationalism is demonised.

Finally, if extremis descends upon the West one day this aspect of WN will produce nothing but misery and failure, as it has in the past. It is not a way forward.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:51 | #

Can WN mature into a potent and serious movement? I think it could, with the right leadership.

Posted by onetwothree on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:39 | #

Asylum seekers are given free houses? Huh? What kind of vast and unaccountable stupidity is at play here?

It can’t last—and where an opportunity exists, it will be filled. Are there any ambitious generals in the British army?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:33 | #

“Are there any ambitious generals in the British army?” (—onetwothree)

Cromwell did it. And, what happened once ...

Posted by Effra on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:20 | #

Cromwell legalised Jewish immigration, though;-)

Like today’s Moronican evangelicals, he was friendly towards Jews for scriptural reasons, not because he was fond of their religion. He thought he was doing the Lord’s work by gathering them into Christian society, and that their conversion would follow.

On the wider question of St Leonards as a British microcosm, I can confirm Moore’s impression of how it has changed, since half my family live a few miles along the coast. Hastings (of which St Leonards is the more genteel, ‘Hove’ end) like Dover and Folkestone had already become a dumping ground for DHSS claimants seeking idleness in the sun, including junkies and psychos. So it was easier for the authorities to compound these towns’ descent into moral cesspits by allowing ‘asylum seekers’ fresh off the boat to silt up there.

The moral hazard Moore identifies—British whites toiling for what newcomers get gratis from whites’ taxes—is never admitted by our New Unhappy Lords. They chant over and again the Big Lies that ‘immigrants only want to work’, that most are only here for a few years, and that they are enriching our economy and society in all sorts of ways we, the indigenes, cannot do on our own.

We have to insist not only that we do not need these people, but that their intention to remain here indefinitely is a demographic pyramid scheme. Our objective must be nil net immigration for ever more, not a moratorium; and this must necessarily include large-scale schemes of assisted repatriation, including British-born non-whites who cannot or will not conform to our ways.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:19 | #

Effra,

I have family living a mile north of Hastings. The speed at which the town has descended from its prior status of an old-fashioned day-trip resort to a plain and simple basket case and

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/michael_jabez_foster/hastings_and_rye

Labour pariamentary seat is quite remarkable.

Fortunately our compassionate rulers have seen the danger just in time and are sending our tax moneys there:-

http://www.go-se.gov.uk/key_business/europrogrammes/Euro_funding/whatisit/obj2_whatisit.html

So that’s alright, then.

Posted by Stuka on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:45 | #

The other aspect of WN flows in the opposite direction…It proselytises an unacceptable, narrow, even singular solution - “Get the Jews”, by way of an obvious example…It is contemptuous of broad-based Conservatism without pausing to reflect upon what Conservatism should really be. (~Guessedworker)

I’m fairly well-acquainted with this strand of WNism. I think there are two types that succumb to it: 1) youth, and 2) psycho-misfits with a Hitler fetish. A lot of bad press is provoked by the stupid antics of the former; while the presence of the latter turns off mainstream WNs.

But, the kids can grow up and be educated. And, as WN becomes more mainstream and gains more recruits and sympathizers, the psychos gradually will be made to feel unwelcome. I think this is already happening to some extent. To take just one example, I’ve seen positive changes at the Stormfront site, which I just started revisiting a couple of months ago after a 9-year absence.

Posted by Stuka on Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:48 | #

Can WN mature into a potent and serious movement? I think it could, with the right leadership. (~Geoff Beck)

Definitely! I think it’s already happening. Websites such as MR, which help WNs articulate concerns and goals, are playing a big part.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:33 | #

..It is high time it was submitted to a clear electoral test..

There seems to be a popular conception that just such a thing will be happening on May 5th.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:13 | #

I only wish it was, Dan.