|
|
|
Patriotic Alternative given the black spot
Michael Gove, a clever-cunning, allegedly Conservative government minister known for stabbing Boris Johnson in the back during the balmy post-Referendum period, has done the inevitable and included Patriotic Alternative on his “little list” of extremist organisations. Apparently, making this list is part of his duties as Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Specifically, it is a duty forced on him by the somewhat challenging pro-Palestine marches which have hit the headlines since the IDF launched its assault on Gaza. This standard Establishment boilerplate (from his announcement to the House of anti-white racists otherwise known as the Commons) is how he saved face with the Muslim “community”:
I have never heard of the British National Socialist Movement. I doubt if anyone else has either. I would not be in the least surprised if it is comprised of a corpse, a couple of thirteen year olds and six MI5 officers. On second thoughts, it may well not have the two thirteen year olds. But Patriotic Alternative … a body of very courageous people demanding democracy and freedom ... is the largest and most energetic of the nationalist groups actively defending the native peoples of this land (in real terms, the English). Its leader Mark Collett is too politically old-school for my taste, but he is also honest and will debate the Jewish Question and Islam with all-comers. Of course, that’s too much for the guard-dogs of the Electoral Commission, who have blocked PA’s six attempts to register as a political party; and it’s too much for the ardently Judeophile and Islamophile political Establishment, which just can’t wait to apply every one of its favourite, brain-dead hate labels to the group. Obviously, the natives are not to be permitted the freedoms of speech and association, free representation, shared interests and right on the soil (including the right to defence of homeland), real political understanding, or anything emerging therefrom. Hence Mr Gove’s hugely reviled, dead-beat government has to find PA guilty of “neo-Nazi ideology” and “targeting of minority groups for intimidation”. As for “a white ethno-state”, here is the Oxford demographer David Coleman - not known for Nazism and intimidation - writing in Standpoint Magazine in June 2016:
No one ever voted to dissolve away our white ethno-state, as it existed quite by force of Nature in every past century. Necessarily, then, the Establishment’s wild and abusive, politically engineered demographic change has been brought about without the slightest recourse to the democratic process. It is a statement of pure force majeure and fait accompli. Now politicians instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences. Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place. Democracy is not operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government). The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable. Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves. Usurpations are always about power. The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind. The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution. That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values. The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am. The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices. What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised. That’s the complaint. Let us now dig down for some solid principle. Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic. In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately. That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now. The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse. A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary. Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability. Only the interests of the people are irreversible. Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests. As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers. It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that theft obtains into the future. In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value and not an ethical value of any kind. An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission. Those who make that demand are not democrats and not ethical people. Indeed by their rigid control of the party system and of the political discourse, enforced through a compliant media, they are killing democracy itself. A healthy democratic culture cannot be maintained without the freedom to challenge injustice or even to speak of it in the public square (which freedom is inherent to our democratic nationalism). But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father. We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity. Democracy belongs to the people. The power to will change by peaceful means belongs to the people. We have earned it in on the battlefield and in the public square. Our people must decide. There is solid support in international law for the principle of the self-determination of peoples, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976. It states:
The next time you see or hear a British politician speaking soft and honeyed words of of democracy and rights, be sure to remember that you are beholding the lowest of liars and hypocrites. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:32 | # I can prove to you that white nationalism and neo-fascistic forms of nationalism have generated nothing. Further, I can argue that a direct existential appeal within a hyper-individualist / hyper-egalitarian (ie, liberal) system cannot hit home. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:34 | # Here is the government’s new definition of extremism: Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology[footnote 3] based on violence, hatred or intolerance[footnote 4], that aims to: 1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms[footnote 5] of others; or 4
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:39 | # #1 It is far more advantageous for the Christian posthumous, stratospheric prospect of Jew God approval by avoiding nasty accusations of Racism, than it is to preserve your Racial heritage. Enjoy Multi Culti Heaven. 5
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:44 | # #2 White Nationalism cannot work . We are not as smart as Indians : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68538260 We are definitely not as smart as Chinese in their control of Muslims. 6
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:47 | # Loved the Black Spot reference . Tusitala was a great teller of tales. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:54 | # When making assay of ethnic majority EGI , sometimes realism intervenes , as in Malaysia recently . The Chairman of the KL Stock Exchange , a former banker called Wahid Omar , lamented the fact that , out of the last 97 companies listed on the KLSE , only one was controlled by native Malays . The Malays did not riot or whine Marxistly about Inequality . The are race realists who know that Chinese business acumen is responsible for whatever economic achievements Malaysia has achieved. White countries may emulate this mindset vis a vis their racial disposal , because the , for now , White Christian citizens know that Christianity’s similarly engendered successor viz., Marxism, will ensure either (((Jesus))) Heaven or His racial cognate’s ( Marx ) , Heaven on Earth. 8
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:38 | # GW , I do sympathise with English Nationalism . A late fellow Scot of mine signs a piece of worthless paper and England’s capital grinds to a halt : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour And nitwit White girls deface Cambridge University’s artwork : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pro-palestinian-activists-damage-arthur-james-balfour-portrait-180983932/ What may be required to save English culture ( a weasel word , I mean Race ) is further and deeper intellectual enquiry into the nature and causes of the attitudes of the Cantabrigian , Nick Griffin and his autodidact counterpoint , Tommy Robinson. 9
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:14 | # A Churchillian approach may be required to deal with the Enemy : 10
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:27 | # @ 4 Stupid cowardly White Christians are too weak to fight back against the coalition of anti-White Groids, Jews, queers and anti-White Whites. White Christians - for the most part - unwittingly caved and now, in actuality, practice modern liberalism. Modern liberalism - which now goes by the name of “wokeism” - is at its core a blatantly anti-White religion. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:31 | # Al, when I was perhaps seven or eight my father read Treasure Island to me each night before bedtime. That and Robinson Crusoe and Moonfleet stocked my childhood imagination with nautical heroes and villains, but perhaps led me to suspect that the arbitrary decisions of authority (in the form of my not at all nautical or heroic teachers) were there to be defied. Anyway, I didn’t learn a damned thing, and was proud of it. Not so proud now, as dodgy auto-didacticism really is, if not a black spot, then no substitute for academic standing. Griffin is a difficult character to assess. After the QT debacle many thought him “state”, and others that he was a narcissist who put his person above party. Whatever the truth of the man, we should be grateful to him for one thing, which was to shift political nationalism in this country away from its neo-fascistic roots and towards “ethno-nationalism”. He did not know what that meant philosophically. But neither did anyone else. However, he opened the gate. That was his contribution - that and getting himself and Andrew Brons elected to the EP. Tommy Robinson is not so problematic. He is a gutsy and voluble Irishman with black mates, a short fuse, and a thing about Islam. He is also an anti-nationalist. He did not found the EDL but forced it from the hands of its founder, and may have done us no service in the process. Plainly, the tragedy of political nationalism in England is that no one with the professional demeanour of Nigel Farage, let alone Churchill, has emerged. Griffin was probably the best. Thorn, do you think you could express yourself with less offence and more awareness of the subject of this thread? Thank you. 13
Posted by Manc on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:15 | # Lowering the bar to ground level…
Jacob Rees-Mogg isn’t amused by his inclusion in the naughty list. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:03 | # Manc, In his response to Gove, Mark Collett stated:
I was rather disappointed with this. Government ministers must speak with precision. The term “neo-Nazi” is precise, and implies, at the very least, a revisit to and modernisation of National Socialist ideology. So for starters let’s say: Ayran supremacism It isn’t until one actually looks at these characteristics that their historical radicality and uniqueness, and their very final inapplicability to our time, becomes apparent, indeed screamingly obvious. No one with ministerial responsibility, or just a claim to intellectual integrity, should ever assign the term “Nazi” to a political opponent. It’s tantamount to Collett labelling Gove a Bolshevik revolutionary. Collett had the opportunity to set out modern nationalism’s great divergence from Nazism, and the great moral strength of its case. He did not take it. 15
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:15 | # “Thorn, do you think you could express yourself with less offence ...” My apologies, GW. I’ll try to improve. Here goes: Warning! Offensive Language Alert! The following article contains the word “Pissed” in it.
read more ...... 16
Posted by Manc on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:29 | # GW, Yes, it was a missed opportunity by Collett but not one I would expect him to take, given his brief required reading list. If Gove had told a Conservative Party conference to read the works of, say, Rosa Luxemburg, you might well feel justified in calling him a Marxist revolutionary, no? 17
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:20 | # #12 GW , you are being very English and ironic . I have read many expositions of your thoughts and have benefitted from them all . Thank you for every one of them. 18
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:11 | # GW , What passes for tertiary education these days is mere credential acquisition , with said credentials worth less than a graduation ceremony at McDonald’s Hamburger University. In the USA , a prospective student can get a University place if his folks can find a parking place on campus. 19
Posted by Badger on Sun, 31 Mar 2024 19:08 | # You can have democracy as long as it’s Liberal Democracy™. What we need in my opinion is National Democracy. How we get from the former to the latter I don’t know, since with the imminent collapse of the Conservative Party presenting a threat to the liberal party system, they have moved to protect that system with what amounts to emergency powers in the form of this extremism definition. I pray that their attempts to hold back the tide fail. I’m interested to read your thoughts on The Homeland Party, and how or why they have been permitted to register a political party where PA have failed. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:02 | # Hi Badger, and welcome. I hope all goes well at TCT. You raise an interesting question. I have not seen PA’s submissions to the Electoral Commission, but I imagine that a substantial radicalism inhabits them and this is patently missing from THP’s stated aims and objectives: https://homelandparty.org/constitution/ ... which are managerial in form, not really political in any ideological sense. I do not know whether the people involved are philosophical thinkers, or whether they are even aware that what they call nationalism is really a common sense nativism, which is fine but, of course, more tightly focussed than a nationalism of ethnicity (notwithstanding that the latter is obviously what think they are offering). It may be that they know they have to pitch the offer at this level to get in the game, or it may be that this is actually what they think and believe. It may also be that they have been “guided” by someone with authority. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a good number of PA folk think that they are controlled opposition. But I expect they’re fine, and in the absence of PA’s red meat approach will be supportable, and I say that as a definite meat-eater! What’s your own view, Badger? I have asked Laura for her take on them and on the EC’s registration of them, so maybe she will offer something interesting. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:16 | # Laura’s response was interesting (and blunt). She explained that she was glad to see the people now presenting as Homeland leave PA. The dispute with them was not, in fact, over some need to focus on “community politics”. There was a power struggle within PA, and the loser resigned, taking about two dozen people with him. Homeland does not seem to have grown over the last year. On the EC registration she said that she thinks their failure to do very much over the last year has contributed. The EC just doesn’t have much to work with, and doesn’t feel worried about accepting them. Another factor is that, apparently, there are Homeland parish councillors who have towed the Establishment line to maintain their positions. It’s not a massively worryingly picture from PA’s perspective. 22
Posted by Badger on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 06:48 | #
Well, from what information is available it seems clear that the power struggle and subsequent split was caused by frustration at the failure of PA to register with the EC. I don’t know if the EC have been making it difficulty for PA as I have not seen the applications or the letters of rejection. Homeland have managed to register, which would seem to prove their point, unless they have been given an easy ride for some reason. It raises questions of both groups and of the EC, questions to which we will likely never get answers so in the end it comes down to a question of trust, and on the available evidence I have no solid reason to distrust either group. So as it stands we have one political party which is much needed, and one community/activist group. I see no reason not to support both, until or unless new information changes things. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:47 | # Badger,
The EC has made it not difficult but impossible. Laura told me some months ago that at every stage Mark complied with their objections in his next submission, only for new objections to be pulled out of thin air. There is a strong suspicion that the EC is obeying instructions from 2 Marsham Street. There is one aspect of the registration of Homeland which is potentially interesting, and that is the entry of nativism on to the national political stage. Nativism is not nationalism (the Homeland people have not worked that out, of course, and continue to argue that they are nationalists - they are not). The Home Office’s long-time acceptance of “white British” in its demographic overview was advanced a fair distance in Question 15 of the “individual section” of the 2021 Census. Specific identities were set out for a white “background”, by which English, Scottish, Welsh, NI were boxed separately from Irish, Irish traveller, Roma, and Any Other White. So here was an acknowledgement, noted by many of us at the time, that native British was implicitly recognised by government. Now, though, we have the recognition of nativist politics for this group. That’s not an insignificant development. Nativism and ethnic nationalism (or ethno-nationalism if we really must use Walker Connor’s pointless terminology) have different potentials. The first is limited to a fixed vision of who and what we are, and thus to a negative plaint ... a negative reason for making politics. It misses the visionary element ... the understanding of what, as a destining people, a no longer supine and defeated people, we can make from life and nature. Of course it is intellectually difficult to open the latter out within the ethnic context, such that the argument does not stray towards Hegelian and Nietzschean ends (which failed us so spectacularly in the latter half of the 20th century). But that’s the challenge we have, because we must speak positively to move hearts and minds. The constant survivalist obligato of nativism won’t do it, imo. In the long term I would hope for a revolution that resulted in a political axis running from nativism to ethnic nationalism. But we are where we are, and Tice, Anderson & Co are the current viable change agents. Given the choice, I would probably vote for that change rather than Homeland at this stage. Post a comment:
Next entry: Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:53 | #
After 40 years + of observing this crap, I’m convinced white people are too stupid and weak to fight back against what confronts them.
I WISH YOU COULD PROVE ME WRONG, BUT YOU CAN’T.