|
|
|
Nine votes ... nine!
So says the BNP website, following a very slow re-count at the close of leadership election. Nick Griffin seems unabashed by the narrowness of his win, saying:
But this follows a long period of internecene warfare in the party, during which the bulk of the activist base left in disgust or was suspended or expelled, and election results and the membership roll crashed. Griffin’s surprisingly thin majority was delivered by means of the expulsions, and his victory is hollow. The question which hangs over proceedings now is whether the reform group will accept the result. That seems improbable. The reformers have fought too long and too hard for the party, and for the people in whose interests it makes politics, to stand back and watch it die now. Grounds for a legal challenge will surely be examined, and if they are there a petition to annul the result and order a re-election will surely be made. The alternative is for the establishment of a new nationalist party. Andrew Brons took the precaution of registering the name British Democratic Party with the electoral commission, in the event that the BNP is pursued by its debtors into liquidation. A baggage-free party has some appeal, clearly. But it would still take the dissolution of the BNP for any new party to enjoy a free run at the loyal English electorate. Comments:2
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:33 | # 9 Votes Nick ! LMFAO ! The BNP is now a dead duck limping. 3
Posted by Saxon on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:41 | # The BNP will never accomplish anything significant. Too much baggage. Especially with Nick Griffin leading the party. And the demographic window for the UK to be saved is closing extremely fast. The country probably only has about 20 years left, maybe less, before there are simply too many non-whites for any political solution. That’s not a lot of election cycles to say the least. I think that it’s getting to the point where only civil war could save the UK and many other Western countries. But I really don’t see selfish, emasculated, and impotent Western man picking up a gun and heading out into the hills to fight a guerilla war against his own government for his children’s future. 4
Posted by film searcher on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:07 | # I apologize for this off-topic post, but I’ve been searching incessantly for a video I remember seeing on this site which I can’t find. It regards Dr. McDonald’s analysis of Jewish intellectual movements and the tendency (if memory serves) to establish Jewish figures as absolute authorities within their disciplines. (Freud, Marx etc.) E. Michael Jones makes an appearance in the film. Jewish infiltration of the American University is discussed along with (I think) the Frankfurt School. Does anyone know the the title of the video and where I can find it? 5
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:18 | # He delves into it in this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kHTekD3ycg&feature=related Watch Nyborg too. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:22 | #
Wouldn’t it be a metaphor more consonant with realism to say that “The BNP is now a limping duck near death”? 7
Posted by Guest Lurker on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:07 | # I think the movie Filmsearcher is asking about is “The Line in the Sand.” 8
Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:18 | # A point of interest is that Geoff Dickens the returning officer has stated that participation in the leadership election was by 57.89% of those qualifying, i.e. those with 2yrs+ continuous membership. This therefore reveals that the number of such members is; 1,157 - voting for Nick Griffin It would be interesting to know how many further members with shorter membership still remain, but it is unlikely that the current total membership is in excess of 8,000 in my view as most activists have been on strike for the last 12 months and no-one has been fulfilling a recruitment function. 9
Posted by Bill on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:26 | # I started this comment on the thread below, but changed my mind. With the re-election of Nick Griffin as Chairman of the BNP, the nationalist struggle has entered a new phase, back to the future - the phony war. The battle is to recommence for the hearts and minds of the British people, this is a battle so far, that has remained firmly within the grip of the BBC. (MSM.) The elite’s immigration programme from the get go has charged the BBC (MSM) with the responsibility of delivering a soporific compliant British people into the fold of the multi-cult, and it must be said, for the most part they (media) have accomplished this task with relative ease. It is now over ten years since the Blair regime ramped up immigration beyond anything seen previously and shock and awe has gripped the country since. With a raft of anti terror legislation coupled with the velvet mailed fist of the BBC, the herd has been cattle prodded into acquiescent silence. But thanks to the Internet things are a-changing. Over time, a steady drip, drip pushing of the envelope has eroded the iron curtain of resolve by the establishment, not a lot, but sufficient to tangibly measure and give heart. Why has it taken such an age to gain so little? Ah! and there’s the rub - the BNP. ‘nuff said. This Norwegian episode has forced the media (how could they ignore it?) to come out and discuss what should be about immigration, but true to form the BBC have shown mastery of the situation by deflecting the subject of immigration to one of Islamophobia. Standard media tactics I suppose. This is where the media wins every time, they get hold of a potential problem story and immediately shape (twist) the narrative to their agenda. It works every time and our people simply don’t see it. It is too early to see how nationalism will emerge from of all this, but to take a guess I would say it could be a game changer, for it is said, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. This whole immigration thing has got to go mainstream for nationalism to be heard, of course the media realise this cannot be allowed to happen and subsequently up their game to batten all hatches. But the question that must be asked, for how much longer? The immigration debate has got to be extricated from the confines of the Internet. Pity it has to take such tragic events as Norway to elevate the conversation to headline news. Cameron was quick off the blocks to promise a tightening of the screws for the far right. The media were even quicker to link Breivick to British far right activists. A few years ago, I predicted that when Cameron became prime minister, British politics would enter uncharted waters, I little realised how true and severe the situation would become - and how soon. The big question is, are the British people going to resist, or are they just going to roll over? We are a long way from answering that question, there are many plates (and counting) spinning, some almost tottering. Wasn’t there a song? The Times They Are a-Changin’ 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:37 | # Good comments from Saxon and Bill. Start a single issue anti-immigration party, like UKIP on EU. There has to be a baggage-free party where the British people have a chance to make a collective decision re whether they wish to preserve their nation (sadly, I’m not holding my breath re the outcome, but at least the British could then realize that they did it to themselves, and the good Brits could clear out and relocate to the coming White Zion / Racial State). 11
Posted by Bill on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:55 | # A quick response to those across the pond as to one man’s take on the current British nationalist scene. (And I’m no expert) In my previous comment I consciously resisted going down the BNP road, for two reasons, first I quit being interested in the BNP way back, and second, the comment would have become too unwieldy. Here goes, my take. It’s difficult (for me) to see where nationalism is going in Britain for mainly the reasons I outlined in my previous comment. I will briefly outline how I see things at the moment, apologies in advance if I repeat some points I raised earlier. (My 9.26AM) Since the last general Election back in May 2010, (and probably much earlier) even to the time Griffin became an EMP, (EU elected politician) the wheels quickly began to spin off the BNP bandwagon, things went from bad to worse to farcical in very short order. I simply haven’t got the motivation to catalogue a blow by blow account of how the demise of my interest in the BNP came about - it’s simply not good for my blood pressure. Suffice to say at this stage, phoenix like, the BNP have arisen from the ashes of its much exaggerated funeral, only to have Mr. Griffin still at the helm. (LOL) For months I have witnessed and skim read acres of column inches by a Mr. Eddy Butler whose capacity for ranting on and on and on about his once boss Nick Griffin has no limits. To what end Mr Butlers efforts was trying to achieve I am still trying to fathom out. What a total waste of time. So it’s as I said before, it’s back to the future for the BNP, exactly what is going to be different about that future I cannot visualize, hopefully it will just wither on the vine and fade away and make way for a fresh approach. I simply do not see any point in forming a new improved BNP with the same old, same old. It’s a no brainer. Truth is there is no alternative national party waiting in the wings, if there is then it will be crewed mostly by many mutineers from the BNP, it’s really that bad. But then there’s the EDL of course. I don’t know what to think of the EDL, the best I can come up with is, half a loaf is better than no bread! Which brings us back to the BNP. Griffin is aware of all this and must figure he can get the revived BNP to fly, gee damnit so do I, with no opposition in sight and Britain’s situation getting more dire by the day, the god forsaken people of Britain might just flock to the BNP MKII - It could happen. Thing is, what would Griffin do with a windfall like that? Ouch-wince! That’s it, I cannot see beyond that, other than to say - Times really are a-chang’n. 12
Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:20 | # Once again the BNP has held a leadership election in which the ballot papers have been posted back to a publicly announced PO Box address, thereby ensuring that all of the ballot papers have passed through the tender hands of MI5 or ay least that department permanent of the Royal Mail that operates in much the same way as GCHQ, except that it monitors paper based messages passing back an forth between individuals and organisations that the security sevices have an interest in, rather than electronic/telephonic messages. During the one or two days that each of the ballot papers was in the hands of the security services, i.e. en route to that designated PO Box, we can be sure that they will have been counted and logged and just enough of them will have been shredded and replaced with counterfeit replacements to ensure that the vote will go in favour of the candidate that the security services, i.e. the government of the day, wish to see leading our party. This is now the sixth time that the BNP have been through this postal voting charade and the sixth time that Nick Griffin has won the ballot. We can be in no doubt therefore that he is the establishment’s preferred leader for the BNP. I am not stating that Nick Griffin is definitely a state plant, but he is definitely the person that our political establishment fear the least out of all of the other contestants that have, over the years, taken part in the various leadership challenges. If Nick Griffin was perceived by them as potentially capable of leading the BNP to power, we can be sure that the security services would have engineered a different outcome to one or the other of the leadership contests. We must therefore view Nick Griffin as a ‘dog in manger’, a ‘cuckoo in the nest’, and someone that we should depose from his position as head of the nominally largest and most successful nationalist party in Britain. Based on the irrefutable logic of the above argument, all genuine nationalists should walk away from the BNP and watch this website for the forthcoming announcement of a new vehicle for the salvation of our people. So, what form should this new vehicle take? Firstly, it must be more than just a political party. If we simply form a BNP MkII and throw all of our efforts into winning elections, we will for the foreseeable future achieve next to nothing, with the dying BNP and the miriad number of already extant patriotic micro-parties fielding candidates against us and splitting the nationalist vote. We must form a movement that is initially extra-parliamentary in its function. Political power does not come from leaflet distribution and electioneering alone, especially in a covertly totalitarian, politically correct, pseudo democracy such as we live in today. If we wish to achieve political power, we must recognise that we have a long road to travel and one that requires us to learn to walk before we attempt to run, and certainly before we begin shouting and waving our arms in the streets attracting the attention of our enemies. Our nation is in tatters, not materially, but spiritually and socially. There are few genuine communities that have not been fragmented and/or corroded by the toxic propaganda of our enemies and therefore before we can lead our nation we must refurbish and reconstruct its constituent parts through a process of physical and spiritual renewal. In short, we must engage in nation building, starting with the smallest building blocks and cementing them together once more to form a phalanx, united in purpose and with an impervious ‘shield wall’ between our people and the swirling cesspit of modern Britain in which others, as yet unawakened, struggle to survive. In 1940s China, Mao Tse Tung stated that “political power eminates from the barrel of a gun”, but in Britain in the 21st Century political power flows from between the pages of a well stocked cheque book. In short, the activities of our new movement must be about the amassing of resources, both in terms of people and in terms of real assets. Never again should we ask a family man to place the future financial wellbeing of his wife and children in jeopardy, in order to stand as a candidate in a no-account election that we know before we start that we cannot win. We will build real communities of militant White people, through a combination of intensive community activism, targeted pastoral care and spiritual enlightenment. Ours will first be a spiritual revolution, “all things are ready, if our minds be so”; We will follow with a physical revolution, gathering people to our cause through spiritual conversion and through high rates of reproduction to expand our numbers and gather under our control resources that any former nationalist leader could have only ever dreamed of; then, and only then will our political revolution begin, and with such preparation behind us, who could stop us? As a well trained, well supplied army of militant fanatics, we will sweep our way through the filth, and Westminster shall be ours! 13
Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:52 | # P.S. It was not my intention to make the final sentence of my above post sound quite to suggestive of insurrection, and while I would not rule out revolution by force of arms if conditions in Britain ever deteriorated to the point of anarchy and chaos, my preference would be to bring about our rise to power through militant political campaigning, via legitimate electoral means. 14
Posted by CS on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:39 | # Leon, I think the UK is too far gone to be saved. Like Sweden here are just way too many white liberal idiots and a growing number of non-whites to overcome. White people who would support us have and already are leaving because the government is so intolerable to them. The only purpose I think formal politics can achieve in the UK is a means to get the message out and convert some people and nothing more. One thing we can start now is pick a country and a city in that country and start colonizing it. That doesn’t mean everyone has to quit their job immediately and pack up and move. It means that people who are moving anyway or want to move know of a place where there are lots of people who think like them and who’d they probably get along with. It also means with people there networking can take and we can have our own “secret society” where we help each other out just like the Jews do in our countries. 15
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:01 | # The air of England maketh a man afraid.
It’s a big trade-off, but the Canadian wilds are no place for this, Russia’s too big and dangerous, and Western Europe is fractured and hostile across the board. Belize welcomes Americans and Englishmen without fuss. All they our border guards want to know is if one is carrying drugs or guns. Beyond that they could not care less what you do with yourself, just have some cash handy for baksheesh, and even that is admirably rare. Belize is backward but not too backward. The population is absurdly small in proportion to its land, of which there’s still much to be had for 90s-era prices in the developed world. Teak and mahogany are booming. There’s oil to the south. Livestock is plentiful. The government is a black puppet-show on its way off the stage. The Chinese are already doing this. They have shops on every corner and are represented by very wealthy expatriate organisations before which the government kneels in total deference. Blacks are almost neatly contained in Belize District (where the capital is) on the middle coast; they spread south but aren’t the feral monsters prevalent here. Even given the propensity to rob and murder, they aren’t anything like the surly fuckers up here; they don’t force one into random staring contests or shuffle like sloths in front of oncoming vehicles. Many of them make a living and mind their business, and the police will invariably take one’s side as a white man. The major threats are oil companies, possible future meddling by American lobbies, Christian missionaries, the current darkie government (which exports Belize blacks to the other Districts), and above all Guatemala — those we welcomed and those crossing legally and illegally; and the Guatemalan national delusion that Belize belongs to it. Yet at this moment, there is much room to manoeuvre. The land is there for the taking, cost of incorporation is low, the populace as friendly and unassuming as sheep. The Chinese, Lebanese and Hindus are already at work in the cities and towns exploiting this favorable climate. If the coolies can survive down there, and I and my people can, and the Mennonites and missionaries and expats can — Christ, you ought to see the estates these rednecks set up all over the countryside! — why can’t WNs get over their silly prejudices and do the same for the greater goal of cohering for purposive group action?? As living space, the Western (i.e. Nordic) world is pure sunk cost. Ok, now, let me have it guys — let’s hear again how “the tropics are unfit for white men” and all that haughty stiff-necked palaver. 17
Posted by amit on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:07 | # why don’t European countries throw out these Muslims out of their country, they know well how much ridiculous this religion is, they have to act strongly. you can trust on anyone but not on these Muslims. so for the sake of your’s daughters and sister do something quickly. 18
Posted by dc on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:31 | # Dasein, Your link is dead. Do you have an alternative? 19
Posted by CS on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:35 | # Anon, Belieze I guess could be a possible target. I think we’ll have let other WN vote (literally with their feet in some cases) what the target should be. Picking Belieze would be better than picking nothing. 20
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:48 | # CS, You know as well as I that they will “pick nothing”. They’ll stay in their bogs croaking of their demise. All they’d have to do is expand their minds. All of our earliest ancestors did so — or there would be no “Americans” and no “English”. One can’t even argue that the paradigm has changed, that this isn’t the age of emigration. Pakistanis, Mexicans, Moroccans, Tajiks, Russians, Vietnamese and Guatemalans sure seem to think it is. Yet white men of the same extended phenotype as the inventors and navigators and conquerors and settlers who brought us hither & thither simply refuse to consider removing from their nations bogged in the big muddy. I’m sure family and financial concerns are the root of their intransigence. But hey, our ancestors had family too. They left. So ought their descendants. The going phrase is “Adapt or die”. I revise it to: Cohere or die. 21
Posted by CS on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:19 | # Anon, Family and financial concerns are big problems. That’s why we can’t pick a deserted island or a Third World hellhole. No one will want to move there. However, as our countries gradually to turn shit, moving will become an easier and easier decision. 22
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:45 | # White people should stay where they are, defeat their enemies, reclaim their terriotory and expand it as much as neccessary to reduce the threat of this happening again. Jews, at least Israeli ones, should stop fighting the last war and start promoting the idea that a patchwork of sovereign ethno-states is the best long-term peaceful solution for the world. 23
Posted by CS on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:57 | # Anon, If Belieze is easy to get into, then perhaps we should direct the racially aware white exodus out of South Africa there. 24
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:24 | # CS,
You seem to be implying that my country is a Third World hellhole. That may be a wrong impression, but if you did have that in mind, let me tell you: it’s exactly what the dripping expat reports say it is — “Paradise compared to back home.” That’s American and British expats. Any white man of means who is willing to spend his life fleeing from ‘hood to ‘hood, choosing between batty white liberals and feral blacks, or if British between chavs and howling muzzies, while a pleasanter path exists elsewhere, is a fool. That’s WHY there are so many British expatriates; they’re ahead of white nationalists who are back home pretending the situation can be retrieved. It’s one of those frustrating contradictions of life — those who are most explicitly concerned for their kind are too risk-averse to experiment with emigration, while the mildly deracinated of means leave in droves for other shores, and speak obliquely of their reasons if questioned. Both groups are deeply dissatisfied with the degradation of their habitat. The same bourgeois deracination that allows the second group to make the leap (be it in Belize, Chile, or a caravan in the Pyrenees) is a measure of their lack of race-consciousness; but the weight of race-consciousness, which in the case of Britain carries with it an even greater weight of historical consciousness, and in America a moral truculence, prevents anglophones from making this experiment that, I do agree, is the only necessary and correct goal on which to focus on our energies. I do not agree with GW and Grimoire that the multicultic rapture has a mere fifteen years of steam left; I dimly recall how they arrived at that meager sum but plain demography and the natural intransigence of the settled (if these guys are reluctant to move away, how willing does one suppose the muzzies will be?) argue starkly against it. Splitting into BNP 2.0 would do fuck all for anyone. I’m going on this way only because I am in total agreement with you, and appreciate your steady raising of the proposition. It is, when all is said, the only thing to be done. Again: the Chinese, Lebanese, Hindus do it, and though we aren’t on the same model as those folks, there’s nothing but emotional chains and at worst lack of money holding them back. If I had the money, if my land weren’t given to business, I’d work something out for those interested myself. Nonetheless every one of my friends has either tentative or finalized plans to move far from their native kwa. One is going to far South America. Another, an Englishwoman, is like scouting France and Spain in true English fashion. Others speak of Uruguay, China, and Kazakhstan. There’s a diaspora happening whatever the nationalists say. Their disapproval is meaningless in the face of relentless and irreversible habitat loss. As you observe, as conditions worsen, more will come around — doubtless the mildly deracinated first, the good people of “white flight” who misunderstand their motives but at least get out of town. Even Grimoire went to Canada. Poor choice, but he went. He has children. The time for soil-mythologies has passed. I don’t care about the churches and local traditions or how many Battles of Thisburg and Thatloo took place a few miles from your home; it’s the past and we are the present. It is time to fix our will upon a feasible goal for once, and stop daydreaming of recreating high nationalism in lost cultures. 25
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:26 | #
26
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:35 | # CS,
It is easy for Western folk. I’m not sure where SA stands in our immigration hierarchy. For the most part the government is quite strict with all African and majority-black nations like Haiti, Trinidad and Guyana. They ruling party consider themselves “Creoles”, not blacks or Africans, though of course they are just negroes as black as any others and enact policies favorable to the utterly improvident and disastrous urban negroes who voted them into power. But there is that kernel of “house negro” / Creole identity shared with the ruling class of Barbados, for example. Unfortunately this slim pathetic scrap of good sense is under imminent threat from the rising star of a Mexican candidate who took over for Said Musa in the PUP. Anyway, I can’t be bothered with the South Africans — I’ve dealt with them before and found them totally wanting intellectually, apart from the savage few like the “South Africa is Crap” fellow. To be honest they strike me as a little brain-dead. Very many of them have completely internalized the Jewish narrative. Point is they are probably too removed from our sphere of influence unless you have the energy or connections to pitch the idea in that direction. They would make a neat fit in Belizean society, but I don’t think they’d be a neat fit among us. They aren’t the same as we, ideologically. Not even close. 27
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:49 | #
The UK and US are ground zero of Jewish media power and so could use the South Africans most. .
Obviously the ones who don’t agree will carry on being as malign as always. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:49 | # CS, I am not sure about Grim, but my estimate concerning 2025 is that this is the date by which nationalism needs to have mounted a defining political challenge to the Establishment. If it has not done so by then, the political path will struggle to maintain its appeal, and the focus will inevitably shift towards direct action. Some of that direct action will likely be violent. I can foresee within this sort of time-frame the arising of extreme friction with Islam somewhere in Europe. If that becomes a hot situation anywhere at all, then it will spread and the “Europe 2029” video will become a reality. As regards our beloved soil, we have to defend it. We can never walk from our true alma mater. She is our soul, and it is for love of her that, today, we make our argumentation and our politics and, tomorrow, may fight, as much as for love of our kin. The two are one. 29
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:00 | #
I can see it happening. But victory is not a foregone conclusion. I don’t see European armed forces doing a volte-face with respect to their liberal instincts and opening fire on the muzz & antifa to any useful extent, or allying with nationalists and upset civilians. If not in Germany, in France this would be a bloody disaster for white people, as likely also in the Netherlands. Immigrants in Italy would not last a month against wrathful Italians, and if any national armed force would finally turn to support of the people, it’d be there.
I, too, read Hank Williamson. Re Grimoire, I am 90% certain he makes the same prediction, in almost exactly that time frame — perhaps he gave it a few years more. It isn’t very far back if you care to look. 30
Posted by anon on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:01 | # Wandrin,
Don’t pick a fight. I love your commentary. You’re immeasurably smarter than me. Yet above, you were simply daydreaming. Don’t sacrifice the possible for the ideal, friend. It will never come. 31
Posted by Papa Luigi on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:10 | # I do not think the cause of racial nationalism in Britain, is completely lost such that we should look abroad at foreign ‘bolt holes’. My expectation is that as mass immigration continues, and demographic change takes place on an increasingly large scale, so law and order and civilised standards in all things will deteriorate and decline and eventually, if nothing is ever done, this country will descend into Third World chaos and corruption. For the foreseeable future, electioneering is going to be completely fruitless for reasons I have described earlier, and it will also be a great drain on any movement financially and in any other way. I am not suggesting that we should completely eschew electioneering, just that we should not make it our primary activity. Our nation is not a mere political entity, a mere political construct, it is a primarily a biological entity and it is on a biological level that we must work towards our salvation. A nation requires land, and it requires economic resources if it is to flourish and we must adopt the mindset of the government in waiting. Our new movement must become the government of the free British and our task must be to take back control of our ancestral living space for the benefit of the free British and the British that we can redeem and ‘set free’. My belief is that there are certain people among us who naturally have a highly developed sense of ethnocentricity and that this quality is genetically determined. Such people will think racially whatever their circumstances and no matter how hostile the environment is towards racial nationalism. These people currently comprise the backbone of organisations like the BNP in England, the Front National and the NPD in Germany. We are the awakened among our people. Among the British people at large, there are a similar number of significantly different White people who have no capacity whatsoever for ethnocentricity, no matter what circumstances they find themselves in, and these people are irredeemably lost. Such people will side with our racial enemies, will fight for them, and will interbreed with them and think themselves jolly clever for it. Between these two poles, are the vast majority of the British people who have varying degrees of ethnocentricity, but not so highly developed that it will automatically manifest and determine their behaviour in a hostile environment. Such people need the support and the influence of those who are genetically predisposed to ethnocentricity before they become awakened to the importance of our cause. These are the stock from which the awakened ones can be drawn. We must select from them, those with the finest attributes and those with the potential to manifest an intense ethnocentricity The task of our new movement must be to establish Pioneer Little Europes at receptive and geo-politically significant points around our country, to make them financially prosperous and culturally and reproductively prolific, and to build within them a militant community of ethnocentric White people. These communities will serve as a beacon for those of the British people who will increasingly suffer in the wider society around us and through their exellence we will win increasing support. This will be an initially slow process, but as we build, each step forward will be the turning of a rachet. No more must our success depend upon the capricious nature of the electorate, each advance that we make will represent a biological expansion and the relentless recolonisation of our land. The Pioneer Little Europes, our exclusively White enclaves will expand as we buy more land, build more houses and factories, and in the face of our advance the crumbling edifice of the multicultural state will gradually retreat. Eventually the enclaves will coalesce and we will control first parishes, then whole electoral wards, then parliamentary constituencies, whole counties and the entire state. A tipping point will be reached once we achieve a critical mass relative to the dying carcase of multicultural Britain, and when that point is reached, we will be swept to power very quickly in an electoral landslide. The vital principle to keep fresh in our minds is that success from mere political electioneering is illusury, because we will always be at the mercy of the mass media with the alien cliques who control it, and the capricious nature of a decadent electorate. Such a route is equivalent to the Biblical building of our ‘house’ upon sand. The organic expansion that comes from nation building such as I have described above will be the equivalent of building our ‘house’ on solid foundations. and once those foundations are layed, our success will become inevitable. Sucess will simply require that we relentlessly continue to lay one building block upon another. It’s as simple as that! 32
Posted by CS on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:44 | # Anon, Sorry. I was aware as I wrote that you might interpret my comments that way and that I was suggesting that we write off Belize because it is a “Third World hellhole”. I don’t know much about Belize other than where it is located and that it is a small country (which is actually a plus for now). Canada is an understandable country to relocate to. It is rich and First World and the non-whites are mostly Indians and Chinese and don’t cause too many problems. It is however a politically correct police state where hate speech laws and “the truth is no defense” reign. Given the nature of the whites there and the non-whites moving there Canada is basically one of the last places that WN are going to prevail. There isn’t even a BNP like party to vote for in that country and there are likely to be none in the near future. 33
Posted by anon on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:37 | # CS, No problem. The important thing is that I try to convey a sense of the place, as only vacationers know of it. Well, I’m not a travel agent and can’t compile a dossier just now, but suffice it to say that it would be ideal for what I and apparently you have in mind, if the idea is for a nucleus of white racialists to relocate to one city, state or nation and establish a gathering point for the like-minded. While Papa Luigi is steadfast in his belief that ethnonationalism arises from a gene, like the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid and not have to eat fruit, I am steadfast in the belief that, rather than encase our feet in the cement of national romanticism and high-mindedly wait about for the first muzz out to knife something pasty after biryani & cokes with his mates, we might as well, and with less risk of failure, at least kick around the idea of picking up and carrying off. It’s happened before. Half of my family hails from Belize and before that, England. The other half from England and Portugal. My mother met my father in Guyana on holiday from university in Brazil; my father was working as an agronomist on the Rupununi Savannah. Perhaps you are American, and your family too is proximately migrant. The point is that there’s nothing stopping the determined and able white man from trying something new. He can hang back and fantasize of turn-around until he’s, well, the age of these fine gentlemen, or he can look beyond the grubby horizon-line of the Kwa and seek a more peaceful existence elsewhere. Perhaps there is a rooted quality of the English psyche I am talking over, after all it took a sojourn in Holland to prepare the Pilgrims for the voyage to America, and Englishmen came in great numbers only when success was evident and all but granted by writ to each new colonist. But I really don’t care what these fellows say; they cannot account for the thousands of British who have already left for France, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Mexico, Belize, Florida, even Colombia, Chile and Argentina. According to Papa Luigi these people are ethnonationally backward by reason of a defective gene. Yet most — I’ve met hundreds — will tell you they “don’t like what England’s become”, which betrays the usual “white flight” motivation. Meaning they are aware, if self-deceived, co-ethnics of these believers in a genetic ethnonationalist scale. Meaning these bourgeois expats building straw-bale homes in Nogales and spending their nest egg at Mr. Brico to fix up their chalet are at the peak of a strategic curve in responding to inverse multiracial empire. Nationalists are at the bottom, still plotting their big comeback. Just forget Canada. Consider it a big icy wasteland. Too difficult to grow things anyway. We’d be better of in Vermont or Texas, where you can mind your own business tolerably well and local politics aren’t totally inaccessible. But the truth is, as one knows, that no one has the will anymore for this sort of project — which lets one know it is precisely what ought to be done. Lebs and Bangladeshis can take over whole neighborhoods in Sydney, but WNs refuse to even consider cutting losses and trying something different. But the type likely to be concerned with race and dispossession is least likely to wish to budge, while those unconcerned are most likely to emigrate. 34
Posted by Bill on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:30 | # English Defence League leader meets BBC’s Newsnight’s Paxman. HT GoV. Waddya fink? 35
Posted by Papa Luigi on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:02 | # The anonymous correspondent above misconstrues my assertions regarding a genetic component in ethnocentricity. Obviously, the degree of ethnocentricity that an individual will exhibit will be determined by more than just their genetic composition, there are all sorts of environmental factors to take into account. My point is that certain people have such a concentration of the genes that predispose one to ethnocentricity that they will take a racial view of the world irrespective of the environmment in which they find themselves. Others will have so few of these genes that they will never respond positively to notions of race and ethnocentricity. The remaining bulk of our race will exhibit ethnocentricity, but in varying degrees and largely dependent upon the political/social environment in which they find themselves and the influences that play upon them. When faced with a political environment that punishes overt expressions of ethnocentricity, most of these people will be cowed into supressing their natural desires and conforming to the requirements of the multicultural state. Possibly they will move away from multicultural areas because of their supressed and subconscious ethnocentricity, and when they do; some will openly admit that they have moved to get away from the non-whites; but many will make up euphemistic reasons as a fig leaf to conceal their true feelings; while others will feel unable to be truthful even to themselves. These grades of truthfulness reflect the propensity for ethnocentricity inherent within the person. People who fall within this middle group, will as I have described suppress any outward eveidence of their ethnocentricty while they live within a hostile environment, but once lured into a contrary environment where open displays of ethnocentricity are encouraged and the ruling zeitgeist is one which asserts that ethnocentricity is good and beneficial, most of these people will radically change their behaviour and once so awakened will support our cause, and many once so awakened to the benefits of ethnocentricity will continue to do so, even if the environment changes again. It is this middle group from which we must draw support, by awakening those with a predisposition to support us, but we will not do this successfully while attempting to operate in a multicultural, politically correct environment. This is why it is essential that we establish all White enclaves so that within them we can determine the zeitgeist and create an environment conducive to the awakening of large numbers. 36
Posted by Irish Savant on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:54 | # Nick Griffin has done good work and dedicated himself to the cause. But his image is poison. Without doubt he’s a liability, especially after that disastrous performance on BBC. The BNP itself is also a sitting target in terms of its ‘Nazi-supporting past’. Might be time for a major rethink. 38
Posted by anon on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:10 | # Papa Luigi,
In my view you have taken a short-cut from this assemblage of genes to your ethnonational disposition. Propensity to adopt racial ideas are correlated with social traits which then may be related back to genetic heritage. Have a look sometime at typical NPD adherents. You will observe that adherents of “far-right” nationalism are on average simply uglier than the masses of zeitgeistlings. That doesn’t mean they are worthless or any less x or y, and of course we’d have a pint with them sooner than SWPL types, but it does mean nationalist ideology for the most part is raking the skips. Whatever role genes play in the life-course that finds a person either leave England altogether, play neighborhood hopscotch, join the EDL or take to reading MajorityRights to relieve the stress of habitat degradation and loss, the fact is that each of these responses is determined by class and personal background (formative events, limits of personality etc.), while the basic predisposition to flee, or adopt a defensive posture against the predatory multiracial state, is constant.
Unfortunately natural selection is not nationalism. Nationalism would not be necessary otherwise. Nationalism is meant to compensate for the natural limitation of race-consciousness among sprawling exogamous peoples. I am sorry, we cannot trace high concepts back to the genes, or derive them from “concentration[s] of genes”. Moreover, isn’t it that traits arise rather from just one mutation, or up to four from both parents, than a “concentration”? I trust neither of us is a well-read geneticist, and are merely riding on the laboratory coattails of those who are. Unfortunately this leaves you with a very great burden of proof that you probably cannot provide. At the last, I believe what one comes up against here is another refuge of teleological thought. Guessedworker undoubtedly knows better than I, though he might be charier of giving this refuge a pass as it pertains to the success of his own ideological narrative.
Remember, you paid lip-service above to “all sorts of environmental factors”. You would perhaps do well to give those some thought to explain the reluctance of the masses. There is a natural survivalism at work among our peoples to which ethnonationalism merely gives the lie; if denial and “can’t be arsed” are on the side of the masses, and the subtler view is found among the few, we may be forced to acknowledged that we, as the enlightened, are also the freaks. This relates to my opening assertion that adherence to nationalist ideology generally correlates with unflattering traits, racially and socially. From personal observation, this correlation is MUCH stronger on the continent — English nationalism is much prettier and ethnically uniform, with the consequence that its coffers are comparatively robust.
All of that is cultural.
Not “possibly” — they really are moving away from England in thousands; I consult with them in Florida and Belize on a regular basis, my colleagues handle hundreds more, and we are a small company in a small home market . I view these migrants as a sort of photo negative of you intransigent ethnonationalists, too inflexible mentally and, at least lower down, financially to “have a go” at simply moving elsewhere. Both castes, as I like to call them, are uneasy at evident habitat loss; but one possesses the means to abandon the habitat, and is so constituted socially that it will not risk open affiliation with an ideology hostile to the multiracial state (looks, friendships, connections, assets), while the other possesses neither and so is obliged to make a virtue of necessity. Obviously there are exceptions: I understand Guessedworker is extraordinarily handsome, at least well-established in his lifestyle, and I’ve no doubt you Papa enjoy similarly comfortable circumstances. But the majority of adherents is young and without property. If you stand them side by side with university students, some trends emerge: far fewer females (I trust we don’t have to discuss why), a great disparity in income and purchasing power, and actually some considerable racial differences. What I mean to say is that commitment to ethnonationalism — really nationalism; the majority of this subgroup aren’t consciously or at least publicly on the side of your ethno-, but then, neither are British expats — has more to do with these poles of age, wealth and class than it has a direct line back to a suite of genes “predisposing” one to adopt it after the vicissitudes of fortune. That is teleological thinking.
Or they reflect class and personal history. Risk aversion is not proof of the genetic origin of commitment to ethnonationalism. One may say some people are more averse to risk than others, and this may reduce to genetic difference, but one would be missing more obvious correlation with class, social investments, and so on.
I have no argument with any of that. Clearly some are more likely to drop their defenses than others and take up the banner of their own ethnic interests. I personally doubt much can be done in situ, which was the origin of this little side-debate, of course. This is likely because I am younger than you two, so am not given to soil-romanticism as an argument toward the prospects of ethnonationalism in England. As any psychologist and layman knows the young, as well as those who come from migrant families, are more adventurous than staid folk with generations on given soil behind them. The tragedy is that the soil is not always defensible, so remaining upon it becomes more a quixotic act than a strategic one. 39
Posted by Papa Luigi on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:46 | # Anon,
I can understand that it probably appears like that to someone like you.
Ah, so you concede that it is related to genetic heritage in the final analysis.
That is a non sequitur. Now who is making assumptions of ‘ugliness’, and then taking a ‘short-cut’ from ‘ugly’ to the dregs of humanity?
If you think about it, everything is involved in natural selection, but I think you mean’t to say, ‘unfortunately nationalism isn’t a product of specific genetic inheritance’, but again you are wrong in that the propensity or susceptability to manifest specific traits is always genetic in origin, as you have admitted already. In this respect, nationalism is needed because genetic inheritance is not uniform and ethnocentrism needs to be reinforced in certain people, just as I explained originally.
But you should understand that culture is a product of race - i.e. it’s essentially genetic.
It seems you have reverted to insulting committed nationalists once more, and use bourgeous notions of wealth and social status to justify your elevation of yourself and other ‘White flighters’ to the level of ubermenschen. In reality there might always be an element of ‘cowardice’ and ‘self interest’ involved in ‘White flight’, just as there may be an elements of ‘inflexibility’ and lack of ‘articulation’ among those who choose to stand and fight, but these are the kind of negative connotations that I would have thought a true nationlist would reject, and your arguments therefore exposes you as someone of a cynical and less than charitable disposition regarding the issues at hand. One wonders at your motivation? You then make assumptions regarding what you refer to as my ‘soil-romanticism’, without a scrap of evidence to substantiate your assertions, however it is clear that this is simply another pretext with which to justify your ‘White flight’. I’m beginning to think you have a chip on your shoulder? Perhaps in the past someone has accused you of cowardice in the face of the enemy? 40
Posted by anon on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:09 | # Papa, Please be aware that I’m no white-flighter; I was born and have resided in Belize for about half of my life. The other half has been split between England, Brazil, Florida, and various Am. States on business. So when I talk about white-flighters, I don’t defend myself in their name, as you think. But I do admit my unique perspective and what’s more my profession predispose me to view them sympathetically.
I’m not really sure. The more I read of these things, the less I seem to grasp. I worry that nationalists take a severely telescoped view of genetic predisposition to their own ideology, is the point.
Just a joke. I don’t think nationalism is the dregs of humanity; but it does draw much of its support from the underclass. It must do so or it would have no explicit support but that rendered by wealthier people.
Thank you for the correction. As for inheriting disposition to ethnonationalism, another problem is calling it a “trait”. Perhaps the trait is rather a predisposition to not succeed in school, or dearth of curiosity, or some anti-social trait that would dispose one to adopt an explicit loyalty to race — mandated as heresy by the anti-native state. The point is that it is profoundly maladaptive to set oneself against the group norm, however warped.
Evidently it needs to be reinforced not in certain people, but in the great majority of people, which means either all of those are deviant, or nationalists are deviant, or both are deviant in different fashion. I understand that the elite have grossly misled and suppressed the proper instincts of the majority, but within that context normal traits and drives continue despite those pressures; which is to say that the majority is still exercising normal drives however maladaptively expressed. It is the lower-class nationalist who departs from this warped group norm. It is not wrong to be in opposition, but it seems to me either an exaggeration, or a syncopation, to assert that genes are directly responsible for commitment to the ethnonationalist ideology — a reading of ideology back into pre-ideological times, when concerns were familial and tribal at most. Wandrin writes somewhere,
In other words, ideas of nationhood or extended belonging can’t be read back into the ancestral environment. Familial and at most tribal commitment are where it stops. In that respect even the majority subdivides along such neo-tribal and familial commitments, from families themselves, to neighborhood gangs and even more abstract expressions (as negrified Americans e.g. tout their area codes as pride of place).
Yes — race is not a social construct; society is a racial construct. Racialism is a social construct.
No need for that, Papa. I write with no animus for nationalists, none at all. If I bring up wealth and social status, it is because race seems to fracture along these lines sometimes. I realize you’d be wary of this perspective as it’s precisely the rhetorical device used against racialists to exonerate blacks for their failure as a people. But really, there is some truth to it — where they were useful in the slave economy of the American South, or Brazilian latifundia and sugar refineries, they were absolutely useless in the cities whither they migrated, understandably enough, after emancipation. I’m not insulting nationalists then, only suggesting that their social defects may be more useful to explaining their commitment than hazy appeals to genetic predisposition.
If you can agree to my terms (inflexibility etc.) I can agree to yours (cowardice; self-interest). Certainly. The bourgeoisie who can afford to move and do, are narrow souls in their way. I spend time with them because it’s my job; otherwise they’re unbearable. But ... it’s this “stand and fight” thing that sounds wrong to me. It carries implications that don’t seem supported by circumstances. While expatriates may be cowardly and self-interested, perhaps it is also that they lack ideological conceits that would keep them rooted in a failed state.
Well, insomuch as I care to speak of motives, I come up with two — doubtless reducible to something less meaningful: Intellectual dissent from “ethnonationalist” orthodoxy (the gene issue), and desire to see nationalists try something new and really feasible. I may be a cynic, but you’re pointing rather at my pessimism, which I admit is very great, at least for the same old nationalist pseudo-solutions. Nationalist prognostication reminds me of that American christer sect led by some self-declared prophet to believe the world would end on some date, then when it did not, a new date was fixed, etc. With every decade the social scene becomes worse, the youth more wretched than the last, yet in another ten years this or that will happen and settle everything. Couldn’t hurt to try something else, is all I’m saying. It may be that those who left England for America were the least genetically ethnocentric of the English, or they were the wealthiest, the most desperate, the least desirable, or the simply curious — here was a completely unknown habitat to explore and exploit unfettered by rent and taxes, unbounded by the next man’s fencing, independent of the lord’s waste. I was under the impression that species, when faced with a stagnant, changing, or hostile habitat, were required to adapt or wither away. In such cases curiosity, exploiting new habitat, is the only answer to degradation of another. This presupposes of course that England cannot be rescued. We’ll leave that alone as debatable.
That was aimed at Guessedworker, who couldn’t care less. 41
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:56 | # Anon, I am pleased to detect a moderation in your tone. However understandable the frustrations that nationalists experience as a result of the shortcomings apparent in the current behaviour of our people, it is a mistake for nationalists to allow cynicism born of such frustration to manifest in quasi-denegration of one’s own kind. Criticism should always be positive and delivered in a motivational form.
Obviously if there were no poor and ill-educated White people, then all White people would be wealthy and erudite. Furthermore, while it is apparent that wealthy and erudite Whites form a minority of White people, this is the same for any ethnic group, as the poor and uneducated always form the masses and the wealthy and erudite the elite. This phenomenon is no reason to denigrate White people or White nationalists as a group.
Which is what I have stated all along. Only a minority have such a natural propensity towards ethnocentrism that their ethnocentrism manifests irrespective of the environmental factors at play.
Logically, the vanguard must always deviate from the norm, otherwise the vanguard would not initiate change.
Therefore, to complete your syllogism, ‘racialism’, i.e. the degree of ethnocentricity expressed by a society, is dependent upon its racial, i.e. genetic composition.
I agree and elsewhere I have criticised others for adopting the “wait until the apocalypse” mentality. I have always argued that there will be no sudden apocalypse, not violent collapse of Western civilisation, until it is too late to save our people and that we must plan to succeed against the backdrop of ‘managed decline’ that is so self-evidently the reality of our time. My assertion in all such matters is that mankind has reached the position in which we are almost completely insulated against the environmental pressures that moulded our evolution in the past, with the exeption of those derived from overpopulation. This means that we stand at a ‘fork in the road’ in which one evolutionary trajectory takes us towards a shared destiny for all mankind, while the other demands speciation through the adoption of ethnocentric group preference by a distinct minority that will then evolve separately from the rump of humanity and enjoy a distinctly different destiny. The trajectory that takes us towards a shared destiny for all mankind is the trajectory that demands managed decline for a species whose population grows uncontrollably in a world of limited resources. The evolutionary pressures will be such that survival will depend upon one’s ability to survive on less resources in terms of both quanity and quality. Survival in small crowded spaces, with little privacy and small quanities of poor quality food will be the order of the day, and this is the evoluitionary trajectory to ‘Cockroach Man’, the evolution of a human species adapted for survival in an environment similar to that which shaped the cockroach. The second trajectory requires us to choose ‘quality’ in preference to ‘equality’, elitism in place of egalitarianism, eugenics in place of irresponsible reproduction, and in-group preference in place of unlimited and misplaced altruism. This is the path to ‘Higher Man’ and beyond, and the challenge we face is to make this prospect a more attractive proposition for the bulk of our in-group, than a continuation of managed decline. At the beginning of the 20th Century we Europeans dominated this planet and stood at the very brink of such speciation, but at that moment of triumph we faltered because of a crisis of confidence and because of the insidious debilitation of our race by enemies within. There is no reason why, with the will and the correct leadership, we cannot regain that pre-eminence and resume our progress towards a higher destiny. 42
Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:33 | # 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:44 | # Lou, The great problem with all teleology is that its idealism particularises some aspect of what is, makes everything out of it, and disgards everything else. Yet in real life the disgard refuses to keep quiet and cooperate, insists on its humanity, and always carries the day. Idealists never seem to grasp this ... never grasp the meaning of the unity of the whole. There is something about the power of their vision or the persuasiveness of their logic which hypnotises them, and causes an inner affirmation of the ideal, like Gollum saying “My precious!” Here is where all grand teleologies part with reality, and the parting is invariably the cause of much suffering. Such is the legacy of Thinking Man. The speciation you talk about is an ideal predicated on a shallow view of evolution, environment and Mind. In reality, the European life of an insulation from environment is ineluctably our life. We live only because we have developed capacities and strategies by which we can wage a successful conflict, within certain confines, against Nature. To challenge Nature and to win is the distinctively European way of being. What you see as a fateful ceasura from “environment” is the life we make as it is expressed today. In this respect Heidegger was right when he commenced his analysis of our relation to technology (which is another way of saying “the life we make”) by stating that the essence of technology itself is not technological. He considered it philosophical. I suspect that you would agree with me that it is primarily evolutionary. The historical movement of “the life we make” to modernity has not been marked by a fateful ceasura caused by technology. It has been marked by an estrangement from self, the roots of which lie in the Christianisation and subsequent liberalisation and Marxisation of our thought-world. I am not negatively disposed towards great purposes. But they are dreams, and potentially very dangerous dreams, without a movement back to a proper relation to the European self, to what is true of us. And then, to be possible in this world, they must remain within the realm of the true. Anon, A while ago here - a few years I think - I made the observation that American industrial and cultural hegemony was a kind of revisiting on the old continent of the struggle for identity on the soil of the new. It is important for Europeans who are rooted in that new colonial identity to respect what locatedness in the European context means. It is not all romanticism - it is perfectly practical. I quite often quote at liberals a remark by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Challenged to say when les beurs could be considered French like him, he replied, “When the bones of their ancestors have lain in French soil for five hundred years.” We are at home, and all the meanings of that little word we inhabit. This root we cut at a very high cost. It is very necessary and far more honourable to stay and fight, even if that just means, as it does today, to stay and exhort our sleeping brothers to fight. 44
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:23 | # Guesedworker,
Agreed. I do not deny this, but it brings with it a issue that we have to deal with. The issue of the dysgenic effect of such insulation from natural evolutionary pressures. In short, we need to adapt our behaviour in order to accomodate an aspect of our nature that produces unintended adverse consequences.
I see certain dysgenic consequences of our chosen mode of cultural expression as previously unconsidered and unintended side effects. My assertion is that we should implement measures to eliminate such side effects so that we can continue to act in accord with our nature in seeking mastery over nature, without suffering those adverse side effects. I believe it was and still is the European dream to continually expand our knowledge and our technical competence, and in doing so to continually raise our level of consciousness, our perception and our understanding and mastery of our environment. The path to Higher Man is therefore consistent with the eternal essence of our race. To progress from where we are now to Higher Man through self-directed evolution, for that is what eugenics is, is entirely in accord with our true selves, and while as you state the future progress that I foresee is still just a dream, as Rogers and Hammerstein have informed us, “You gotta have a dream, if you don’t have a dream, how yah gonna make a dream come true?” 45
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 04:19 | #
The higher the scale of organisation town->region->nation the weaker the blood-ties component of unity becomes and the stronger the idealogical component needs to be to make up the difference. The blood-ties component is there but it’s diluted and needs reinforcement. Tribal homeland or a Great Trek seem to me to be the only two foundational myths strong enough. A random collection of white flighters is not going to cut it in any way. Also if you believe, as i do, that this is at least in part a conscious attempt at genocidal revenge then white people abandoning their homelands and going elsewhere is no solution anyway. They’ll attack us anywhere we go in the same way they’re attacking whitopias in America now. . I think Fukuyama is right except that it only applies to ethno-states. The most efficient form of human organisation is a maximally homogenous but at the same time maximally exogamous nation state i.e. where the citizens are all related to each other but are all *equally* related to each other. That scenario maximizes voluntary co-operation and maximizing voluntary co-operation will maximize surplus. The higher the average IQ the higher the increase in surplus per unit of co-operativeness. Jews are a good example of this except they take it too far because a diaspora population requires an exceptional amount of group cohesion which they achieve through their self-fulfilling permanent war against the world idealogy. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 04:56 | #
Can you now demonstrated convincingly, utilizing specific examples, just why the civilization Europeans have built and the moral premises upon which so much of that civilization as arranged is based, is irremediably self destroying such that that civilization, and those moral premises, must be fundamentally altered in order for Europeans as such to survive in such a fashion as would allow them to carrying on anything worthy of the name ‘civilization’ at all? If you cannot do that, then your objection must and can only fall flat.
You seem to give your answer here, although without the supporting evidence I have requested: that, according to you, in order for any of what Europeans are to survive, there must be an intentional culling of some parts of what Europeans are in order that other aspects may live - the latter of which are the better, indeed “Higher”, components as you see it anyway.
No. There is the impulse to do this to the racial collective as progressing through time which rests in some European individuals as opposed to all European individuals. And you are one such.
Fittingly whimsical and nebulous. I think what you mean to say is that one must have a specific and workable plan of action to which one attaches the emotions associated with idealism in the minds of those expected to lend their support to that plan of action in order for them to have sufficient motivation to carry it out. I mean, how else does GW expect to breed out the “faith gene”? But wait… 47
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 05:34 | # There are some practical consequences of this. If the out-breeding theory is correct then it fits with something i’ve believed for a while which is white people, especially northern europeans, are different in that they only have a minority who are naturally fully ethno-centric, a minority who are fully ideal-centric and a majority in the middle who are a bit of both but dominated by their ideal-centric half. If so then nationalists already have the ethno-centric minority. They’re on board naturally but they hang back because they know they’re a minority. This means for political organisations who are aiming at a mass audience the main target of propaganda should be the middle group *and* the sort of propaganda that would work on the naturally ethno-centric won’t necessarily work on the middle group. (An example of this, someone tried to recruit me into a far-right group years ago when i was still mainstream and he did it by saying the word “nigger” a lot when no-one else was around. I played along to see what it was about and after this test he mentioned his organisation. No doubt this worked up to a point but it’s self-lmiting as all the middle majority people would have shied away.) So, if correct, propaganda should always portray the middle majority as brain-washed, hypnotized, pod-people i.e. not themselves. I know people have been doing this for years anyway as a rhetorical device but i thnk it’s worth doing consciously as a kind of vaccination for ethno-centric types so they see it as not being attacked by their own people but being attacked by a hypnotized person who’ll thank them if/when they wake up. This isn’t as mad as it may sound. 48
Posted by English Moralism on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 05:35 | # On the other hand, if Papa Luigi (a Brit, I presume) has his way then Krauts could be said to have lost the battle but won the war - and the English to have won the battle but lost the war. LOL! 49
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:44 | # Captainchaos,
I’m not just talking about Europeans in this respect, the same applies to humanity in general. The most pressing and overriding problem facing mankind in general and therefore we Europeans also are three-fold; 1. That c. 90% of the population of the world enjoy a standard of living that falls woefully short of that which is available in Western countries, and there is no prospect of them attaining Western living standards due to finite world resources that can only provide a Western standard of living for about 20% - 30% of the current world population; 2. That 1. above is exacerbated by the uncontrolled growth in Third World populations, which will only make the situation worse with every passing day; and 3. The population groups with the fastest growing populations are the ones with the lowest average IQ, and the ones with the highest average IQ are falling in numbers. This means that with every passing year the average IQ of the world population is falling. It is falling by c. 1 IQ point per year and it is already c. 89 on a scale on which the European average is 100. Richard Lynn and tatu Vanhanen have estimated that for a population to sustain a high technology, democratic society, requires a minimum average IQ of 90. All Marxist, humanist, Christian, globalist, universalist ideologies which assert a common human destiny are rendered obsolete by those three factors, because they are all predicated upon the need to share more evenly the resources of the world, so that everyone has a tolerably ‘Western’ lifestyle; the need to give equality of opportunity to all; and therefore the need to manage down Western expectations so that we are prepared to accept a lower standard of living than today, in the vain hope that somehow a way can be found to ‘feed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes”. They are attempting the impossible and it can only end in disaster. Just one example of this is the ludicrous attempts by Western nations to ‘reduce our carbon footprint’, when in fact any pitiful savings that are achieved in the West are dwarfed each year by the demands for food and energy needed to provide for the increased populations of the Third World. On a planet such as Earth, with the population that we have today and with the finite natural resources that exist today, wealth redistribution is a zero sum game, in which more can only be given to the many have nots, by taking disproportionatley large amounts away from the haves (i.e. us in the West). Such solutions are politically and morally unacceptable.
Not so, I am not asking Europeans to deny anything that we are, let alone ‘cull’ aspects of our collective psyche, I am simply pointing out that the recent universalist world view adopted by/imposed upon Western leaders is an aberration that is not just inconsistent with traditional European values, but will bring about conditions that will destroy all that we are. We Europeans must therefore either aquiesce to our destruction as a distinct race, and our re-absorbtion into the rump of humanity and face with them a grim future, or we must re-assert the European dream that drove our forebears on in centuries past and which led to us dominating the world at the beginning of the 20th Century. 50
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:57 | # Wandrin, Your analysis has merit. English Moralism, Not so. If I have my way both the English and the ‘Krauts’ will have won the ‘war’, however if I don’t, we will both have lost the ‘war’, and despite ‘winning’ the ‘battle’ of WWII, we English will have brought destruction upon our selves and all our kind. 51
Posted by anon on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:18 | # Wandrin,
It isn’t “diluted”. You now have repeated almost a dozen times that we aren’t tied by blood closely enough for that “component” to be effective or sufficient. Hence nationalism. I argue it isn’t “there” at all; that its assertion is a mere prop, the “Königsbergian ideal” in new dress. Papa Luigi and Guessedworker, whom I shall answer shortly, have utterly ignored the substance of that argument.
Seems almost like a contradiction to me: a Great Trek (collective migration) would be good for whites, but a random collection of white flighters won’t “cut it”. Well, if you set over that the totalitarian goal of reversing control of white nations, or even one, say Britain, so that it is vested in a more or less white nationalist governing body, then no, it isn’t enough. But it’s something. To refuse to do something worthwhile in holding out for a very possibly unattainable preference is absurd. Don’t you lot take yourselves for psychologists? Read about “satisficing”. Mind you, I don’t say Lou, GW, and Wandrin should pack their bags and away from the motherland. This was instigated by CS who has since departed. But a case can be made for doing it my way.
Not if the host nation is essentially uninterested in contracting Judeo-Western manias. I have said that Belize, thanks to Mr. Said Musa, is unfriendly to Jews and Israelis. An Israeli coming through customs will be detained, searched, and made to feel basically unwelcome. The one advantage to the presence of Christian missions is that Jews have no place to work their sabotage. Not in the media, which is only half-literate anyway, not in the schools, not in the streets, not in homes. Belize is not a medium for the Jewish bacillus, I promise you that. It no doubt will be in the near future. And White Nationalists will miss a golden opportunity to exploit a good habitat in thrall to a nativist
. If no one ever cut their losses and set out to see if the grass really was greener, none of us would be here discussing this matter today. No Magdalenian cavemen to give us art, no Near Eastern herders to give us sheep, no invading Aryans to give us language; no Stonehenge, no abbeys, no books, no libraries, no poetry, no Anglo-Saxon-Jutes, no Normans, no Norman-English language — we ourselves are the composite of migrating forces. Digging in your heels now amid the ruins is noble, but one can’t help thinking of that good soldier at Pompeii; an example not simply of virtue, but of virtue thwarting life. 52
Posted by anon on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:52 | # Papa,
My reason was that I have no business alienating newcomers to this blog. At least, I’ve not seen you here before. There’s no reason for ire and I saw it coming out in you, which pained me. I ought to be able to find a less provocative manner for expressing an idea, even if the idea is basically threatening.
Denigrate them no. I was rather asserting that it has more to do with the possibility of allegiance to ethnonationalism, or conscious ethnocentricity, than genetic predisposition. There is a formula to it that oughtn’t to be collapsed from race ? environment + events ? ethnationalism to simply race ? ethnonationalism which effectively blots out the operations of circumstance. To crib from mathematics, I don’t see the commutative property in this relation; meaning if the component “environment + events” were substracted, race ? ethnonationalism. How to “substract” it? That’s easy — a thought experiment drawing on Guyanese-Canadian scientist André Fenton’s work with the molecular basis of long-term memory and thus identity. Inhibit the kinase PKMζand you can annihilate the “self” as determined by memory. This would leave us with a sort of pure racial subject who would then likely exhibit, in a given task, immediate preference for kind — but that’s all. Which means that ethnonationalism is purely an ideal, not a genetic imperative. If it were, it would be sufficient; we would have no requirement to innovate group ideology. Only anorexics require encouragement to eat.
But there is no “irrespective of the environmental factors” unless one controls for them. And as we see above, this would not work out as “ethnonationalism”. Preference for kind, aye, but this would likely be the result for either a nationalist or leftist subject. Which means preference for kind is innate, or rather inevitable in a natural state, as we also see from infant studies finding “racism” in their behavior. In reality then the true deviants are those who would, as infants, not exhibit preference for kind (the terms are crucial: use of “race” here would impute too much) — not likely to be the majority who only after thorough totalizing socialization suppress this natural preference.
The point is that the initiation of change is not given, “logically”.
My purpose was to illustrate the facility of reasoning from genetic predisposition straight to ethnonationalist commitment, an example, as I said, of teleological thought. As Wandrin patiently reminds us, and has shown with reference to data, the degree of ethnocentricity depends ultimately on endogamy, which we no longer practice and actually have stigmatized — no doubt symbolic of our basic deviation from good sense.
Well, I am in total agreement with this, and beautifully expressed, btw. I should make very clear that my disagreement is not with the goals as such, but with this one point of justification which seems to me to play loose with genetic science. It’s time for me to bow out of this — on the move. 53
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 17:30 | # Anon,
On this note of mutual agreement, I will thank you for your comments and let this matter rest. It is the big picture that counts and as long as we are agree on that, we can let the detailed issues remain a matter of personal interpretation. 54
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 31 Jul 2011 02:48 | #
Fair enough. I think it’s pretty faint for a lot of people, especially northern europeans, especially better off ones*, at the national scale. The exception is under conditions of extreme threat like in times of war when the mechanism for recognizing distant kin becomes important. I think it’s sufficient then. (In history you can read hundreds of examples of fractious tribal societies who constantly fight each other until they are attacked from outside and then go back to in-fighting as soon as the invaders are driven off.) I think this is probably provable. If you put two men in a room and suddenly confront them with a threat i believe the more related they are the more likely they are to stand back to back. The less related they are the more likely they are to put their back against a wall and face each other. (*blue collar communities will be more inbred than their ethnic average across all ethnic groups because people in those communities are more likely to marry close. i think this relates to some of your points.) .
Scale. We evolved originally for small bands of hunter-gatherers. Blood-ties are all you need at that scale and up to the tribal scale. Varying amounts of idealogy are needed to reach higher levels of organisation. Now if you’re right any idealogy would do. However i think Stalin switched from defending communism to defending the motherland because nationalism leverages and magnifies the biological mechanism evolved for the clan level. I’m not saying ethno-centricity is natural at the national scale i’m saying there’s a mechanism in place from the extended family scale that can only be tapped by a nationalist idealogy. Communism and Nationalism might be equally effective as idealogies but nationalism has an edge because it can tap into something biological as well. Idealogy++. .
The level of endogamy neccessary to create high levels of voluntary co-operation can only exist at a small scale (pre-cloning anyway). Arab tribes may be very tight as a group but as a direct consequence (imo) very reluctant to co-operate at a national level. Hence why their countries suck. They can’t make the jump because they’re too endogamous at the tribe level. I think Europeans made the jump to nations and the economies of scale consistent with that because of greater exogamy (greater exogamy at a regional scale counter-intuitively means greater endogamy at the national scale). If you want an advanced society then it requires those economies of scale which in turn requires a combination of biological exogamy combined with a reinforcing unifying idealogy. I think logically then the most efficient must be a homogenous but exogamous population in a clearly defined homeland with a nationalist idealogy. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 06:29 | #
If you wish to act as effectively a fifth column inside Brit-nationalism for palingenetic Krauts everywhere then by all means proceed with Uncle Adolf’s blessing.
Yes.
But as racialists our first, if not last, concern must be for the preservation and prosperity of our race. Why is it necessary to breed and/or genetically engineer the “Higher Man” in order to achieve that?
Muds are dumb, there are too many of them, and we can’t possibly outfit them all with jacuzzis. I got that already. The straightforward answer would seem to be to not breed with them, not feed them so much, and not attempt to give them the unmitigated bliss of Budweiser and lottery tickets; not to jump ten paces ahead to the non sequitur of a radical, state-sponsored eugenics program for Europeans (unless, of course, it is intended to breed out the “faith gene”). Just a thought.
Only the eugenically bred “Higher Man” can reject this kind of thinking. (sarcasm)
So what you are actually advocating is some kind of collective spiritual awakening - a ‘come to Jebus’ moment in which the “Higher Man” is realized - and not eugenics? LOL! I have to say, I like the idea of eugenic breeding better at least for the reason that it strikes me as being less goofy.
The jewel of soaring rhetoric nested in the crown of a false dichotomy! Why not just stop fucking muds, stop feeding muds, and stop giving them First World goodies? But then the Age of the Higher Man wouldn’t be ushered in and…la la la la… 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 06:46 | #
“The English” are, as I’ve always said, but an amalgamation of various kinds of (filthy) Krauts and with a Celtic fringe. Ask Wandrin, he’ll tell you. 57
Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:21 | # Of course, defining “mud” in its various contexts is the tricky part. 58
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:10 | # it fits with something i’ve believed for a while which is white people, especially northern europeans, are different in that they only have a minority who are naturally fully ethno-centric, a minority who are fully ideal-centric and a majority in the middle who are a bit of both but dominated by their ideal-centric half. If so then nationalists already have the ethno-centric minority. They’re on board naturally but they hang back because they know they’re a minority. This means for political organisations who are aiming at a mass audience the main target of propaganda should be the middle group *and* the sort of propaganda that would work on the naturally ethno-centric won’t necessarily work on the middle group. (Wandrin) Yes, I’ve been arguing for something like this for years. For example, WN hostility towards Christianity is stupid beyond words (for many reasons, strategic as well as tactical). 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:13 | # To paraphrase Wandrin: It fits with something I’ve believed for a long, long while which is that white people today, especially Northern Europeans, only have a minority who can hold to their ethnic identity and its interests amid the gale of modern political, economic and cultural (especially religious) life. The retreat of Christianity before liberalism and its prostitutions by intellectual Jewry has caused a second minority, with a strong faith-tendency, to idealise said prostitutions. Meanwhile, the majority in the middle, who have something of both of these, are given for the most part to near-concerns and can’t see past the pap in the media. They tend not to question but to conform. The more intelligent of them on the political right crave respectability. In these ways they all easily fall victim to the Establishment’s anti-white, anti-racist line. If this is right, nationalists already have hold of the ethno-centric minority. They’re on board naturally, though many hang back in practise because they don’t like to be in a minority. All this means is that the ambition of a nationalist political movement is not merely electoral, not merely to win the majority at the ballot box, but revolutionary ... to change the public discourse, to change the public mind, to change the attitudes, values, opinions, and everything which goes into the formation of human personality. Trying to calculate what will work on narrow groups of opinion - trying to build a coalition of opinion - is a piecemeal approach. No doubt, it is tempting to the political mind. But it is not how we came to be in this crisis and it is not how we shall put an end to it. 60
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:33 | # GW, Yes, I agree with all you’ve just written, but, being a broken record, I remind you of the “ripening harvest / encroaching jungle” problem when considering the totality of our plight. The alien settler-colonialists are flooding in, and our ability to reimpose our racial will, even assuming a mass awakening of les indigenes, accordingly floods out. You musn’t discount this! The purpose of a nationalist party is twofold: stop the bleeding, and secure our future. The latter may involve far more than electoral concerns, but if we do not stop immigration, it will all be moot. What good is a nationalistic English people if they only comprise 30% of the population? They will always be at the mercy of the Other, like (conservative - and, to an increasing extent, white) Californians today. 61
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:19 | # I for one am more than happy for a definition of whiteness that includes Penelope Cruz. 62
Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:20 | # John Turturro was far a less convincing Jew than John Goodman’s Aryan everyman. The average White American would have no problem pegging John T as an Italian, but I can’t say they would be able to identify the other John as Jewish. Cruz is white enough for America. Barely. 63
Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:09 | # My comment should have been posted in the Maltese Incident thread. 64
Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:13 | # It also should have read: was far less convincing as a Jew than John Goodman was as an Aryan everyman. 65
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:51 | #
Yup.
Yes, while the other side has the moral authority to deem you beyond the pale it doesn’t matter if people agree with your policy positions or not. Your options are either to surrender enough to their idealogy to be allowed a place at the table or focus on undermining their ability to deem you beyond the pale by undermining their moral authority. I use the sci-fi analogy of a force field and a force field generator. We can’t break through the force field so we need to attack the generator. In terms of electoral politics i think that means campaigning on issues that best illustrate the anti-white double standards of the dominant idealogy with the emphasis on attacking the ruling elite rather than the immigrants themselves. Every 1% who lose their faith in the current leadership is a new 1% who *might* listen to your alternative idealogy, whatever that may be. The other aspect is if and when you have a fully-fledged alternative idealogy to pick policy positions that best illustrate the differences between your idealogy and theirs. So basically you explicitly look at policy positions as representations of idealogy. Post a comment:
Next entry: War in Europe: Part I - Cui bono?
|
|
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) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by Papa Luigi on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:09 | #
Apparently a further 37 ballot papers were disqualified because the member concerned omitted to sign them!
In my view Guessedworker’s prognosis is correct, that too many of the party’s activists have become too disillusioned and frankly disgusted by the antics of Griffin and his clique to be prepared to now ‘bury the hatchet’ and continue campaigning for the BNP.
Nick Griffin’s victory is a pyrrhic victory and one that sets the BNP on course to oblivion as an electoral force. A new instrument for our national salvation must now be created. We must redouble our efforts and begin again.