|
|
|
National Front One day last month I drove up to a Heathrow hotel to take Tom Sunic off the hands of two gentlemen from the National Front, the cinderella nationalists of British politics. The previous day Tom had delivered a speech to the NF Party Conference in Bradford (you can find it here), and these gentlemen had driven Tom and another speaker all the way down from the Islamic Republic. After the pair had taken their leave of us Tom made sure that I knew what good, solid people he had been among in Bradford. I’ve not paid much attention to the NF for quite some time. So I made a mental note to check out their website and see what they are up to. My eye was caught by a statement written by veteran nationalist and poet Eddy Morrison. It is titled The eight principles of White Nationalism – the foundation stones of NF ideology. I wondered what you would make of it, and how you might compare it with the culturalist vision that Lee Barnes brought to MR a few days back.
Comments:3
Posted by Prozium on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:26 | # I see nothing in there about open borders with Europe. They claimed to be opposed to “mass immigration,” period. They are for race and nation. 4
Posted by Steven E. Romer on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:38 | # That is maybe the best list I have ever seen. Race is nation, nationality is race, nation is race, period. They mention both the higher path of man and the idea of freedom where rights and duties go hand in hand. The higher path of man is a must-inclusion in all this, the most important foundation and the most salient difference between us and other races. Eugenics was blossoming in all white western nations before WW2, and before the Jews took over our minds by first taking over our media organs and using them against us, along with finance, politics, and their takeover of important areas of academia like anthropology. Eugenics is the height of morality, yet it is now a taboo subject in this topsy-turvy Jewish-orchestrated world we live in. Anything perceived as a strength of ours is slowly but surely being destroyed, including eugenics. 5
Posted by Roger Gray on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:46 | # This list’s strength is its good, muscular English. I especially enjoy the verdict that liberal democracy is a false humanism. I agree with Fred that self-applied labels detract from the normality of wanting what people in all times and places have wanted: self-determination, self-reliance and to be left alone, free from the depredations of meddlers and ideologues. Free to be able to fight off foreign invaders. Those assembling at dawn with drawn swords to see off an invading army have no need to call themselves “racial nationalists”, or any other barren, Latinate name. If our movement were truly vigorous, we would have long since taken a name drawn from the deepest well of our cultural inheritance, rather than from some grab-bag of shibboleths. 6
Posted by Bill on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:06 | # How about White Survival? Snappy - Says it all really, snappier still even, Survival. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:27 | # My feelings about the list mirror Fred’s. Points 1, 2 and 3 are fine. I don’t understand Point 4 and the ascent to a higher state. I know Steven Romer is a authority on this. My position is that we can, as men, have no direct interest in evolutionary advancement. But we can and should have an interest in a redemption from maladaptive choices. Points 5 and 6 are OK. Point 7, with its deference to leadership, authority and discipline is not OK. The old costume tendency in post-war British nationalism was half-queer and half weak in the head. It’s nothing we need now. Point 8 counters point 7, it seems to me. I am a point 8 man! It is interesting that, as well as British Nationalism, Eddy Morrison is using the term White Nationalism which has, I supposed, entered their vocabulary through the NF section at Stormfront which Lee talked about. We are, of course, English, Scots, Welsh and Scots-Irish, not “White”. WN is a developing language of white ethnic awareness in North America. There is no overarching White Nationalist philosophy which can journey across the Atlantic to the old continent. On the contrary, it seems likely that WN will develop into a movement for a White homeland on the North American continent, which would tend it towards a corpus of ideas not less place-specific than is New European Rightism. With those caveats, I think the list is very good and Eddy is to be commended. The policies page on the NF website is also worth a look - especially the section about repatriation. 8
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:52 | #
I doubt it is homo-erotica and mental impotency that they seek to resurrect. It is the forces of social and national decay that National Socialism indeed did succeed in countering, that they too wish to counter - with tried and true methods.
That’s how to say you are a Nordicist without saying it.
Obviously the enhancement of desirable traits via eugenics, potentially genetic engineering, maybe even going as far as transhumanism. Their position is not substantially different from Barnes’, only they more or less openly proclaim their fealty to Nazism whilst Barnes wishes to carry on as a faileoconservative does.
Meaning he thinks it’s a good idea too, I take it. 9
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06 | #
A curious pronouncement from an organisation styling itself the National Front. Almost seems like putting the cart before the horse. I should have thought that ethnie would have been the primary consideration, with race coming a very distant second. These people seem confused about who they are and what it is they are seeking to achieve. There can be no preservation of the ‘white race’ (whatever that is) without securing the future first of its constituent parts. In the European context in which the NF presumably plans to operate that means the British (or the English), the French, the Flemings, the Dutch and so on. In such an environment there is simply no constituency for White Nationalism, it is a chimera. 10
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:32 | # Captain, I’m in need of an article from you: “How NS improves upon the managerial state”. There’s no doubting NS worked in Germany at a particular time. Answering “why?” and “how is it different?” would be interesting. 11
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:55 | #
I’m afraid it isn’t all that complicated. To be perfectly blunt, putting enemies of the people up against the wall, and in concentration camps, is more effect than dealing with them with half measures. If you want your people to be of a certain mind set, total propaganda (the vast majority of people are too dumb to understand the provenance of their ideas, nor do those that can really care to do so anyway) is more effective than half measures. Providing direct material incentive, and structuring the economy to remove women from the workforce, is more effective in raising the birth rate than waiting for a ‘return to traditional values’. The total removal of all racial aliens, and mandatory genetic testing as a qualification for citizenship, is more effective in protecting our blood than is segregation and ‘freedom of association’. Now, I do not necessarily endorse those tactics categorically, and certainly not for all time, yet either one is sufficiently serious to do what must be done to save their race from genetic annihilation or they are not. After all, if it is a moral imperative that none but the individual may dispose of his own life, then why is it just to execute traitors in times of war? If the former is so, then the latter is obviously unjust. Is the latter unjust? 12
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59 | # That’s not what I was thinking of when I said NS, but regardless Buchanan would have paid women to stay at home had he obtained popularity in the Congress along with the Presidency. I like the idea of a larger state excluding people, but I don’t like the thought of some one fourth-negro being declared “white” and forced upon some community. If some fuhrer tries to force a relative of mine to marry a negro for the “benefit of the white race” (however absurd that may sound), you can bet I’ll break ranks. 13
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:00 | # Buchanan wanted a family wage paid to men - something like that. He wanted married women to stay at home to raise children. So, his plan was technically to pay husbands, especially those with children. 14
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:11 | # Segregation was a best possible solution under Yankee tyranny. They forced us at gun point to live among free negros, so we implemented segregation. At first the Yankees tried to rule us in coalition with the negros! They actually dressed them up and put them in office. They continue to this day to force us to work with them within an even more heinous system. However… today most Southern whites are in support of it somewhat… The propaganda in the schools and media are having their impact, as well as the hot and cold wars, the GOP v. Dem competitions, football, and general transience of our fluid managerial state. I wanted to add too that serving within a managerial institution, e.g. a large corporation, tends to make a person more liberal in every way (racially liberal and dependent on the org for pampering while demanding more) than working for a small business or owning one’s own business. 15
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:15 | # I realise the Yankees of old have long ago committed suicide and largely ceased to exist and the ones who remain are as persecuted as Southerners. It does however feel good to point out the obvious: that the South wouldn’t have allowed this outrage to continue had it won independence. People point out there are too many negros down here, but… whites naturally rule negros. I’m doubtful of what’s possible in today’s South though, and living among negros is certainly unwanted in the long term. 16
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:28 | #
Hitler had the same idea. A system of very generous supplements, rent and mortgage subsidies and family allowances was introduced under the Familienuntershaltswesen of August 1939, but only for serving members of the military. Unlike in Britain and America, where women were recuited into the industrial labour force in their millions, the intention in the Third Reich was that labour shortages due to the military build-up would be filled through other means. 17
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:34 | # Frank, Robert Gellately’s .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe gives a fair summation of the domestic agenda of National Socialism and the mechanics of it, I think. Of course it should be kept in mind that .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) may well be Jewish, so there is some Holohoax nonsense in the book. I read the book some time back, but do not own it. 18
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:57 | #
Not true. Eugenics has gained a prominence that far transcends anything conceived in the T4 programme. And the Israelis are in the vanguard of that movement. The difference is that it is being conducted at a cellular level eliminating the “anguish” involved in terminating the the ‘life unworthy of life’. No straw and sawdust for these cellular misfits. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:05 | #
A few questions for Dare: 1. Why should not prisoners of war and criminals and degenerates of various stripes be put to work instead of lying on their asses and watching cable TV (or its yesteryear equivalent)? 2. Are you pleased with the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War? 3. Whom would you have sided with in the debate over the “nigger question,” Carlyle or Mill? 4. Why should not non-Whites that reside in our lands be put to work in the manner prescribed for them, so long as they remain in our territory - with the understanding that they will be eventually repatriated - in lieu of immediate expulsion, whilst White women are taken out of the work force to up our birth rate, and anti-miscegenation laws be put in place so those then idle White women don’t get knocked up by said non-Whites? 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:02 | # CC, It is the forces of social and national decay that National Socialism indeed did succeed in countering, that they too wish to counter - with tried and true methods I believe that in the 1980s a lot of the NF poseurs were just queens who wanted to meet a big bad Nazi. John Tyndall stalked off in disgust at them, though he had done his own share of bedroom posing under der Fuerher’s portrait. One really, really cannot make an intellectually serious case in England for “authority” and “discipline”. And let’s face it, you wouldn’t exactly feel comfortable donning the shirt, shorts and insignia and marching downtown with Bill White to some stirring Teutonic ditty. At least the KKK had the advantage of anonymity. That’s how to say you are a Nordicist without saying it. Not even a Nordicist. Not even a Britishist. Steven Romer, btw, has written a book on the godlike future of Man. I just do not see this kind of thing as a driver for our cause. But then I don’t do faith. 21
Posted by Separation or Mongrelization on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:09 | #
Indeed. Especially since over the long term racial groups living within the same territory must make a choice: that choice is clear…”separate or amalgamate” 22
Posted by Frank on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:21 | #
Going by the male heritage markers, even Iceland has a bit of Amerindian in it. Amalgamation appears to be a law of nature, at least among human species. 23
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:33 | #
PoWs are not criminals and should certainly not be subject to the same sanctions. I certainly wouldn’t have any issue with the latter being required to perform productive labour as a part of their penal regime.
To be honest I’ve never really given the matter much thought, but on brief reflection I’d say no. Probably not for the reason that you might think, however.
Regret to say I’m unfamiliar with the detail of that particular debate, although I am of course familiar with Carlyle’s reputation for ‘racism’. In general I’d probably be inclined to side with Carlyle on most matters, rather than Mill.
Why not indeed. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:43 | # Frank, Going by the male heritage markers, even Iceland has a bit of Amerindian in it. The Irish share alleles with Native Americans. It is not known why, but no one suggests that population-mixing is the reason. Amalgamation appears to be a law of nature, at least among human species. The evolutionary history of Man is towards genetic distinctiveness. 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:53 | #
Those Ukrainians and Poles who were forced to labour in Germany were making a great wage in comparison to what they’d make at home during WWII. And the Italians were raking it in. 26
Posted by danielj on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:25 | # 1. Why should not prisoners of war and criminals and degenerates of various stripes be put to work instead of lying on their asses and watching cable TV (or its yesteryear equivalent)? They don’t lay on their ass and watch TV. I was a prisoner once, for a rather substantial amount of time. Don’t discount them. There is “penal system paradox” that you would be well advised to look into before blanket condemnation of them. 27
Posted by Mark on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:08 | # “We are, of course, English, Scots, Welsh and Scots-Irish, not “White”. WN is a developing language of white ethnic awareness in North America.” White is just a genetic boundary that one does not cross. It is a bit relative depending on population of course. What is white to one is not necessarily white to another. The American definition is similar to that of Brits, the center being Nordic or Celto-Germanic, with Eastern and Southern Europeans being at the periphery. While I respect ethnicities and am a bit of nativist, I wouldn’t object to occasional marriages of whites in the above context from different nations. It seems that some people, especially women, find foreigners exciting, so if we can keep it within a white boundary then all is well. 28
Posted by Mark on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:14 | # “Going by the male heritage markers, even Iceland has a bit of Amerindian in it. Amalgamation appears to be a law of nature, at least among human species.” So is sexual deviancy, crime and murder. Doesn’t mean we should condone or promote it. Racial purity is a virtue. 29
Posted by danielj on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:34 | # It seems that some people, especially women, find foreigners exciting, so if we can keep it within a white boundary then all is well. I’d bet money that men are more exogamous than women. 30
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:40 | #
It depends what alleles you speak of. Europeans were in the Americas. The Y chromosome heritage is overwhelmingly Q in the Americas, and that’s found somewhat in Iceland. Google brings up a Chinese forums map: link.
When geographic boundaries exist. And distinctiveness doesn’t necessarily follow a straight line. Western Europe has been somewhat safe from the genetic turmoil of Asia due to geography. 31
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:44 | # Without knowing any further details, one can readily see the Q most likely came from the Americas. There could conceivably be some wild story, say the tribe Q went extinct except for Iceland. But… it’s far more likely the Icelandics simply mixed with the Greenlanders and Vinlanders a little. Whites and negros mixed in America too, just as they are in Britain today. Europeans are one of the few populations who have such a distinct heritage. If we’re not careful, we’ll end up like Jews (mixed away into a relatively recent distinction). 32
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:46 | # It’s so wonderful to see E3b in the British mix too… Thanks Rome. 33
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:44 | # Actually E1b1b (formerly E3b) probably reached the British Isles long before the Romans did in the form of Neolithic farmers who originated in Anatolia and the Middle East. It is present at far lower frequencies there (around 2%) than in the ‘mainland’ countries of western Europe such as Germany (over 5%), and far lower still than in the Balkans, where it reaches a peak of 27% in Greece. 34
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:35 | #
It seems those wily Krauts had a total program to deal with all the contingencies we face now, which is of course why the Judeo-Bolsheviks and Anglo-Judeo plutocrats saw the need to burn, torture, starve and kill them by the tens of millions, whilst projecting their own sins onto the Krauts. Apparently under National Socialism White people, and their very being - their genetic makeup - is protected, not so under bourgeois culturalist conservative capitalism where White people are consumed as just another resource. In his speech, towards the end, Sunic said “respectable conservatives” are our enemies. Conservatives are race traitors and anti-White genocidalists. 35
Posted by Sal on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:23 | # -It’s so wonderful to see E3b in the British mix too… Thanks Rome- Didn’t seem to help with the cooking though. 36
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:06 | #
Please help me see where I’m going wrong in this. 37
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:31 | #
Oh good. Well, apologies then to the Romans. Sorry for the conversation drift btw. 38
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:28 | # Adam Tooze in his book, The Wages of Destruction, argues that Germany, even at the end of the war, had a larger percentage of women working than the UK.
Mark HarrisonDepartment of Economics University of Warwick argues the same position.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:37 | #
Let’s flush out this bird. It’s a lie. 40
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:41 | #
However, it makes more sense that the higher concentration in Iceland is from the west not east. Also, Huns surely weren’t pure Q - they would have brought other markers as well it seems. Regardless, Huns are Mongoloid. Anyway more than just the Y-haplogroup is relevant, and true heritage could surely be connected using other markers. I don’t see Icelandics as somehow nonwhite… But I do wish to stop further mixing. 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:28 | # Above I posed the existential question:
Herbert Marcuse, Frankfurt School kike, was familiar with it as well:
42
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:58 | # There’s more at risk during a time of war, and citizens are forced to trust the government more out of fear of the foreign threat. The citizens must be protected from the state during times of peace simply because that serves the state organism best overall. There’s nothing inherently immoral about what you propose - it’s just risky. If a politician acquires such powers, he could use them for harmful things. To put it bluntly: the politician could be a race traitor himself, or he could be racially neutral and more interested in other power abuses. - Treason should reward the death penalty during times of peace as well as war. That’s a high crime. The state organism is put ahead of all else so long as it serves its original purpose: the nation. 43
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:17 | # Cicero put the country (state) over the family. A regular citizen couldn’t be expected to do such a thing, but serving the state at least serves his particular ties. Losing a war, as Germany found out, can be devastating. Founding a state or struggling to defend it requires a gamble of power. Sometimes you’ll get someone patriotic as Hitler was. Sometimes you’ll get a traitor like FDR… I’m not saying Hitler was right in everything he did, but he clearly loved his people. 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:27 | #
Without power we are at the mercy of our enemies, and they have no mercy. There is not sufficient power to defend ourselves with other than in the State. We need to acquire the power for it to obtain that loyalty is rewarded and disloyalty is punished. In that arrangement, if you are loyal, there will be a place for you. However, disloyalty, by definition, will mean that which jeopardizes the power needed to defend the collective, which is the State. Which is pretty much what we have now anyway, only the current regime cares only for its own power and sustenance, not the collective, our race. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:52 | # White Christians must understand that the issue at hand is the defence of the existence of our race, not the defense of their religion. It would alter matters if Christianity were synonymous with defence of our race, but clearly it is not, it is not Judaism, or a White man’s equivalent. That means you line up behind our banner, and not us behind yours. As I said, if you are loyal to your race their will be a place for you (to practice your faith), but, if you practice or insist upon practicing your faith in a way that compromises the protection of our people you will have betrayed us, and will therefore not be entitled to protection. Protection demanded without loyalty shown is parasitism. 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:59 | #
Yes. If the defense of their religion is an issue, that’s legitimate but it comes second in importance to defense of the race: a race can get a religion back; a religion can’t get a race back. The one sort of damage can be repaired; the other must be prevented. Moral, humane defense of the race in no way conflicts with Christianity. The setting of reasonable race-respecting-and-preserving immigration laws, such as those this country had from 1924 to 1965 and every non-Euro country has today, is moral, humane, and christian. Repatriation of racial incompatibles, for the reason that too many have been let in deliberately by the political criminals on the other side, can be done humanely and morally. Nothing about any aspect of our position is inhumane, immoral, or unchristian. Sorry, Christians, defense of the race comes first. Period. End of story. Take a running leap if you don’t like it. 47
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:31 | #
Additionally, Google on ‘Directive for the Military Government in England’ and follow the link to David Lampe’s book The Last Ditch. A translation of the full Directive which includes the deportation order is given on pages 12 and 13. 48
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:26 | # Desmond appears to have overlooked a key word in my post of October 01, 2009, 07:28 PM, above. That is the adjective ‘industrial’ which precedes the noun ‘labour force’. Nevertheless, I am delighted that he has elected to cite some decent sources instead of the usual Wikipedia dross which is often lazily presented as ‘proof’:
Unfortunately, however, in his zeal for quote-mining Desmond didn’t dig quite deep enough. Later on Tooze puts the key difference between the wartime female labour forces in Britain and Germany into the correct perspective. He explains that the difference between the respective participation rates is accounted for by:
So that accounts for the situation at the start of the war, what transpired during the war itself? Well Desmond’s other (excellent) source supplies much of the answer. That is, size of the German female labour force was essentially static (the slack being taken up by the 8 to 12 million slave- and forced-labourers) while the British increased by about a third.
And, contrary to Desmond’s assertion that the (involuntary) foreign workers in Germany were better off than at home or were even ‘raking it in’, Götz Aly argues exactly the opposite in his recent book Hitler’s Beneficiaries – Plunder, racial war and the Nazi Welfare State. I shan’t trouble the readership by putting up any extended quotes unless challenged to do so. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:21 | # CC: Herbert Marcuse, Frankfurt School kike, was familiar with it as well So what it is that you conclude from Marcuse’s words? 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:25 | # “Labour force” is a noun? Force is a noun and labour is a “–noun, verb (used without object), verb (used with object), adjective Chiefly British” but “labour force” a noun? The Wages of Destruction is found in wikipedia. It must be “excellent dross” another noun no doubt. Still, we are left with the fact that the German female participation in the workforce during WWII was indeed larger than British female participation in the workforce. The difference being that the British were fed by the US. The Germans needed to grow their own food. Thus, Tooze argues it was impossible to increase the number of German women in “industrial” production. Absolutely, we’d love to here more form Herr Aly.
And of course we await with great anticipation confirmation of the transfer allegation. 51
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:03 | # GW:
I can be inferred that Marcuse, as an ethnically conscious Jew, accepts sacrifice for fellow Jews as an expression of Jewish being, since what a Jew does is bound up with his being such that it is an expression of his nature - to be a Jew is to behave as a Jew. Also, given the readily ascertainable record of the thrust of the activity of the Frankfurt School, and the elitism of its theoreticians, it can be further inferred that Marcuse believed that to do as he and his colleagues did was to be not merely good Jews, but excellent Jews. So, waging culture war as a proxy for race war is what is Jewish excellence. Was this purely malicious? I’m not convinced of that. I think he believed Jews were by their nature morally and intellectually superior beings and therefore for the good of humanity Jews should exercise decisive influence. Excellent Jews are the rulers par excellence. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:15 | # CC, OK, but I would challenge the issue of excellence. It is not germaine. The essence of what Marcuse is saying is contained in Schmitt’s doctrine of decisionism. This says that it isn’t a question of whether the decision is good or bad, but that the deciding authority is correctly constituted. Thus a decision to take human life can be correct. That’s how Schmitt got around the liberal dilemma. To Marcuse, his own Jewish racial supremacism evinced a correctly constituted authority. It licenced the destruction of European Man regardless of the criminality of such a quest - no question of it being “good”, of course. There must be a level at which Jews like Marcuse know what they are doing to us. 53
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:50 | # Dan, I’m not sure that this document, whoever produced it and under whomever’s auspices, is going to convince that many people who are familiar with Hitler’s attitude towards the British. I think he would have been satisfied with drawing and quartering Churchill, especially since that first bit could have really dragged on. In my opinion, this document is more likely a German version of the Morgenthau Plan, or something designed to leak, in order to spread panic amongst the British public (although admittedly based on a miscalculation of British psychology), than the actual intention of the Germans (or at least the ‘German’ who mattered). 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:55 | #
In what way would an authority be correctly constituted; what is the essence of an authority that is constituted correctly?
I suppose I balk at the idea of attributing pure malice born of supremacy, not in the least linked with any universal standard of excellence or moral virtue or the common good. The idea had crossed my mind, but I decided to err on the more charitable side of attributing a desire to see excellence and the common good of humanity as seen by Marcuse and his colleagues win out, Adorno was at least a connoisseur of music as an expression of high culture, so there may be something there.
I guess the implication of that is Jews like Marcuse think no more of killing the goyim than slaughtering cattle, justified by their superiority, whilst Whites killing Jews could only be perceived as correct if it were in self-defense. Maybe that’s why Jews are ride herd on the Holocaust myth so tenaciously, because deep down they know, at least by our lights, they deserve to be exterminated, or at least a rationale could be constituted which would allow for it. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:12 | # That is that Jews believe, according to their understand of our moral nature and their own behavior, they think that if we were to become fully conscious of it, we would feel morally justified in exterminating them. Perhaps such a rationale could be concocted. But I don’t see decent White people wanting any part in it. Maybe they are just projecting their own exterminationist malice onto us. 56
Posted by Frank on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:17 | # We justify the death penalty because it prevents further evil. Murder is morally just if it serves a higher good. However, most people couldn’t be entrusted with such a decision due to weak morality and understanding. I certainly don’t want to judge on such a thing. 57
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:38 | # I have a hard time believing all Jews feel that way. The Jews I’ve interacted with treated me with respect, even generosity. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:41 | # CC, Power always declares its own authority. It has no need of subtlety or even natural justice. That is why the UK is still in the EU. I don’t like this - it comes down to might over morals, and it has no particular connection to our group interests. But Schmitt was historically right. 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:27 | #
Or that the meme has a life of its own and is quite willing to consume biological resources in order to survive. 60
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:31 | #
Yes, it is a compound noun, like manpower or Arbeitskraft. Labour could either be considered as part of the compound or as an attributive noun in its own right, depending on how pedantic you wish to appear.
Nobody has ever claimed anything different. It was the industrial workforce in particular that was the original topic of discussion. There is little question that it was in that sector that involuntary foreign labour was intensively concentrated.
The UK imported most of its food supplies before the war. The imported tonnage fell from 55 million in 1939 to less than half that level in 1943. The scale of the increase in domestic agricultural production can best be understood by comparing the calorific value of its output in 1944 (191) with the pre-war baseline (1938 = 100) (see Harrison, The Economics of World War II, p63). Nevertheless, you are broadly correct. Food supplies from the US were important but it would be misleading to suggest that the British were ‘fed by the US’ alone. Traditional Commonwealth suppliers such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as southern Africa were also important. As for the Germans growing their own food, Tooze indicates that by 1942-3 occupied Europe was providing Germany with “more than a fifth of its grain, a quarter of its fats and almost 30% of its meat.” (p 548).
Yes indeed. It was a consequence of the unbalanced structure of the German economy, in which as late as 1939 agriculture absorbed 29% of the labour force, compared to 6% in Britain (Harrison, p160 and p270). During the war years Britain almost doubled its agricultural output (in terms of calorific value) while reducing the proportion of the labour force engaged in agriculture to 5% in 1945. By 1944 the agricultural labour force in Germany, in contrast, expanded to almost 31% of the total (German civilians only).
Mr. Aly is mistaken or is being misquoted. There were no black units in the British army in NW Europe and none as part of the army of occupation. The only ‘coloured’ soldiers were the two or three Indian divisions which were part of the 8th Army in Italy. Do you have the original citation so we can ensure it hasn’t garbled in translation? Update: It seems the quotation is correct. Here is an extract from another account of the press conference published in Die Welt on 4.9.09:
Of course there were no British troops in SW Germany. That area formed part of the French and American zones. He could have said instead that black American and French were responsible for widespread rapes in the region and would then have been correct. But that aside, what else would you like to hear from Herr Aly? Perhaps his discussion of the various tax schemes and bogus savings bonds that were designed to separate foreign workers from their (notional) earnings? 61
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:57 | #
Hopefully for them they mean the English race. That’s the way the term “race” was used and is still used in some quarters - although it’s a bit dated now. The the French revolutionaries called for the extermination of “La race vendéenne”, they had a specific population in mind. Otherwise, it’s sounds like something an American would write. 62
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:18 | # The evidence from Aly that contradicts the assertion that “foreign workers in Germany were better off than at home.” No British troops in SW Germany? Gosh, how reputable can he be if in fact he is the author of such an egregious error? 63
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:43 | # So true, FB. Having rid themselves of their Nordic - descended aristocracy, the French are now blessed with a patriotic Jew as head of state. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:54 | # It is surely a burden to have to do what we may be called upon to do, yet if it must be done, then it must be done. I hope against hope that men of goodwill can come to an arraignment in which a peaceful solution can prevail. I know there are such non-Whites because I have spoken with them, they can understand the sheer evil of the demand that our people cease to exist. Our truths must be heard, and heard they will be. Good men will not demand of us that we cease to exist. 65
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:30 | # I can tell you now very simply why compromise with the Jews cannot work. The malice which Jews display towards Europeans is an intrinsic, irresistible compulsion that they display even unto pogrom. And those most intelligent Jews who are sufficiently such are fully aware of the destruction they wreak which they delight in, and believe to be a laudatory function of their being. They are in effect psychopaths, they are evil. They deserve death. It is only our own mercy, part of what is best in us which shall spare them. And how good we once were, and yet in many ways still are, despite the best efforts of our enemies to corrupt us. What great simple decency, and burdens born to the bone as they sacrificed for us with seeming equal involuntarily that Jews affect the malign will with. Now the Greatest Generation is passing away, many of them already have, and we think back on them, those that are now with us only in memory, they having crossed the threshold of death. Our dearly mourned and forever lost beloved, we will never forget them. It is that memory which might give us the strength, to bear all the burdens that they did as we now must, and to know to the core of our beings that they did all that was asked of them, giving everything of themselves so that our enemies could have they wanted in life. And what is their reward? To betray the children, and grandchildren, and all the generations that were to that may not now be to the slow trickle dissolution of all that we are - a fate worse that death itself. More over, we learn not the lessons and honor not the memory of our fallen if we fail to realize this: The strings of the moral instruments of the best men of our race are so tuned as to make compromise with rankest evil unendurable upon having learned the truth. The best men of our race have always been willing to sacrifice themselves to that their people might live, their honor compels them to do no other. It is those men that are needed now to stand or all is lost. For they are constitutionally incapable of dishonoring themselves in light of truth and their duty. We will never give in. 66
Posted by ROBERT CROSS on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:28 | # Good stuff from the NF,it is just a pity that thier new found intellectualism does not extend to operating a computer and renewing my membership,but perhaps in a few years they will find the on/off button and discover my many emails on the subject. Post a comment:
Next entry: Cameron and the tactics of the Establishment media
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by cladrastis on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:17 | #
I’m from the other side of the pond, but the list above is as good as any WN bullet point summary I’ve seen (or maybe it is the first I’ve seen?). Specifically, I like its brevity and directness. As for the opposition to Internationalism, I wonder if they are truly opposed to a Pan-European government (such as Imperium), or whether the “Internationalism” to which they refer has another denotation. I’m sure folks in the NF are aware of the lesson that can be inferred from the annihilation of the freedom-loving (and confederation-loving) Celts at the hands of the “internationalist” and imperialist Romans.