|
|
|
Labour’s trident We can now see what I expect to be the final shape of the Establishment response to the BNP’s success in Europe. The strategy comprises three separate lines of attack which are, in no particular order: DEATH BY STATUTE The government of Belgium did it to Vlaams Blok in November 2004. Now the equality minister Harriet Harman is pursuing a judicial kill with her new bill:
Unable to contain his enthusiasm long enough for Harman’s new law to become available, John Wadham smooth-moving Trevor Phillips has already brought his, er, big legal instrument of the Race Relations Act to bear. Wadham told the world on 22nd June that his:
This has precious little to do with equality, of course. As a commenter to Ed West’s Telegraph blog made clear there is a large number of racial minority organisations, and the EHRC has not written to any of them. It is a naked attempt to disintegrate the BNP, and the BNP only, by packing its membership with hostiles. DEATH BY SARKO After twelve years in power, during which every possible effort was made to attract immigrants to England, the Labour government has coyly admitted that, yes, its immigration critics were right all along:
But never mind. Those bad old days are gone, don’t you know. Labour has a new points system so only “needed” immigrants with “skills” the natives do not possess would be let in:
At the same time, to combat the widespread and longstanding perception of government indolence on immigration “eyecatching” new initiatives are being rolled out for the voters’ delectation:
... together with the less eye-catching:
DEATH BY DOORSTEPPING For several months now the dominant thesis among Labour pols has been that the party’s New Labourish fixation with the middle-class was an abdication of its historical mission to the traditional (and, therefore, white) working-class. It is into this void that the BNP has stepped. Ergo, Labour must return to the council estates:
So that’s it. That is the shape of Labour’s attack on the BNP as it prepares for a grizly electoral defeat at the hands of David Cameron’s Conservatives. One suspects that the more thoughtful Labour people are concerned not just with kneejerk “anti-fascism” but with the real possibility that, while the City’s big money and the English middle-classes are already lost to them, it is slipping into a bloody war for the WWC. South of the border, defeat in that would leave it the unchallenged champion only of public sector workers and minorities - not a base from which a future assault on Downing Street could be mounted. Thus, the defeat to Cameron can be sustained in the knowledge that his time of public disillusionment will come too. It would not be a final defeat. The revolving door to power would not be slammed shut for Labour. That will only happen if they lose the WWC to Griffin and company. So, will this three-pronged attack on the BNP bear fruit? Harman’s attack from the statute book is the most worrying and unpredictable. Actually, I am not familiar with how these things are done. Perhaps someone can advise us whether the EHRC, presumably, would seek a judicial ruling against the BNP or whether it must “support” some brown-skinned proxy in a full trial. Obviously, the latter case would run the risk of a jury sympathetic to the underdog and to natural justice. But a High Court ruling followed by an appeal and a ruling from the Law Lords followed by another appeal and a ruling from the European Court looks like a much rockier path for the party to traverse. The political outcome of Harman’s stratagem is another matter. She is an unpopular woman in the country. She gives a fine impersonation of an embittered shrew and an ideologue of the worst kind. She has plainly learned nothing from the public relations debacle of the Leeds trials. Victimising a party which claims to represent a victimised majority is simply bad politics. But if her political homicide works none of that will matter - for a short while, at least. In Belgium Vlaams Blok was superceded by Vlaams Belang. The notion that nothing will grow where once the BNP stood is very likely mistaken. The Sarko strategy is, I would say, a hopeless one for Labour. To carry any credibility at all, feigning “toughness” on immigration is something that must be done from the right. It is all too late for Labour, after twelve years, to begin acting the little tough guy ... or even the efficient policer of borders. No one but the party faithful is going to listen. Our towns and cities have been racially transformed, and the political price for that will be paid. Trying to slither away disguised in a new uniform will only make things worse. That leaves us with Labour’s attempted re-engagement with the WWC in England. The list of initiatives varies from the hopeful (a £1 billion bribe) to the delusional (Ted Cantle’s Interculturalism and the reification of meaningless and unrepresentative, pro-Labour “community leaders”). It has “failure” written all over it. If the BNP survives Harman, it will certainly not be stalled by this. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:37 | # My citizen’s dividend plank instantaneously demolishes all of these approaches the moment any party with a seat runs with it. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:54 | # By the way, a Jewish wikipedian has already marked the article I just created on White Working Class for deletion over a technicality. His opinion is that the “white working class” does not deserve an article of its own—only a dictionary entry on another site as a slang idiom. 4
Posted by gina on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:12 | # Harriet Harman is introducing race discriminartion and far from destroying the BNP’s apartheid rules. Her Equality Bill gives preferential treatment in law to women and ethnics over white men. Is it ironic that a woman of Jewish ancestory should bring in laws that emulate the Nuremburg Race Laws? 5
Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:57 | # The Israelis seem to justify their apartheid and ethnic cleansing with God having specially granted them land. Apparently God never did this for anyone else… Of course, these aren’t true Jews. These are partly Jewish Khazars who’ve driven out the mostly remnant true Jews, the Palestinians - not that it’s any of my business. 6
Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:59 | # I meant to say driven out those who are most likely remnant of the true Jews. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:04 | # James, Nice touch. Maybe the second half of the Wiki entry reveals a slight disconnect with what the sayanim want to read! 8
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:11 | # GW, Indeed. I encourage people with ideas on how to expand the article to be more encyclopedic to please do so in the next week so it can be fixed in place. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:57 | # John Standing had a run in with these creatures about eighteenth months ago when Tom Sunic asked him to amend the all too predictable labels and deceptions in his entry. John Standing had two prolonged attempts at this, each running over a period of about 7 to 10 days with a couple of months between. Each re-write produced a balanced and more informed article that did a far better but still professionally neutral job of explaining Sunic to interested parties. But the changes were taken down within, I would say, an hour and the original screed put back. Finally a note was left informing John Standing that he would lose his editorial rights if he attempted to reverse the decreed message again. 10
Posted by Kievsky on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:19 | # Marxists/multiculters whatever you want to call them, with a few exceptions, do not understand the concept of “unintended consequences. This writer for the Telegraph, Ed West, does understand the concept. He is against the BNP, but he understands the ordinary Britons the way most of the elites do not: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100000802/the-ehrc-has-walked-into-the-bnps-trap/ But they’re about to be woken up with a thud, with news that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is threatening to take the party to court over their racist membership rules. And while the Twitterati, clueless 30-something liberals who seem to dominate so much of British political debate, may think the state can simply outlaw racism, in fact the EHRC is walking into a gigantic trap. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is an £80m super-quango led by the insufferably smug Trevor Philips, and if you wanted an organisation to make the BNP look sympathetic, you could not do much better. The EHRC, and I’m not sure they’re aware of this fact, are hated by most Tory-voting white people, or members of the Anglo-Viking-lager-drinking community - hated. They represent everything the English resent about the jobs-for-the-boys-and-girls, doesn’t-matter-what-colour-you-are-so-long-as-you-went-to-Oxbridge-or-LSE mentality of the quangocracy. Not only will it turn them into martyrs, but it will expose the hypocrisy of the establishment’s attitude to race. As “James1?, a BNP voter who has posted on this blog, points out, if whites-only groups are wrong why does the multi-cultural state tolerate, and in some case subsidise, these groups: The Black Police association So even if the EHRC win, what do they hope to achieve - to confirm in the minds of working-class whites that there’s one rule for them and one for us, and that they’re the lowest form of life in the minds of the establishment? Strange that the people who compare the BNP to the NSDAP are giving its leader the chance of martyrdom before the People’s Court. Tags: BNP, equality and human rights commission, nick griffin, trevor philips 11
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:45 | # If a political party is a private association how can a public statute apply to it? If I’m Presbyterian, I cannot join the Catholic Church, etc., etc., etc. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:22 | # Freidrich, I gather from early noises from the BNP that its most likely defence consists in its status as an association serving an ethnic group, which is permitted under current UK law. The party claims that the government is in a difficulty of its own making in that it cannot acknowledge the English people, for example, as an ethnic group, and is pitched, therefore, into trying to ban associations based on skin colour. If that’s true, the Bill won’t catch the BNP. 13
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:57 | # In the US, distinctions are drawn between “public accomodations” and “private associations” but the only thing that is clear is that if you are powerful you can avoid the “public accommodation” label and if you aren’t, like the LDS church, you have to cow-tow to the point that you actually deny you were arm-twisted by the IRS into removing race-related religious beliefs from your church. I actually had one of the most prominent lawyers in La Jolla advise me to not pursue what he admitted was a blatant case of the IRS violating my political free speech regarding the IRS—and he held a major post with the LDS in La Jolla. They know on which side their “white bread” is buttered. The only time I’ve seen anything really approaching freedom of association for non-elite whites in the US was when there was an FBI mole planted inside the World Church of the Creator and they were preparing to take it down. Elite whites, of course, get to ride around in their limousines, private schools and gated communities as long as they sell out the rest of us. Of course, there are also the “middle class liberal whites” aka “stuff white people like whites” who are mainly just wanna-be limousine liberals. They do most of the real dirty work in terms of policing the working class whites. 14
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:01 | # GW Re your response above to FB, it’s unclear what you mean by ‘the Bill’. If that refers to the Equalities Bill now serenely progressing through Parliament, and likely to become law in early 2010, the BNP as a registered political party will most certainly be constrained with respect to its membership criteria. I’ll take the liberty of re-presenting part of a piece on this theme that I posted elsewhere:
And still am. A subsequent update:
15
Posted by European Racialist on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:08 | # Why not spread the racialist ideas, like the ones this blog advocates, to some nationalist and racialist discussion boards? There are some fine forums out there, for example: forums.skadi.net forum.stirpes.net The latter is especially known for its high intellectual level. People on those boards need you to clarify some things for them. 16
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:28 | #
If the BNP’s constitution states that membership is reserved for ethnic groups indigenous to the British Isles, the obvious thing for the EHRC would be to covertly have members of non-British ethnies (or Brits with some other-Euro admixture) apply for membership. Maybe have a Pole who’s only recently come to Britain join, and then show the exclusion of a Brit/Negro hybrid whose ancestors have been in the UK for many generations. Such corner cases would be one way to try getting the BNP onto a slippery slope. The media and its troupe of nitwits will be shining a spotlight, eager to engage them there. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:00 | # Dan, At first reading of the BNP’s response to Wadham, it does seem that this is all show business. There are passages in it that, frankly, play to the gallery and have no place in a legal letter. One can’t help but think that both sides are engaging in this with ulterior motives - Trevor Phillips to distract attention from his own predicament and Nick Griffin to grab some headlines and set down a few markers in advance of the more serious business next year. I think Phillips’ cause and that of the EHRC generally will be damaged by this. It should mark the end of his career notwithstanding the support he has received todate from Gordon Brown. Lord Phillips of Runnymede beckons, perhaps. Dan, what constitutional tweaks do you think Griffin can make to stymie the forthcoming Equalities legislation? Would some form of pledge of allegiance to the indigenous British peoples suffice, with summary cancellation of membership for any action deemed to be in contravention? A dictator’s delight, of course, but something will have to be done to rid the party of the anticipated hostiles. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:03 | # Has anyone looked into the possibility that Wadham is part of the underground Nazi SS movement surviving from the days of the Third Reich that one sees portrayed so often in Hollywood movies? I mean if they portray it so often, it has to have some factual basis just like all those Holocaust movies do. Why else would he be pushing so hard for an explosion of white violence against minorities?
I mean, just look at that facial expression and body language and tell me there isn’t something funny going on with this guy. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:03 | # Ashley, thanks for the early warning. My own copy of Griffin’s circular only arrived in my inbox at 10.20pm. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:24 | # James, I thought Soren had already established that the survivors of the Third Reich were vacationing on the Moon. Anyway, Waddy’s floppy fringe is the giveaway. He’s only a little boy, not a big tough Nazi. He would be totally out of place in any decent beerhall putsch. 22
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:19 | # GW: It can’t be true because the screen play hasn’t even been funded yet. I still like my screen play better. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:00 | # That’s the video. My apologies, I thought it was Soren’s find. 24
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:30 | # GW: I agree that the EHRC affair has now taken upon an element of street theatre with the publication of the BNP’s very cheeky response. The one touch I particularly appreciated was Griffin notification to Wadham that he will be expecting the EHRC to cover his legal costs should they elect to take him to court. The BNP will milk this for all it’s worth and the careerists at the EHRC, most especially Trev (who as you note has just received the dreaded ‘vote of confidence’ from Jonah McBroon), will come to rue the day that they decided to embark on this wheeze. As for the BNP, I think you’ve brought up the most likely area in which the constitution will need to be tweaked. Since there will be no question once the Equalities Bill is enacted in early 2010 of continuing to base its membership on ethnic criteria, the BNP will need to find some other means of heading potentially disruptive elements off at the pass. So, while there will no longer be any possibly of restricting membership by ethnicity, there is nothing in the legislation (as far I can see) that would preclude a registered political party from designing its policy platform to appeal to a discrete section of the voting public, even one which is distinguished by its ethnicity. I actually don’t believe it would be the end of the world if a limited number of ethnics were to join the BNP. Assuming, that is, that they were prepared to publicly endorse and enthusiastically support the party’s core principle that its primary mission is to further the interests of the indigenous population, and nobody else. The constitution would need to be amended of to ensure that any members going ‘troppo’ and acting in a maaner in conflict with the core principles can be swiftly expelled. The other area I would expect to see some change is in the two-tier membership structure, perhaps expanding the probationary period for voting membership beyond the present two years and otherwise making it more restrictive as well as giving the voting membership more powers including, perhaps, over the selection of election candidates. I think attention to the two-tier structure is very important since the internal threat to the BNP will come from moles and provocateurs, rather than ethnics who are in all reality unlikely to apply for membership in any sort of numbers. It is the former who must be neutralised. 25
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:26 | # FWIW: There seems to be little understanding of how the British political system really functions. Labour Party cadres migrated into local government bureaucracies long ago, just like the “Democrats” did here in the United States. And like the GOP, the Tory presence in government is minimal during the “best” of times. Those that do exist are nothing more than a collection of extras hired to perform on media cue by the Financial Powers That Be. I believe GW infinitely underestimates the extent to which the Tories will support these Labour initiatives. When starting from a position of weakness you can’t play by the House Rules. Why? The House, being an illegitimate minority government, will always change the rules when it starts losing. The Labor ripostes described above will be catastrophic for the BNP. They would be ineffective to petty inconveniences for people organized on Local Group and micro-community principles. The mere fact that GW is reduced to speculating about which judicial venues these will play out in tells the whole tale. Look here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-take-farright-fight-to-estates-1765878.html A British blightwing which plays by House Rules, will conform to House Rules. We’ve got 10-20 years to get it together. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:28 | # Dan Dare: Since there will be no question once the Equalities Bill is enacted in early 2010 of continuing to base its membership on ethnic criteria, the BNP will need to find some other means of heading potentially disruptive elements off at the pass. The Citizen’s Dividend plank nukes that problem as well. What was the British equivalent of the US’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? Basically, all the BNP has to do is say: “There were multiple races of citizens of Great Britain in the old days and we’re fine with that limited definition of the BNP. We consider all who were naturalized under the old, legitimate, immigration laws to be legitimate citizens and therefore welcome into the BNP with its emphasis on the Citizen’s Dividend!” 27
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:22 | # I suppose the closest analogue to the 1965 Act would be the British Nationality Act of 1948, although the large-scale coloured immigration that the latter enabled was an instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large. This is in contrast to the 1965 Act, which was specifically designed to transform the demographic profile of the United States and has met the expectations of its architects in that respect, if not exceeded them. Taking then the BNA 1948 as the key enabler, the number of pre-1948 immigrants who would qualify to participate in a Citizen’s Dividend is miniscule. As late as the early 1950s the entire non-white population of the United Kingdom could have been comfortably accommodated inside a single Third Division football ground. We are now admitting more spouses and fiances from the subcontinent than that every single year. 28
Posted by Anon on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:41 | # I can see people like Wadham pushing things to the point where fed-up, outraged white people will finally explode in violence. And then what? Seriously, violence is pretty much the only option left. And what do we do here in the US? 29
Posted by Englander on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:54 | # What was or is stopping white anti-fa types from joining the BNP and causing trouble from within? I imagine there are already more whites who would be motivated to do such a thing than there are minority ethnics who would flood the party if the membership requirements changed and allowed them to. If a significant number of minorities did try to enter and disrupt the party I’m sure that wouldn’t go down too well with the party’s core voters in the North, and the result would almost certainly be ethnic clashes in these regions. 30
Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:55 | # “And what do we do here in the US? “ Try to survive all of the nonwhite attacks going on against us, including by moving away from where these aliens live or otherwise securing a home for raising children. Found separate clubs and churches, homeschool, and otherwise keep from socialising with nonwhites. Too often Christian charity is being perverted into aiding invasion of white communities. If whites would simply not help with these charities… However, at the same time it’s good to maintain good race relations, but this can be done without helping the invasion or socialising with the invaders. The Jews pull cheap tricks all the time to win favour with nearby ethnic groups… Any violence against nonwhites will only be used in a propaganda campaign against whites. A ready example is that shooting at the Holocaust museum which could not possibly have helped white interests. The government wants hate laws and wants to take away guns. It’s begging for a few white attacks. Problem is: white racial violence is largely a myth. There are nonviolent means to defend ourselves. Whites do need to wake up, but violence won’t help. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:21 | # Englander: What was or is stopping white anti-fa types from joining the BNP and causing trouble from within? The difficulty of maintaining group-camouflage, I imagine. The Equality Act would dispense with that. But even so, I do not see the mechanics of how the party might be destroyed from within. We have the example before us of the Trotskyite Militant entryists who took over a few Labour Party branches in the 1980s by talking meetings out into the small hours and then voting for their own agenda. They were perfectly visible to the rest of the party. In 1985 Kinnock moved against them, giving a speech at Conference in which he never mentioned their name but delivered himself of the following much-quoted observation:-
The editorial board of Militant magazine was expelled from the Labour Party. Then Derek Hatton was expelled in 1986. Pat Wall was never expelled, but stepped down as MP for Bradford North in 1990. Dave Nellist was deselected by his local constituency in 1992. I cannot believe that a motley collection of antifas, negroes and Pakistanis would fare any better within the BNP. Nuisance value would surely be the sum of it. 32
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:59 | # Soren Renner may be a cool dude, but his video recording of Antifa antics hasn’t given him any insight into obvious future moves. It seems my previous post wasn’t worth much in terms of stoking foresight, either. Okay, I’ll tell you precisely what to expect. New Labour isn’t going to campaign in those WWC areas to debate with moral persuasion. What would they expect to achieve? Make working class whites believe being dispossessed and attacked by non-whites is better than they think? —- Harrassment campaigns against employers designed to cause firings. 33
Posted by John on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:30 | #
How could such actions backfire against them? What can we do to ensure that such actions backfire and cause them more harm than if they’d never undertaken them? If they are too heavy-handed and overdo it which I should expect, it could provoke a mass “I am Spartacus” reaction. 34
Posted by CullTheDumbest on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:08 | # Fair enough. Every citizen should have full access to their choice of political representation. But, do they have the right to representation on an exclusive demographic basis? In other words, is exclusive demographic style representation, rather than limiting access to such representation, itself unlawful? If yes, why are so many or only one group of people denied this right? If no, is the Establishment subverting the ability of the people to access representation they seek? Since the BNP exists as such, the answer is of course no. So, is there a legal counterpoint to be made to cease this subverting of British identity representation? 35
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:03 | #
Ten to twenty years, fellas. The clock is ticking. I know this hurts egos but, there’s a reason we’re on the soon-to-be-outlawed fringe of the Internet. Get it together or lose it all. 36
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:35 | #
This is American “nationalism’s” weakest point as well. The cure is simple: 1. Local groups for suburbanites (social independence and self-help). 2. Micro-communities for rural folks (socioeconomic independence and self-help). 3. Mutual collaboration, low-key networking between 1 and 2 which eschews playing by House Rules at every possible level. 4. Perpetual local campaigns by independent candidates supported by the collaboration found in 3. The above is called, “Getting it Together.” Only detractors care to debate the obvious benefits of 1-4. 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:44 | #
That is an extremely racist, anti-English, pro-Kraut thing to say. Any decent person would be ashamed. 38
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:06 | #
Everything in its proper time. Now is not the time. Freedom is found on the ground, not on the Internet. We must become independent of the judeo-socioeconomic system to the greatest extent possible and acquire a good measure of civil legitimacy at local levels. Right now our business is to build a hammer. Eventually we shall be forced to swing that hammer - that is, if we’re honest-to-god serious about all of this and not just writing between tea-breaks to see our words in print I don’t want to die without seeing retribution for the evil I’ve witnessed and experienced in life. Neither should you. This is all I have to say for a few days. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:07 | # What was Communism ever but a Jewish strategy to decapitate European gene pools and supplant them with Jews? What was Churchill but another Bill Buckley style race traitor? Triangulating against National Socialism because the English have a higher genetic propensity for individualism as against Krauts is for shitheads. The smart man lets the better man win, if he gets to ride on his coat tails. 40
Posted by danielj on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:06 | # I agree with almost everything you say Cap’n but this:
is a bit too much. It is a little deeper than that ain’t it? It is sort of oversimplifying. 41
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:31 | # Welfare bureaucracy action against parents, “for the children” ...is already well-established.
And in Canada…
http://ezralevant.com/2009/07/government-as-kidnapper.html Submit or lose your children. 42
Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:53 | # GenoType, “I don’t want to die without seeing retribution for the evil I’ve witnessed and experienced in life. Neither should you.” I’m not an avenger. I serve my people - anything that is good for them, within moral bounds. Soldiers are where power ultimately lies - no worries even I see that’s true. However, how that truth is applied is up for debate somewhat - not that I’d know all that much about it. - I wonder somewhat about the truth of the Heretical Two with regard to Nick Griffin. There were different claims made on their website as to whether the leaflets were real or forged and also as to whether they were approved or not by the BNP. There’s always another side to conflicts like that. 43
Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:08 | # “The cure is simple: “ Yea, I’m in complete agreement. I guess technically power isn’t in soldiers but rather you could say that’s one bottleneck within a circle of needed resources… However, “soldiers” (meaning those with the potential to use force) are often a good (simple and fairly reliable) way to view the power balance. “This is all I have to say for a few days. “ Yea, I’ve sat around the Internet for long enough to learn most of this stuff. I’ll probably take a hiatus too. “Freedom is found on the ground, not on the Internet.” I do think a great deal more could be done with the Internet though, not that I’m the role model in that regard but it does seem like a lot more worthwhile efforts could be made. 44
Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:28 | # “the English have a higher genetic propensity for individualism as against Kraut” If English blogger “fellist” is representative, they sure want to be German - not that Celts are necessarily true Celts either… I’ve been told urban Germans were very different from rural Germans - NS was more popular maybe among the urban - I say maybe because this is little better than hearsay. The Germans who came later to the US were more urban. I’m doubtful this genetic propensity for individualism even exists at least relative to Germans, unless perhaps Germans are going to profess to somehow having mixed with, say, the Huns and thus become genetically different. Genetics is not everything. Culture plays a huge role in humans, unlike lower animals. Genetics might be what we are, but culture shapes that being. 45
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:31 | # GenoType’s italicized snipe at my post about “Time and Being” is interesting because of how little time and energy was invested in that post by all concerned. If one of these rare excursions into genuine esoterica actually yields something equivalent to a new regime that changes “the house rules” to be favorable I expect no perception, let alone apology from GenoType. Really, GenoType, I suggest you take what you find useful here, contribute what you can in areas of your own interest and leave the rest to those of us so “deluded” as to think we are more than a few sigma out of the norm and therefore have a good chance of making a similarly unique contribution. Your energies are much better invested in the less “deluded”. 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:09 | # GenoType, Allow the conversation about who and what we men, and European men at that, are in truth to develop. It is not dancing on pinheads and it is not antipathetic to your worldview. My comment timed at 10.04PM yesterday was, in point of fact, a critique of methodologies which are slippery and esoteric. That does not mean that there is not considerable correlation between the esoterist’s object of study and the European racialist’s. Thus I wrote of the metaphysical approach which Heidegger disdains:
The parallel’s are obvious and merit exploration and, I would like to think, explication via a common and, to some extent, scientific language (rather than a purely philosophical or mathematical one). 47
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:05 | #
Armchair lulz and tea-time twitters, James, about a common MR perception: GenoType is unintelligent and rude. What else is new? Certainly not the Blightwing propensity for esoterica, marginalized opinions, easy dividends, etc. —- Targeted evictions. —- Welfare bureaucracy action against parents, “for the children” —- Harrassment campaigns against employers designed to cause firings. —- Notification to school administrations. Remedial “sensitivity” training for HS and below. Explusion for college students. —- Property inspections and small fines to death. Devestation. This is what the BNP can expect from playing by House Rules. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. As to the “Why oh why” can’t GenoType go somewhere else? It’s because I like you all. Except Q. 48
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:27 | # Ah, “easy dividends”. Now the citizen’s dividend plank is another matter: Yes, it has been a small but nevertheless significant investment by me and it would be a welcome relief to be rid of the burden if I could be convinced of its utter futility. Indeed, I’m a bit frustrated I haven’t been able to invest more in that effort due to other circumstances, but suffice it to say this: I consider the citizen’s dividend plank is a litmus test for new right parliamentary politics. It is so simple and obvious a way for new right political parties in parliamentary systems to quickly and decisively succeed, that if they fail to focus their energies on it, it becomes fairly obvious to the most casual observer that there is little point to the new right at all. It would seem, therefore, to be an issue you would be helping me push, GenoType—not because you thought it likely the new right would actually adopt it, but because you were confident they would not adopt it thereby exposing—for all to see—the new right as (at best) political lightning rods protecting the elites. 49
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:43 | #
Well, of course, we must preserve the bits and bandwidth for the next article on a video game. 50
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:59 | #
Thus the need for software to automatically edit Wikipedia (inter alia), in a hostile fashion if need be. 51
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:45 | #
You are a US citizen. Please, tell me how I can divest my state of the commies. They control the local level and if you can offer some ideas vis-a-vis defeating their influence, I’m all ears.
Dear me. Most whites are overwhelmingly liberal and are fine with race mixing where I come from. So how to accomplish this?
Sniping. So all of us are just a bunch of snobs who like to sound good on paper? Jesus, GT, can’t you offer any help? Or are insults the M.O. for you?
Nor do I. But your sniping doesn’t exactly help matters.
I hope that when you return, you will have real answers rather than continual sniping. 52
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:12 | #
There is an obvious solution: have the real business of the BNP done sub nomine “Board of Deputies of the British Peoples”. 53
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:11 | #
If you edit the entry on Kevin MacDonald, your changes will be “reverted” within 10 seconds. They watch it like a hawk. Post a comment:
Next entry: “Nazis”, “Brownshirts” and the “Violent” Town Hall Meeting on Healthcare
|
|
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) |
Or maybe we’re hampered by the amount of Judeo-Commie control of this country and cannot do anything much without extreme scrutiny and ostracism.
Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:29 | #
When Griffin is in the dock will he tell it like it is?