|
|
|
Picking up the British electoral pieces So it’s all over for another five years. Perhaps. David Cameron is the first Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher in 1983 to increase the number of Conservative MPs sitting at Westminster, and will govern with a thin majority of twelve. He will, he says, do it for all the country. He will have a clear ride for the first year of this second term, because the political left that is Labour and the Liberal Democrats is in total disarray, not just electorally and emotionally after a traumatic election night, but ideologically. Which is much more meaningful and dangerous. One of the most eye-popping sights in the aftermath has been that of senior Labour people trooping into the TV studios to talk about how the party must not rush into electing a new leader and plough on with the struggle at Westminster. It must ask where it went wrong … where the trick of appealing to the majority of the electorate was spurned. Specifically, it must think through who it has been speaking for since 2007, when Gordon Brown took over the top job from Blair. It must think through how it can respond to nationalist sentiment (in the broad sense), as expressed by the five million who gave their votes not to it and not to the Tories but to the Scottish Nationalists north of the border and UKIP to the south. This quiet acceptance of a native identitarian dimension that is not simple racism, and cannot be stifled with the usual hysterical shouting, is new. Of course, it’s not a damascene moment of ideological clarity. If it proceeds from a new electoral humility, as yet it lacks intellectual humility. Its roots only reach down as far as political calculation. Further, the movement as a whole, beyond the party itself, has been deeply infected with anti-racism and political correctness. That’s a stubborn psychological stain, and it won’t wash out any time soon. The best that the talking heads on TV could manage was to contemplate the identity of the voters lost to UKIP as some outcrop of English “culture”. Blood remains too too rubust and challenging for the faint-hearts of left-political conformity. It will be a long time before they can bring themselves to acknowledge the fundamentality and inevitability of racial ceasura, and longer still before they can contemplate the essential justice and victimhood of the native British, or their own role in our crisis. Nonetheless, even the beginnings of a shift away from anti-racist zeal is an advance for us, and has welcome long-term implications for public discourse. For the Conservatives, the picture is less clear. For two centuries the struggle of the British political right has been for electoral relevance as the great stone wheels of modernity, urbanism, capitalism, democracy, socialism, and liberalism ground the political corn. The Conservative Party has been the eponymous great survivor, largely because it was sufficiently of these things - and sufficiently chameleon-like - to make a positive, aspirational and persuasive pitch. However, victory in Thursday’s election was secured not by any message of that kind but by generating fear among English voters of a politically and constitutionally vandalistic Scotland. It was a strategy gifted by Nicola Sturgeon’s brilliant, brutal unmanning of Ed Miliband, and it might have taken a million votes from UKIP (and added half-a million to the SNP). But if the spirit of the age is fundamentally one of rising national consciousness, what do Conservatives actually have to say in the longer term? Yes, they will introduce a referendum on EU membership. But they and the rest of the political Establishment will campaign to stay in. They will offer the Scots the maximum possible advance on the recommendations of the Smith Commission. There will be a sweetener for the Welsh of some as yet unspecified additional powers for their Assembly. The English, however, will very likely only be granted “English-only votes at Westminster on English-only laws” from which MPs for Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish constituencies would be excluded. In other words, there will be no direct election of representatives to an English assembly, and therefore no representational equality among the home nations. But we already know from the experience of Scottish devolution that there is a gravitational process at work here, and it can’t be arrested by half-measures. That one would be very short-lived. The Conservatives, of course, are the party of strategic half-measures. They spent the last two centuries trying to fend off modernity by talking like men of the people. It is no surprise in this century to find them trying to fend off the carnivorous beast that is nationalism with a few civic vegetables. But it is a losing game, and it will only take the Labour Party to break with its internationalism and EU-regionalism – historically not Labour positions - and propose a federal union with equally autonomous national Assemblies for the Tory game to be up. The initiative is with the reformers inside the Labour Party. So we come to UKIP, post Farage … or possibly not, we shall see. Electorally, all is not at all lost. The party will replace the LibDems as the third force in English and Welsh politics, regardless of its lack of seats won on Thursday (which may continue under the Westminster FPTP system). Next year are elections to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, which are held under the additional member system - a guarantee of representation. But there will be a consequence of Thursday’s flight of older supporters back into Tory arms. UKIP will concentrate far more now on radicalism and on youth – a most percipient point made by Farage to the press accompanying him on his walk yesterday morning to the count in Thanet South. How that develops the political thinking of the party remains to be seen. The libertarianism of Douglas Carswell, the sole surviving MP, may receive a boost. The split in the party between libertarians and (officially civic) nationalists may widen. The outcome probably depends on something as depressing and weightless as how sexy a political idea can appear to the young. We do indeed live in psychologically puzzling as well as otherwise interesting times. Finally, a thought for the pollsters, who completely mis-read the will of the electorate in England. To quote Anthony Wells of YouGov:
It occurs to me that the pollsters, who are operating by telephone and internet, and have quite forsaken face-to-face interviews on grounds of cost, are suffering, like the political parties, from a fatal detachment from real flesh-and-blood (ie, English blood) voters. One wonders, too, whether they are really all of the university-left, and are perfectly comfortable with the lightweight urban existence that spawns the kind of idiot who “loves” diversity and takes green politics seriously. Whatever the reason, they cannot measure the political right accurately, not least because they cannot address latent nationalist sentiment. It is doing them immense professional harm, which is only what they deserve. Comments:2
Posted by canuck on Sat, 09 May 2015 10:14 | # Excellent post. I hope UKIP keeps fighting and building, that this doesn’t become some kind of high watermark for them. They got almost 4m votes. Those must be pretty disgruntled people, given that normal conservatives were quite right to fear Marxist Miliband in league with a bunch of Scotch socialists, and so to return to moderate Cameron. I would have voted UKIP (or even BNP!); but if I were harder up in finances, and a decade older (and English of course!), I, too, might have voted Tory purely for middle class economic survival reasons (not that Tories are in fact so wonderful; too many financial types it seems to me). If UKIP goes libertarian they will be lost. Why suppose their supporters want MORE immigration?? Let us hope Scottish independence gets a boost from this. A free Scotland would surely be better for England. 3
Posted by Jonathan Portes on Sat, 09 May 2015 11:38 | # Remember a time when the Trades Unions dominated the Labour Party, and the unions more or less ran the country and intimidated governments? Now, that’s all gone, and is unthinkable. No one even knows the names of the leading trade unions or trade union leaders anymore, and no one even cares. 4
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 09 May 2015 14:05 | # What’s a “Scotch socialist”? I always thought Scotch was an alcoholic drink of some sort? Perhaps I’m mistaken? 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 May 2015 15:11 | # Meanwhile, as the count proceeds of votes for the local authority seats that were also up for grabs on Thursday ... http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ukip-wins-first-uk-council-36658/
6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 09 May 2015 15:21 | # If ...
7
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Sat, 09 May 2015 19:14 | # Perhaps UKIP should change tactic and campaign for a REAL PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM, to be decided in a referendum. It could even cooperate with their rivals SNP,Greens and even LibDem, for their own good. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 09 May 2015 19:52 | # The Labour party’s destruction in Scotland is a joy to behold. The Indy referendum was the beginning of the end for Labour. The reasons are complex and perhaps of little interest to most people. Labour will not be returning to its ‘roots’ in the experience and aspirations of the working class people of the UK anytime soon. Any suggestion of such a move is pure fantasy. In fact, Labour will be lucky to be in power ever again in its current form. Take a quick look across the English Midlands and the North of England and UKIP have taken second-place in an alarming number of Labour constituencies (from Labour’s perspective). I doubt this Labour party will ever be dominant in Scotland again. Thank goodness as they are political parasites seeking sinecure whilst sucking the life out of the Scottish people with an ideology and attitude of “you’re all too daft, too wee & too stupid to manage on your own”. Of course Labour should attempt to campaign for electoral reform on a broad basis - with the Greens and UKIP etc., but it will never happen. Miliband bet his election on a dismally cynical ‘35%’ strategy. Get 35% of those that see any point in voting to vote Labour and job done. The fact that after 5 years of falling living standards the Labour party could only scrape 30% of the vote suggests it is in deep trouble. Google the idea of the ‘Pasokification’ of Labour. That the Tories are boasting about a majority less than that John Major’s dismal government of 1992-97 started with shows how low their electoral reach actually is. They only managed what 36%ish and had effectively no increase in their share of the vote. They won more seats due to the near total collapse of the Liberal Democrats. The Tory idea of ‘decapitation’ of their junior coalition partners (the Liberal Democrats) worked brilliantly but it’s a one time only move/tactic. Of course the absurd FPTP system masks just how deeply the big two’s support has collapsed. In the 1950s turnouts were generally higher (more people voted) and the main two shared what some 95%ish of the votes between themselves. 9
Posted by canuck on Sun, 10 May 2015 11:26 | # Graham LIster: good comment. Have some scotch! Did you and your family and acquaintances vote UKIP or SNP? And why, if you don’t mind my prying? 10
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 10 May 2015 11:59 | # I guess a Scotch socialist is the Caledonian equivalent of a champagne socialist? I don’t drink alcohol very often but when I do my preference is for some good red wine. I’m not sure that for whom I voted and my reasoning for my vote is of any interest to anyone here. And it assumes I voted. Perhaps I did, perhaps not. And it is a secret ballot after all (which is a good thing). So just how all of my family and acquaintances voted is beyond my knowledge. Perhaps MR’s collective readership could ‘explain’ Scottish and UK politics to us benighted fools that happen to live in the British Isles? I await the analysis with genuinely unbelievable levels of excitement and anticipation. 11
Posted by Jonathan Portes on Sun, 10 May 2015 12:41 | # Graham Lister, 12
Posted by Château Pétrus Pomerol 1961 on Sun, 10 May 2015 12:53 | # - here is a good bottle for your consideration: Though a bit on the sweet side for some palates.
13
Posted by Foolish Pride on Sun, 10 May 2015 19:09 | # “The English, however, will very likely only be granted “English-only votes at Westminster on English-only laws” from which MPs for Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish constituencies would be excluded.” If this happens to end up being the case, then is it not a victory for the English? Sure it won’t bring in PR like a newly created “English Parliament” would, and the English would continue to have the same amount of MPs for their population like they already do, but it is even a loss? If the British system is changed so English-only business gets voted only by English MPs, that’s a great victory. This loss might wake up Labour and have them commit to electoral reform. Last time around the leadership supported it but as a party they didn’t commit to it. Clearly it was a mistake on their part. Using the figures guessedworker found on the Metro, if this election had seen PR, any Tory coalition would need UKIP on their side. Without UKIP, they might end up with the most seats in alignment with the Lib Dems, forming a minority government that would probably survive but not be effective. A continuing Tory-Lib Dem alliance without UKIP would have 293 seats. A vote of no confidence to keep Cameron out, assuming only the left-wing parties, would have even less, only 234. It’s hard to imagine a coalition including UKIP, if one did it would probably not include the Lib Dems, giving a total of 324 seats, so still a minority because Sinn Fein (or any NI party for that matter) would not be sitting in Westminster. 14
Posted by Colin discussing UK elections on Mon, 11 May 2015 04:34 | # Colin Liddell discussing the UK elections and civic structures with Andy Nowicki http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/05/podcast-29-camerons-second-coming.html 15
Posted by Anthropomorphizing Green: Left and Right on Tue, 12 May 2015 02:23 | # “One wonders, too, whether they are really all of the university-left, and are perfectly comfortable with the lightweight urban existence that spawns the kind of idiot who “loves” diversity and takes green politics seriously.” GW, please explain what you mean about green politics and why it should not be treated seriously. Having never participated in green politics (other than what may be seen as green of my own conjure) I can only imagine that you are talking about….obnoxious water melon greens, those who would place other parts of nature before our people, obnoxious Marxist trained idiots who have hijacked and corrupted green issues in general for their anti-White ends? I understand that Graham had some bad experiences with this sort in his undergraduate days (I’d have to dig out the comment, but came across it not too long ago). That they wanted to anthropomorphize nature by projecting a notion of inherent rights onto creatura. Aside from exaggerations, mis-applications, green issues being in incapable or malign hands, what is not to take seriously about “green politics”? That there is “not a wasted word in the bible” and also that “environmentalism” is somehow an issue inherently antagonistic to Whites are among the claims that has me scratching my head about the otherwise, usually sagacious Keith Alexander. In fact, its being an inherently ‘anti-White’ issue would seem to be another pernicious anthropomorphism, but this time from the Right. On the contrary, population, resource and environmental management, which includes immigration restriction, can weigh heavily in our favor. True, as I recall, Frosty maintained that Europeans were leaving a devastating carbon footprint whereas the third world way of life was benign and correctable within a generation or two. To the extent that is true, I see this as something to correct though green technology or an adjusted way of life, not to take seriously the idea that we should lay down and die or open our borders to Africans so that they can “correct the situation” of our anti-nature for us (genociding us through assimilation and replacement - perhaps funded through carbon tax?). 16
Posted by Foolish Pride on Tue, 12 May 2015 06:47 | # I hope the UKIP keeps going but I think this was a bit of a high water mark for them. A shame, because the Conservatives are only slightly less friendly to mass immigration than Labour. Warsi today tweeted something about how she’s glad that “white males” are losing their dominance in elections, and she’s as die-hard Tory* as anyone, if no longer a part of anything anymore. *In affiliation if not necessarily personal views. 17
Posted by canuck on Tue, 12 May 2015 08:45 | # What is a “Warsi” and what does it have to do with “conservatism”? 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 May 2015 09:49 | # Baroness Warsi (Urdu: سعیده حسین وارثی) is a Pakistan-bred ethnocentrist and failed Tory pol who was made party vice-Chairman and Minister for Cities by David Cameron. The homosexual lobby took offence at her somewhat Islamic views on shirt-lifting. The Jews didn’t like her contributions on the Isreali bombardment of Gaza. The spin doctors didn’t like anything much that she said. Gaza was the point of principle on which she finally resigned in August 2014. Currently, the favoured Pakistani is Sajid Javid (Urdu: ساجد جاوید), who is a Business Secretary in Cameron’s cabinet. He has a blonde wife and does not appear to actually be religious, though he goes to the mosque. Many tip him for the top when Cameron goes in 4 years time: 19
Posted by Adrian Davies take on political scenario on Tue, 12 May 2015 18:40 | # Adrian Davies surprisingly (overly) liberal take on The UK elections and implications: http://www.radixjournal.com/vanguard-radio/2015/5/12/a-misshapen-simulacrum 20
Posted by Foolish Pride on Tue, 12 May 2015 23:03 | # “Many tip him for the top when Cameron goes in 4 years time:” Sounds like a plan to ensure that the right-leaning swing votes say “well, guess I’m voting for UKIP instead of the out of touch London Conservative elite.” It would probably help them with the Asian vote which has actually started to support Labour less than before so it might end up being a wash though. Sajid Javid at least seems competent but that doesn’t begin to make up for his obvious failings. 21
Posted by Edmonds on history of immigration to UK on Wed, 13 May 2015 21:01 | # Richard Edmonds discusses the history of duplicity of the political class deceiving the British public to impose non-White immigration on Britain: http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/RichardEdmonds1.mp3
22
Posted by Ayn Rand, Reagan, Thatcher, UKIP? on Sat, 16 May 2015 05:09 | # Jack Sen criticizes UKIP, suggesting that like the Republicans, they push hot button issues to appeal to and fool working class Whites but are doing the bidding of big money and yes, he names the Jew: Jack Sen ran for a seat in Parliament representing West Lancashire. Until less than a week before the election, he was running under the banner of UKIP, but he was suspended from UKIP...
UKIP’s intentions to privatize the National Health Service, frack our beloved English countryside, sell us out to their cronies in the City (equivalent of Wall Street), cut taxes for the wealthiest Britons, kill ‘mansion’ and inheritance taxes while reducing public sector expenditure, never sat right with me. This is even before I recognised how cosy with Jewish organisations UKIP were. I suppose a fair comparison would be to your Republican party, who appeal to working class Whites to get elected but systematically oppose their interests once in office. ... Where the Republican party and UKIP differ is on foreign policy. There is certainly a perversion of patriotism and true ethno-nationalist sentiment in both parties, but UKIP still has a more isolationist foreign policy than your Republican party, which appears to rely on Jingoism and the demonisation of the Islamic world to push its Zionist agenda. From what I know about American politics, and how Jewish special interest groups have infiltrated a Republican Party once highly distrusting of Jews, I’m concerned that it won’t be long until we see the same sort of agenda in UKIP. Someone like Paul Nuttall — UKIP’s second in command — would sell his soul for much less than what the Zionist lobby handed the Reagan Administration. With Jewish-owned newspapers like the Daily Express already cosying up to UKIP, I think it is only a matter of time before we see the same sort of impact this side of the pond as well. There are many White voters who fear and loathe multiculturalism because they realize that these policies are against their interest. Nevertheless, they are afraid to explicitly identify as a White person who has interests as a White person because of media pressure and other types of social pressure, such as loss of job. We call such people implicitly, but not explicitly, White. Do you think it’s fair that Jews, Muslims, and other minorities are free to organize and attempt to explicitly advocate their interests while explicit mentions of the interests of the traditional people of the UK are banned from the mainstream media? Not only is it unfair that indigenous English people can not fight for their interests; I say English as it’s become perfectly acceptable for Scots to fight for theirs north of the border, it’s downright destructive. I recall the former leader of the British National Party (BNP), Nick Griffin, being invited on BBC’s Question Time simply so the Leftist audience and the program’s Leftist and non-white pundits could have a go at him. During the hour-long program, Griffin referred to the indigenous English population’s interests. As soon as he uttered the term indigenous the audience attacked. Griffin asked the predominantly White pathologically liberal audience (for MR readers, note the shift from calling the audience “left” to “liberal” here) why they didn’t think that White English people should have their rights protected and interests served, and what was wrong with referring to English people like my mother, as indigenous. He was heckled, shouted down and made to feel truly unwelcome. It was quite upsetting to be honest with you. The shouts of racism and anti-Semitism from the predominantly White upper-middle-class audience, were quite alarming. His suggestion that it was unfair that there were no organisations representing indigenous English interests was met with extreme hostility, in spite of the fact that he was right. Although I don’t agree with all of Griffin’s views, I certainly feel that the indigenous population that have inhabited the British Isles for thousands of years are being sold out, need a voice and their rights protected. Sadly, UKIP, regardless of what we’d like to believe, does not offer that voice. In fact it is also why UKIP explicitly bans any contact with the BNP and any other ‘nationalist groups’. ......... In the EKP interview, you mention a “shadowy elite bent on our destruction.” In reading it, I definitely had the impression that you were referring a predominantly Jewish elite.. For example, you stated that “The west is controlled by Leftists that can trace their roots back to former Soviet eastern bloc nations-men like Yossel Slovo [longtime leader of the South African Communist Party], Ed Miliband etc.” Ed Miliband’s father is Marxist sociologist Ralph Miliband; you stated that “Ralph Miliband emigrated to Britain and did his utmost to destroy his host nation.” You also mention Dan Glass, Eleanor Margolis, Nadine Gordimer (an anti-apartheid activist who received the Nobel Prize for Literature), Barbara Lerner Specter, and Emily Thornberry. Of these 8 names, only one — Emily Thornberry — is or was not Jewish, and it is well-known that the great majority of UK Jews descend from those who, like Ralph Miliband, immigrated from Eastern Europe. This would seem to be suggest that you think that Jews have a major role to play in this shadowy elite. We at TOO have claimed that Jews are a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for the current onslaught of immigration and multiculturalism in the US. Am I correct in my impression that you think Jews are a necessary condition for the current program of destruction against the traditional people and culture of the UK? Certainly. There’s no denying that Jewish radicals are the progenitors of the vast majority of the intellectual and social movements undermining Western culture — from Marxism, the feminism ruining our families, homosexual advancement, and often counterproductive civil rights causes. Most honest people with a proper understanding of history recognize that Jews were and are at the forefront of these movements. Didn’t Barbara Spectre herself admit as much? TOO: Yes And I would like to add that the British gentile elite don’t deserve a free pass either. Without people like Tony Blair who spent decades undermining our national sovereignty, activists like Emily Thornberry and White social service workers that facilitate rape on a daily basis, even men like Farage that authorise the suspension of candidates who fight back, and usefully idiotic White English liberals championing the issues that do us the most harm, we’d be fine. We Westerners on many levels are our own worst enemy. Do you believe that Jews and Jewish interests are overrepresented in the U.K. media? Certainly. The elite use film, the media and academia to undermine indigenous culture. Nationalism, patriotism, even love of country is often perceived as a threat and to be attacked. Historical events that may or not have even taken place, are exploited in order to further tribal gains. The current director of television at the BBC-the person responsible for deciding what we watch, is a man by the name of Danny Cohen. Prior to his appointment as Director he ran Britain’s Channel 4 (Britain’s second biggest private station), then BBC One-our largest station. Cohen, like many high ranking Jews attended a Jewish primary school, and was active in organisations pursuing Jewish interests. To think his background has no impact on his decisions is mad. And Danny, is not an anomaly. Jews are overrepresented across our media, as top newsreaders and media personalities, singers and songwriters, actors and culture creators. Guest pundits are often Jewish and names like Margolis saturate our print and news media. Again, pointing this out is not anti-Semitic or racist. Many of these people are more English looking than I am. This is just about elucidating the truth. ............................................................................................. Do you think that the Jewish identity of politicians like Luciana Berger and Ed Miliband influences how they would act on issues related to immigration, muliticulturalism, free speech, and Israel — issues where the organized Jewish groups like the Board of Deputies have strong opinions? Undoubtedly. Men like Grant Shapps-former Conservative Party chairman and current Minister of State at the Department for International Developments, are constantly pushing for us to escalate hostilities with Iran, while lasses like Luciana Berger- are often involved in, or chair Jewish think tanks, lobbying firms and organisations with explicitly Jewish interests, all while supposedly representing Britain’s interests in Westminster. ......... 23
Posted by UKIP's backside on Sun, 17 May 2015 07:46 | # Interview with Jack Sen, Part 3 of 4, May 16, 2015 - Kevin MacDonald
24
Posted by neil vodavnzy on Sun, 17 May 2015 13:02 | #
How shadowy forces are related to Amy Winehouse escapes me.
These contradictions and conflicts are the world of pre-60s America, before the rise of the modern ills. I’m not sure if that’s what the film is about, but you can say that without those ingredients in life, a type of mad logic prevails. This is reason without its natural balance. 25
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 17 May 2015 15:17 | # Neil, I don’t know if you were taking exception to my chiding karate movies as more a model of masculinity that appeals to third world males than Europeans, but honestly, I had this guy mind: Justin Garcia http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2015/R314-150227.php I’ve tended to associate karate movies with a Puerto Rican and black audience in America. I had forgotten about your affinity for karate movies, sorry about that; and I suppose karate and karate movies are not so bad for Europeans to consume. I have a little less sympathy for your take on conflict and competition. I guess that there is enough of that already. These things will exist but we ought to channel them. There again, I suppose channeling energies is a part of the martial arts and oriental philosophies. 26
Posted by neil vodavzny on Mon, 18 May 2015 15:00 | # Europe has to have classical roots so to that extent is elitist. Ming meets Greek figure-vase. The dangers are there to see and we need to see beyond statism, Apollo taken to the ultimate nothingness. Post-50s, through the hippy rebellion, the various “rights” have seen the state impose its doctrine of nothingness. In the US today killer cops are the end result (no neighborhoods, no compunctions). The less efficient the state the better; R Crumb and others fled to France. His view everything is turning into junk may not be far off. 27
Posted by Anarchy and anti-nationalism are suspicious on Mon, 18 May 2015 17:40 | # Anarchy never appealed to me. It seems to comport little or no concern for accountability; it appears like a liberal ruse. I know that anarchists would object to my likening America to anarchy, but that is how it felt to me and why it always nauseated me. That is the way America was, the America that I escaped from. I can agree that The US is too big, probably should be broken into a few or several smaller countries. I know nationalism has had bad associations, but irrational maybe not, if the nations correspond with an organically formed people. It may be one of the best answers that we have against internationalism; and I don’t see why it cannot function while supporting relatively sovereign regional and communal differences as well. When I heard Norman Lowell speaking recently, I became all the more convinced that his wish to do away with national boundaries is suspicious. Nevertheless, nationalism isn’t the most important component to me: European people are. But right up there in importance are the differences among our European folk that ought to be maintained. I still have not heard where nationalism cannot be one favorable means to maintain those distinctions; true, it does need to correspond and be accountable to the native peoples and their local concerns. In the end the nations that I seek to protect are the nations of our DNA and from there working to re-establish sacrosanct communities, regions, territorial nations..
28
Posted by neil vodavzny on Tue, 19 May 2015 10:23 | # It’s a philosophical point to do with control and management. Bruce Lee said attack and defense are the same thing - very Eastern. A Newtonian system can easily become chaotic (the weather). Anarchy and order are the same thing. It’s not a political debating point, you can’t escape from it. 29
Posted by Anarchy and the Mulatto BLOB order on Tue, 19 May 2015 10:55 | # My training has me accepting some messiness, disorder and paradox as a normal and inextricable part of the social world’s contingent relations; I can agree with an eastern appreciation of going with, if not harnessing its energy; and that agency is dependent upon this radical contingency and its arbitrary basis to some extent. However, I cannot see making chaos an objective. That is the kind of thing that has eastern philosophy looking suspicious, sociopathic, unaccountable, all too Manichean (good and evil being inseparable). “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke You are taking the nauseating if not repugnant further still, to where confusion is the very thing, “the order” you apparently seek:
....this is what I mean about the right-wing’s instability. 30
Posted by neil vodavzny on Tue, 19 May 2015 14:58 | # It’s not a case of doing this that or the other. Not everything is political, and societies have an ecology or should have. The liberals tend to impose “rights” but as far as I can see civil rights is a failure and society is better as more self-sufficient. That is order but not order that is imposed. But it’s also anarchy because of civil disturbances. Anarchy means nothing is imposed, so there is disorder there. There is a natural energy there, as in Motown music of the 60s. That energy now is dissipated. Where’s the sense in that? 31
Posted by Not open to Burying Accounts Requested on Tue, 19 May 2015 16:09 | # That’s a better account of your position, but if it is meant to say that there is no imposition of social obligations and prohibitions it wouldn’t be true. There has never been an anarchy. Motown may have made use of organic forms, but it certainly was formulaic and highly structured - hierarchical, even. Bruce Lee would have been beholden to some very strict social obligations. Call it less political because it is not quite so heirarchical and imposed from top down if you will, perhaps not everything is altogether political in that sense, but a given social manifestation has rule structures nevertheless. And, sooner or later these rule structures must be brought into accord with the rule structures of other social systems. I am not looking to dissipate energy, I am looking to identify and defend European people and ways fostering our well being. I am open to the possibility of our learning from Bruce Lee and Motown, though my patience for foreign cultures is somewhat limited and I am not open to, say, burying and ignoring discussion of where accounts should and should not be requested. 32
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 19 May 2015 16:15 | # That’s a better account of your position, but it wouldn’t be true to say that in circumstances such as that there is no imposition of social obligations and prohibitions. There has never been an anarchy. Call it less political because it is not quite so heirarchical and imposed from top down if you will, perhaps not everything is altogether political in that sense, but a given social manifestation has rule structures nevertheless. And, sooner or later these rule structures must be brought into accord with the rule structures of other social systems. Motown may have made use of organic forms, but it certainly was formulaic and highly structured - hierarchical, even. Bruce Lee would have been beholden to some very strict social obligations. I am not looking to dissipate energy, I am looking to identify and defend European people and ways fostering our well being. I am open to the possibility of our learning from Bruce Lee and Motown, but still I am skeptical of them as good models for European men (as I am skeptical that Hendrix could be a good model for White boys, musically gifted though he was); and my patience for foreign cultures is somewhat limited; furthermore, I am not open, say, to burying and ignoring discussion of an optimal negotiation of where accounts should and should not be requested amongst and in the interest of European human ecological maintenance. It is not the European way to just dance and be musical as if hard programmed. Our characteristic way is more sublimated, forces us to think a bit more and be more far reaching in our creative endeavors. It is not quite so “natural” and automatic as it is for blacks. I’ll be there Worse, black music can act in ways and on parts of the brain that have an addictive effect, like narcotic addiction. Thus, its consumption must be subject to critical discourse and accounts requested to White elders. 33
Posted by Lindtner + Humphreys on Tue, 19 May 2015 17:11 | # Lindtner + Humphreys Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference: FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, Denmark on June 21-24, 2015 Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis.
Mahavishnu Orchestra, Trilogy: And some White American energy - Pearl Jam, Once: Alice in Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB_fNVOPzyM Outlaws, Green Grass and High Tides Forever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKbk_dQ8Mhg
34
Posted by neil vodavzny on Wed, 20 May 2015 10:55 | # This is discussed in ‘zine #2 with ref to the classical - I’ll post a link in a while. 35
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 20 May 2015 11:47 | # “Anarchy isn’t anti-social, it’s anti imposition.” Ok, I will grant that I may have been reacting to a popular and mistaken notion of “anarchism.” Nevertheless, I am still most interested in coordinating the interests of the genus and species of Europeans throughout the world. The word “coordination” should be of interest and concern to you then, as an anarchist, because coordination is a matter of acting in a non-obtrusive way, practically, in jointly aligned negotiation - not trying to perfectly marshal others into an ideal; and while coordination seeks to minimize conflict in joint action, it recognizes that these social processes are imperfectly realized for their interactive and reflexive ontology, as you say - always having anarchic well-springs, aspects. Like bugs on water, this ambiguity is not to be done away with altogether, rather it is something like a sign of healthy water. 36
Posted by Anarchy in Mexico vs The State and Matt Hale on Sat, 30 May 2015 19:37 | # TT plays a discussion from an anarchist who likes living in Mexico because, as a failed-state, it leaves you alone. He puts anarchism in good light. We also hear from Matt Hale in prison.. http://www.resist.com/war_network/radio_station/war_radio_2015/20150126-TT.mp3 37
Posted by Max Musson of Western Spring on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:23 | #
Finds that political establishment has arranged through Parliamentary fashion to keep nationalists out of power.
But in a worse is better scenario, once Government becomes more third-world-like, it will lose control of parts of the nation, which will then create a chance for enclaves of native English, Scotch, Welsh, Irish to develop from which new government can emerge. Post a comment:
Next entry: Is UKIP controlled opposition or genuine Nationalism?
|
|
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 Guessedworker on Sat, 09 May 2015 10:14 | #
I thought about including something on the astonishing performance of the SNP. But then I realised that it may be read by an SNP member whose opinions I respect, and thought better of it!