Posted by Englander on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:13 | #

Looking at the current title of the article, and reading some of the comments, it’s clear that the folks at the Daily Mail did a little editing. I wonder what the print edition looks like.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:03 | #

It will be in today’s brand new edition if it appears at all.  I wonder if any of the other MSM will report the story.  Can you imagine the stampede if it had been a white paedophile gang and a Moslem girl?

The Mail thread was modded quite closely.  My comment, which mentioned poor Charlene Downes, did not make it on to the page.

Posted by MarkMuses on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:50 | #

The Daily Mail is a whore perpetuating the illusion that democracy remains in exercisable form. It does not. We have an oligarchy. Dictatorship in all but name that permits by its own grace limited dissent.

Signs of hope will come from a truly organic movement, like the American Tea Party, immediately purified as raceless and failed, followed by a new civil rights movement, again organic that this time, argues race on every level and head on.

This will not happen unless scientific race realism is made so robust that it is reducible to sound-bites to compete with no-race memes.  Anything less remains classed as bigotry, racism, xenophobia, Nazism etc.

Race matters or it does not. A binary condition. One that will decide the future.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 04:54 | #

They will call me a “hater” and a “xenophobe” and a “racist”, a morally illegitimate human being.

Or the king of them all, “Nazi”.  Yet as we all know, Nazis are in fact morally illegitimate human beings.  But wait…morality cannot in fact exist…only the benighted could arrive at such a conclusion.  So only a rube would aver that Nazis are morally illegitimate human beings.  And only a fool would listen to a rube, a wise man not taking his word that Nazis are morally illegitimate human beings; moreover not taking morality serious anyway. 

I can dig it.

Insert PF’s logically tortured rejoinder with customary affected condescension here:__________________

Posted by Angry Beard on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:24 | #

So just why are the BNP unable to parlay this support into votes?

Posted by Angry Beard on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:33 | #

Remember how a few years back how the Daily Mail revelled in the persecution of Polish immigrants?
- Now I disapproved of Labour granting an open-door to millions of Poles, especially whilst the other big EU nations refused to do the same.
But I found the blatant, hateful, vile abuse and hatred the Daily Mail tried to whip up day after day (I’ve no doubt that they wanted to engender a violent backlash including physicall assaults and murders), towards a white European group, who on the whole have valuable immigrants, disgusting compared to the way that bum-rag goes out of its way to kid-glove the wogs - who are committing murders, robberies, pimpings, frauds, welfare dependence, terrorism , colonising etc etc.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:25 | #

Again, I ask: will an Englishman tell me why you tolerate pushy, parasitical and violent immigrants?? Why?? In America, I understand, if disapprove of, the mentality. It is wrong, but superficially plausible to make excuses for blacks, due to our slave history (the arguments are beyond stupid, but so are most people, including whites). We’re stuck on immigration with the “we’re all from somewhere else” nonsense. Similarly, an obviously idiotic non sequitur, but with just the scintilla of truth to make it believable by the morons.

But what the hell is wrong with Britain????!!!!!

You fucking ended slavery, you defeated the Nazis, you gave the world the best law and highest civilization ever known.

Why the fuck does the average Brit want to tolerate culturally alien and morally inferior wogs being brought into his territory?? What is the leftist argument - and why would it resonate with the white majority???

I am literally clueless on all this. (Clearly there is/was an evolutionary defect latent in the white race.)

Posted by Bill on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:15 | #

But what the hell is wrong with Britain????!!!!!

Here’s my two penn’orth, just a few suggestions.

This question will dominate future intelligentsia for decades to come.

Over hundreds of years the British have become domesticated animals and will do the bidding of their masters as programmed.  Without leadership they’re lost.

With the coming of modernity, decades of state welfare aided by saturation television have conditioned the British (Western civilisation) into compliant atomised selfish individuals.

This is the first time the incumbent power elite have engaged upon a programme of overt action directly targeted against the interests of the mass of the indigenous population.  Unsurprisingly the populace is bewildered, surprised, outraged, disoriented and above all are leaderless.

If you want to defeat your enemy and sew confusion, then aim to remove the leadership, which in this case the elites have done themselves.

The British population are sated with consumerism, the supermarket shelves are stacked to capacity, everyone has a roof over their heads - even if they don’t own it.

By far the most cultural influence on the masses is television, its massive presence cannot be overestimated, we are going into the third consecutive generation where from cradle to grave (like the welfare state) are subjected to a non-stop bombardment of state propaganda.

The MSM is the propagandising arm of government with the express purpose of brainwashing and influencing official opinion and acceptable discourse by political correctness.  The ultimate goal is to socially engineer a soporific, sex celebrity obsessed - compliant populace.

Why don’t the British people rise up en mass in protest against the blatant handing over their living space to strangers from across the globe?

It is the biggest mystery imaginable, historians will be debating this question for years to come.

Is it possible for living creatures to collectively lose the will to fight for survival, because that what it looks like to me.

The amazing thing is, most British folk (90%) haven’t a clue what it’s all about, (really) which just goes to show what a brilliant job the media are doing.

The very nature of the question reveals the comlexity of ingredients that are in this mix - here, I just offer a few crumbs.

I’ll finish with the old chestnut, it’s got to get a lot worse yet, but that’s what I’ve been saying from the start.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:13 | #

Meanwhile, the zoo creatures of the Telegraph are nodding towards disaffection too.  Take a look at this selection of current offerings from the Telegraph journo-blogs politics page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100049624/the-guardian-falls-for-an-extremist-lie/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100049547/supporters-of-the-eu-can-be-as-xenophobic-as-they-like-and-no-one-will-call-them-extreme/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100049486/nazi-chic-from-mongolia-to-tel-aviv-angry-teenagers-think-hitler-is-cool/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100049177/multiculturalism-is-the-new-communism-and-about-as-likely-to-work/#disqus_thread

The last, by Nigel West, is the most surprising.  Very few MSM journalists would have dared to express such sentiments even six months ago.  These guys know they should be leading opinion, but instead they are playing catch-up.

Posted by Angry Beard on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:17 | #

I think the Telegraph chap’s name is Ed West - he appears to be quite a useful little writer.
Nigel West, I believe, is the ‘spy writer’ alias Tory MP Rupert Allison.

Anyhow, every time I read a piece of beautifully written and argued prose by Roger Scruton, I agree with oft-made praise that he is the ‘cleverest man in England’.
So long as we can still produce masterminds like Scruton, all is not lost.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:41 | #

But Scruton still won’t touch race, is my impression — please correct me — and any public intellectual who won’t is, pardon me, useless.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:45 | #

Quite right, Angry.  Ed has form, and would probably like to do for the Telegraph what McKinstry does for the Express from time to time.  Nigel is also a good guy, the only man on the government benches to have voted against Maastricht, and a sometime rumoured sympathiser of UKIP.  We need a lot more like ‘em.

Fred is right, too.  Scruton won’t say plainly that our people must live, while he skilfully lays out the underpinnings of the threat to life we collectively face.  A coward.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:36 | #

Another similar case, involving an Asian pedophile sex ring operating in Rotherham, Yorkshire will shortly be coming to trial.

The eight Pakistanis involved have been on bail since March 2009 and last appeared at Sheffield Crown Court in January when a judge in chambers released them from remand imposed two days earlier by a magistrate in Rotherham. Can’t have their human rights infringed upon, can we.

It remains to be seen whether the Mail covers this event as it has the one it Manchester. Since the Rotherham case was one instigated by the BNP I should be surprised if it does.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:28 | #

I sent this story to my English friend from Manchester. He’ll probably pretend he never saw it. I am beginning to conclude that these brainwashed types are not worth the effort.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:43 | #

Scruton won’t say plainly that our people must live, while he skilfully lays out the underpinnings of the threat to life we collectively face.  A coward. - GW

Too harsh, GW.

Have you read ‘England, an Elegy’? Or Scruton’s essay on Powell in the New Criterion. Or the speech he gave to Vlaams Belang on ‘racism and xenophobia’?

It’s unclear what else he might reasonably be expected to do.

Posted by Trainspotter on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:29 | #

The West article was a pleasant surprise. 

West: “Just because people of different groups are capable of getting on perfectly well as individuals, becoming friends and falling in love, it does not mean that a multicultural society (and one as diverse as ours will be multicultural as well as multiracial, whatever the Government does) can become a racism-free paradise; anymore than the willingness of people to give money to perfect strangers means Communism can work.”

The last line offers a particularly effective analogy, I’ll make a point to remember it. 

One of our challenges is that, in some respects, our vision is subtle and difficult to digest. Most people can understand certain obvious problems with multiracialism, such as the crime and blatant dispossession.  Unfortunately, they may conclude that the proper answer is not the one we offer, but rather more integration, more miscegenation, more anti-white propaganda, more government services for non-whites, more immigration.  In other words, more disaster.  If only everyone were mixed, or whites no longer dominated the society, or pick your poison, things would be so much better.  Of course, this is insane, not to mention flying directly in the face of the historical record.  But there it is, and it remains a powerful idea, though one sees signs that it has jumped the shark. 

But what of other, more subtle fare?  The loss of connection to our past, disruption of the hundreds of small transactions that make up normal life, loss of trust, poisoning the social atmosphere and the context that gives life meaning and purpose.  What is the cost to a people of, in essence, not being able to sing their own songs?  How do you measure that?  What chart can we refer to? 

The answer, obviously, is that many of these things can’t be measured in a scientific sense (there are exceptions, for example Putnam’s work on trust).  Yet, they are very real and provide a tremendous impetus to those of us who are awake.  We long to fight not for charts and slide shows, but for everything!

Religions understand this, taking Christianity as an example.  It promotes the idea of a moral universe, and that God is in his heaven.  It does not seek to convey this in charts and powerpoint presentations.  Instead, the Bible is filled with analogies, metaphors, parables.  That is what reaches people.  These analogies or parables can’t be seen as a chart in another form, for the chart is essentially limited to the content within its four corners.  It is what it is, but nothing more.  Though it refers to events in the outside world, it is fundamentally a self contained document.  But the good analogy, metaphor or parable speaks to so much more, it speaks to a broader order.  The person who hears it “gets” that what he has heard has far greater ramifications, even though those ramifications haven’t been articulated, and perhaps neither party could articulate them even if so inclined.  Doesn’t matter, for it is understood. 

It is surprising that one of the most useful analogies I’ve seen in some time comes from West, presumably not one of us.  He has given us an example of something that can be said, even in what passes for polite company, that conveys a profound truth, and does it quickly.  We need more of that sort of thing.  Much more. We’ve all heard the saying that a lie can get around the world faster than truth can get its boots on.  Good analogies, metaphors and parables may be able to help with that. 

In any event, it is nice to see our memes spreading.  That’s the most important thing, for now.

Posted by John on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:10 | #

But what of other, more subtle fare?  The loss of connection to our past, disruption of the hundreds of small transactions that make up normal life, loss of trust, poisoning the social atmosphere and the context that gives life meaning and purpose.

Anyone who has lived in the West through the last 30 years should notice that the social tone, particularly among the working and middle classes has coarsened considerably, it has in Sweden, anyway, formerly renowned for politeness. The natives have coarsened somewhat a well and there is a game theory explanation for that. Overall, the extent to which a society is polite determines how much politeness pays or costs. For a “fish in water” young person, a trip to Iceland or the Faroes can still give an idea of what it should be like absent alien influence. How to convince them, IT’S NOT JUST THE “CULTURE”, IT’S THE PEOPLE”?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:01 | #

Trainspotter,

That is a fine comment.  You are one of a very select group of commenters in our universe for whom I have a high respect.  One of those, Notus Wind, has now begun writing here.  I hope you will think further about following suite.  I don’t doubt that you have a great deal to contribute.

To get to your point, to my mind the existential crisis will solve all communication problems as it emerges into the full light of day.  The game is developing quickly now.  Simon Darby posted a list of questions raised in Brussels by Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, several of which bear very sharply on the existential issue:

Subject: Migration into Europe Will the Commission kindly advise:

1. how many new migrants from outside the EU it envisages that the EU should accept over the next 20 years?

2. the extent to which multinational corporations are encouraging migration from outside the EU?

3. what representations the Commission or its subsidiary bodies and agencies receive from multinational corporations to support and encourage migration from outside the EU?

Subject: Commission’s call for more migrants

On 14 July it was reported that EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström had called for more ‘immigrant workers in order to secure our economic survival’ and to fill ‘labour shortages’ with immigrants from outside the EU.

1. Why, despite freedom of movement facilities in the EU, is it necessary to invite further migration from non-EU countries, given levels of unemployment of around 20 % in some member nations?

2. Has the Commission bothered to enquire what economic damage might be done to African countries by stripping them of their skilled labour?

3. Has the Commission considered the extent to which wages will be undermined by cheap overseas labour?

4. Is it the purpose of the Commission to reduce EU labour rates to those of developing countries?

5. Commissioner Malmström says she ‘will continue to take more steps towards a more inclusive labour migration policy for the EU in the coming years’. What does she mean, within this context, by ‘inclusive’?

6. Does the Commission appreciate that immigrants grow old? The logic is that each new round of immigration must be followed by another, younger generation.

7. Is one purpose behind these new proposals to hasten the time when the indigenous European population will be reduced to minority status and eventually dispossessed of and displaced from their ancestral homelands, which they have inhabited for millennia, by the newly created citizens from Africa and elsewhere? Does the Commission accept that this will occur?

8. When did the Commission carry out surveys to ascertain the views of the indigenous communities in respect of its policies, and what criteria were employed?

9. At what point does the Commission expect its policies of population movement and displacement of the indigenous communities to create strife and disorder on an unprecedented scale and what action does the Commission consider it might propose to combat such?

10. Do the proponents of these immigration policies consider that they may ultimately themselves be called to account by enraged indigenous communities for the role that they have played in the erosion of the national cultures and heritages of the indigenous peoples of Europe?

There is more motive power and immediacy in a clear threat to life than there is in a promise of eternal life.  We do not need religion to choose life.  We merely need choice.  And Griffin and Brons need to be offering life to the British people, as do the nationalist parties in all our living spaces.  It will be enough.  It will work, if the parties and the party thinkers are up to it.

Of course, this is a thing easily said.  In reality, the explication of such a public posture has never been done in Europe before, and will not be achieved lightly now.

Of course, if the parties want to carry on playing civicist games with Jews and focussing on Islam it won’t be done at all.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:12 | #

Dan,

I am not a fan of Roger Scruton.  But I have no difficulties with people who are.  We’ve done two or three pieces on him or one of his speeches, and I’ve yet to approve wholeheartedly of what he says, never mind what he doesn’t.

That said, I suppose he is the best of a pretty bad bunch.

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 03:03 | #

Trainspotter,

I just want to second the remarks GW made above, your comment was fantastic and could easily be made into an entry for MR’s main page.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:59 | #

Trainspotter on August 04, 2010, 08:29 PM

If only everyone were mixed, or whites no longer dominated the society, or pick your poison, things would be so much better.  Of course, this is insane, not to mention flying directly in the face of the historical record.  But there it is, and it remains a powerful idea, though one sees signs that it has jumped the shark.

Jump the shark. (From Wikipedia)

A defining moment when you know that your favorite television program has reached its peak. That instant that you know from now on…it’s all downhill. Some call it the climax. We call it ‘Jumping the Shark.’ From that moment on, the program will simply never be the same.”

Could we generalise and say ‘Jump the shark’ is a defining moment from which thereon, things will never be the same again?

Sounds like this where we’re at.

I agree with GW.  Trainspotter is in the premier league.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:47 | #

Thanks for your ideas, Bill. Some good ones there, but one big problem: we would predict brainwashing via mass media to be most pronounced among morons. And yet, the really brainwashed are amongst the otherwise cognitive elites. Trust me, at least for the US. The Ivy League types, whether my own college peers, or the ones from other schools I’ve met in the decades since graduation, are at least as indoctrinated into ‘diversitism’ as the mental lower classes, who are more likely to have clear heads in part from experiencing diversity directly (or more so than the mental upper classes, who are more likely to have the financial wherewithal to escape it).

No, I stick to my original thesis, first propounded by Revilo Oliver in the early 60s: there is some kind of heretofore latent defect in the white race, which only took the right set of mental and physical circumstances to effloresce into our present disturbed state.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:07 | #

Concerning Trainspotter’s earthshakingly brilliant and original comment above (in a nutshell: multiculturalism is not only injecting alien physical presences into our historic territories, but concurrently invading our psyches, stripping us of our own cultural identities, too - a point made zillions of times over many, many years, in many forums, sometimes even by yours truly), some loosely apposite remarks (re the ultimate irrelevance of empirical, especially coldly scientific, arguments to winning our war for survival) I posted a few days ago, re-posted here:

1. Man is by nature religious. If he does not adhere to the old faith, he’ll transfer those religious impulses to more questionable projects, usually of secular utopianism (eg, yesterday Marxism, today multiculturalism), or else engage in inappropriate sacralizations (eg, much of modern ecologism).

2. Christianity at least coincided with Western expansion and dynamism. Correlation does not equal causation, but in big historical analyses correlation does carry some independent weight.

3. Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheism, I and legions of others would argue, does not.

4. A sense of life’s meaningfulness stimulates biological reproduction. Many Christian conservatives have wondered if it’s merely a coincidence that Europe’s birthrates have collapsed in tandem with its de-Christianization. Yes, feminism and the Pill have played big roles, as has the postwar welfare state explosion. But Christianity promotes marriage and family - and given feminism, contraception, and welfare, if we are going to boost Western fertility, it is only going to happen either via favorable pro-fertility tax incentives (which is having some positive effect in Russia, but I don’t see such legislation getting enacted in Western Europe or North America, except backhandedly through negative childcare tax credits, which really aren’t enough to stimulate artificial increases in fecundity; people in America have children or not regardless of tax credits, which can be helpful, but not dispositive), or because something psychological is compelling it. Religion is such a powerful shaping force.

5. The great clash of civilizations, especially on your side of the pond, is with Islam. All the vigor is with Islam. You don’t defeat that kind of moronic certainty with either rarefied, often self-referential, philosophy (really, ‘philosophical navel-gazing’) or hedonism. There needs to be some ideological/emotional counterweight. Ironically, for blacks, that actually could be race loyalty. Blacks are just the most racist, race-obsessed, people you’ll ever meet. Unfortunately, whites are differently ‘wired’, neurologically. (We aren’t, but many or most of our fellow whites are.) Christendom successfully beat off the Muslims in the past, and it can do so again, provided it can become again a fighting faith. For the Church of England the very idea must seem ludicrous, but not here in the US. I thought the Iraq war was a huge Jewish/neocon distraction, but there are lots of admittedly not too bright evangelicals who saw it in Good/Evil terms. We need to cultivate that kind of friend/enemy distinction and identification.

I understand (GW’s) basic position, I think: the past cannot be resuscitated. You are trying to develop some type of racially positive philosophical meaningfulness in light of the twin acids of scientific materialism, and postmodernist scepticism. I don’t think materialism and scepticism are quite as well founded or lethal to tradition as you might, but that is a really big discussion. I do know that if we are going to save the West, we must save the white race, and if we are to do that, we need to figure out the most practical methods to persuade people to support immigration cessation, policies tending to increase fertility, as well as renewed racial and cultural pride, and concomitant rejection of multiculturalism and the cultural products of non-whites. Christianity at present is yet another barrier to what we want, but it could be an ally once again, if properly reconstructed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:36 | #

Leon,

I am still not free to do your various comments justice with a full reply.  But I will reply as and when I can.  Meanwhile, a few reflexive retorts (or remarks, if you don’t like the adversarial tone of that word - I recognise and appreciate the kindness and consideration with which you address my ramblings):

Man is by nature religious.

Which Man?  Faith is gene-coded, and the genes are either expressed or not, and the frequency and degree of expression itself will vary among human populations.

In European Man, I estimate that two thirds to four-fifths have the genes.  We are not as given to fanaticism as other peoples, not least, perhaps, because of the command for celibacy of the Christian priesthood.  But the incidence of faith gene possession is probably higher than it would have been during the pre-Christian era, owing to the excesses that Christianity has, in the past, afforded those who are fanatical, ie the burning of 500,000 “witches” in the late-medieval and post-medieval period.

The remaining one-fifth to one-third of Europeans who simply have no possibility whatever of sincere religious sentiment have historically been “socially religious” or, since the second half of the 19th century, increasingly atheist.  You can’t ignore us.  We are too valuable to Truth, for we give the lie to the wild and overblown Weltanschauung that all fanatics, secular and religious, seek to impose on everybody else.  You do it yourself, Leon, with those opening five words, “Man is by nature religious”.  No, he is by nature bound to Nature.  He only made god to help make the bindings secure, and he ended up bound to a madman.

If he does not adhere to the old faith, he’ll transfer those religious impulses to more questionable projects, usually of secular utopianism

Yes, indeed.  The anti-racist left is the direct genetic heir of those witch-burning fanatics.  The greens are their hysterical goodwives.

Christianity at least coincided with Western expansion and dynamism. Correlation does not equal causation, but in big historical analyses correlation does carry some independent weight.

Moving people with faith genes to place their shoulder behind the wheel is culturally productive, and, certainly, cultural strength advances EGI.  But those people who laboured for God with their hands and hearts and voices, who built the great cathedrals and wore down the cold stone flags of country churches were not free, were they?  Faith does not free the mind.  That is not its function.

What, then, is the highest desideratum for you, personally?  What will you choose for Leon, Leon?  Freedom of the mind or obedience to faith-based culture-strengthening programmes?

A sense of life’s meaningfulness stimulates biological reproduction.

That may be so.  Or it may not.  Birth-rates are always depressed by shifts from rural to urban living.  All the facts need to be known before a judgement can be made.

Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheism, I and legions of others would argue, does not.

You and legions of others would need to explain why believing something while conscious only in the ordinary waking sense is more productive of meaning than the human experience of reality through consciousness of self.  I won’t go too far into this now, but my crystal clear understanding is that faith’s only connection to the real is as an easy-to-work but lightweight and shallow proxy that requires none of the intelligence, knowledge and effort demanded by the act of being.  It’s a poor substitute and, anyway, its real purpose is elsewhere - in the affirmation of adaptive behaviour.

Behaviour, let it be said, has absolutely nothing to do with reality and human presence.  There is, for example, the well-known problem of the impossibility of conscious evil.  No moral strictures required.

Religion is such a powerful shaping force.

Indeed, Christianity, and the Jewish hatred of it, has shaped postmodernity.

All the vigor is with Islam. You don’t defeat that kind of moronic certainty with either rarefied, often self-referential, philosophy

We are only truth-speakers here.  The activism we leave to Hunter and his pals.

You are trying to develop some type of racially positive philosophical meaningfulness in light of the twin acids of scientific materialism, and postmodernist scepticism.

No, it is rather more than that.  I am not thinking defensively, or trying to pick bits out of the modern mind and weld them into some kind of Big Idea.  But I do not like big talk about what I am trying to do as if I was a person of any consequence.  I am nothing.  I don’t matter at all.  But ideas do.  I do want to see European Man take ownership of himself, and I believe this would trigger the arising of a new civilisation of knowledge in the West, as I understand it to mean.

I don’t think materialism and scepticism are quite as well founded or lethal to tradition as you might, but that is a really big discussion.

All is material.  We are all materialists, and cannot be other.  But we live our lives steeped in illusions about self and reality.  Knowing this ... having certitude ... I cannot be sceptical, can I?  Scepticism is something assigned by those who have faith to those who need none.

Neither am I anti-traditional in the sociobiological or socially conservative sense of the word.  Nature is what it is, and will always out.  No, I am anti-Traditionalist in the socially heirarchical sense.  I am against the reign of minority interests, whatever they may be.  I desire for myself and my brothers that no man stands over us save one we have put there ourselves and can vote out or nail to a tree or, along with James, challenge to mortal combat.  Individualism is also part of the European sociobiology.

we need to figure out the most practical methods to persuade people to support immigration cessation, policies tending to increase fertility, as well as renewed racial and cultural pride, and concomitant rejection of multiculturalism and the cultural products of non-whites.

At present, we are far from practic.  Everything must begin in ideas, or nothing will result.

Christianity at present is yet another barrier to what we want, but it could be an ally once again, if properly reconstructed.

Men and women will have faith, yes - in which regard America is wierd to European eyes.  In the north of Europe and probably in the south too, it won’t be Christianity which expresses the gener’s faith.  The Roman and Anglican Churches will continue to reap what they have sown.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:53 | #

Why are we rabbits in the headlights?

I would like to think most British have an innate sense of fair play, in fact years ago, as a child, one could readily hear the saying ‘play the white man’.  This would be in response to any suspected underhand dealing or less than open honest decision making and called upon the offender to administer justice and open fairness.

The British public also champion the underdog and positively hate bullying.

I would also opine they have a conscience and are ardent believers of the ‘do unto others mantra’.

I’m not a religious person, but I too also feel I possess a conscience (code of conduct?) and reflect the views above.

Does the above encapsulate Christian values?  Do all human beings, regardless of race and religion possess the hallmarks of these basic traits?

I don’t know, I’m not in familiar territory here, maybe many reading this are softly chuckling to themselves, how could he be so naive?  Perhaps it’s because I’m far removed from this generation and still living in a world that has long since disappeared.

What sort of white people (Bush Blair, Clinton, Churchill) is it who can calmly lie and cheat their way to convincing people to go to war and kill innocent human beings in their tens of thousands, obviously their consciences do not protest.  Churchill had no qualms about bombing millions of Germans, but at least he had the excuse survive or perish.

I have heard and read many time where to progress to the top one has to be ruthless, that’s what separates the elites from the masses, perhaps it is as I have said elsewhere, the Western masses are leaderless and are simply not equipped in the ruthless department to deal with not only their own psycho elites - but also the glutinous quicksands of immigration.

I think the problem could well be conscience.  Camp of the Saints?

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:53 | #

Leon,

Concerning Trainspotter’s earthshakingly brilliant and original comment above…a point made zillions of times over many, many years, in many forums, sometimes even by yours truly

Of course, we are all recycling and refining the same ideas repeatedly.  I don’t think anyone around here is under illusions to the contrary.

Trainspotter managed to communicate some good ideas in a style that was not stilted and could be digested by the random passerby, which I don’t think is easy to do.  Speaking for myself, I am always looking for new ways to translate my ideas to the people around me without giving off the impression that I am from a different planet.

For what it’s worthy, I’ve always been impressed by the depth and sincerity of your vision and look forward to reading your thought whenever it appears.

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:37 | #

Guessedworker

You stated that religious beliefs are gene-coded. Genes code for protiens. How do you go from protiens to belief in God-except in the the trivial sense of protiens create brians?

Atheism really does seem to be a have been a very bad trip for Europeans. And it really does seem to go hand-in-hand with hedonism. Since obviously rock and roll=hedonism, perhaps traditonal music styles should be encouraged. Although I hear that Alice Cooper is a very strong Christian faith.

I think it would be a much better idea to push genetic tribalism as opposed to the gene score on a IQ test stuff. The former wwill be much more appealing to White folks.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:47 | #

Jupiter, do you think emotions are evolved or do you think they are created by God, or learned socially?

Posted by Bill on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:00 | #

Cameron’s big society.

Just been over to Lee Barnes 21st century Nationalism.

Council Houses are for immigrants, not for life.

The change in council house entitlement is designed to dump the British people and allow the new immigrants to take them over.

Our people become homeless and the immigrants get our housing.

The proposal (plan) is to tip out any indig white family occupying council (social housing) with a spare capacity and reallocate to larger immigrant families.

This is only the start, years ago I posted that little old ladies living alone in owner occupier property with husband deceased and children grown up and gone will - be given 24 hours to pack and get out.

It’s coming to a place near you!

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:03 | #

Guessedworker

I think brain structues are most definitetly involved in emotions. I know the point you are getting at. So eit is not unreasnable to suppose that evolutionary forces were at work. But the same can be said about Quantum Mechanics. Without the necassary brain structure humans couldn’t wouldn’t be aware of the fact that the physical world has a quantum mechanical structure to. But it wouldn’t follow that Quantum Mechanics is reducible to genes and protiens.

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:14 | #

Guessdworker

I’m not making a case for or against God. I am just poking at a partucular angle of argument that the Atheist has been using against Thiests. This is not to say that it is an uninteresting angle of attack against the Theist’s case for God.

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:18 | #

By the way, did you seem Silver’s psychopathic attack on me over at Occidental Dissent today?

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:20 | #

I’m sending snippets of posts because the full post hasn’t been able to get through. I had a very interesting response to Notus about his comments about Trainspotter’s post. I’ll send it tommorow.

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:24 | #

Guessedworker think strategically…reversing race-replacement requires and demands this.

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:29 | #

Speaking of genes and protiens, there was a NYT front page story a few weeks back about the human genome project-one dimensional protien biochemistry-has shed no insight into macroscopic and submacroscopic biological strucures-especially anything usefull to say about disease. No one should be shocked by this

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:53 | #

Jupiter,

I think brain structues are most definitely involved in emotions. I know the point you are getting at. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that evolutionary forces were at work. But the same can be said about Quantum Mechanics. Without the necessary brain structure humans wouldn’t be aware of the fact that the physical world has a quantum mechanical structure to. But it wouldn’t follow that Quantum Mechanics is reducible to genes and protiens.

Let’s not get all confused by the relative development of brain structures.  Let’s stick to method.  Methodologically, your equation becomes:

Intellect > Mathematics > Quantum Theory
as
Faith > Religion > God

Notwithstanding the fact that faithists insist that the flow is God > Religion > Faith, which spoils things slightly, there is a fundamental flaw with the equation.

There are several methods by which we can model Man and Being.  These certainly include mathematics, science, philosophy, religion, metaphysics, and psychology.  In the search for answers all but one of these methods approaches its subject with emptiness, so to speak.  The exception is religion, which approaches with the answers already known and the first sermon already written.  Religion’s purpose is to impose its answers on Man and Being.  Naturally enough, such salient pride begs our curiosity, and so religion is put under the spotlight itself.  Method: psychology.  Can you imagine mathematics or science suffering such an indignity?

No, the equation does not stand up.  Here, I think, is the correct equation:

Faith > Religion > God
as
Natural Selection > Adaptive Behaviour > Evolutionary Fitness

Posted by Bill on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:41 | #

Over at the BDF (British Democratic Forum) a fresh topic has been hatched entitled The Jews, the Media and the BNP.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/79856-jews-media-bnp-2.html

Not long into the thread these two gems pop up in the comments.

Comment 7

I think the time arrived a while back when ‘multi-culture’ in major towns and cities has become a permanent demographic fact. The world has drastically changed since I were a lad (as the hackneyed phrase goes) and it can never be the same again. That is the cold, hard truth.
‘White Britain’ is now pure nostalgia and man can not live by nostalgia alone.
So it is the exception when we go out into the depths of old rural England and listen to bucolic accents, along with their peculiar ways. We then return to places where the shops sell kebabs and fried chicken as opposed to cream teas and pub shepherds pie.
Yes, I am more relaxed in all-white society just as a black man is more relaxed in Stoke Newington and a Jew in Golders Green.
I have no intention of visiting Stoke Newington nor Golders Green. I just would not fit in with the general sceme of things in those places.
I visited Sandwich a while back. It was completely white. It is always completely white, apart from the odd non-white passing through. So I do not think our way of life is threatened at all.

Comment 9

Quite true Roberto. Our way of life has constantly been evolving. With every new generation of immigrants comes a new layer to the rich tapestry of diversity which makes Britain the great country it is today. The multitudes of new arrivals should not be feared they should be embraced as they will be the Britons of the future. Britain has always been a mongrel nation of immigrants and the arrivals will add o the strength through diversity which we have always possessed as a nation. Remember during the war we crushed the white supremacist Nazis who were supposedly racially pure and the reason for this is racial hybrids such as the British are genetically superior through the advantages of tapping into a wider gene pool. Just as mongrel dogs are superior in every respect to pure breeds the same rule applies to humans. It is a pity a lot of the Neanderthals who comment on this forum are not capable of the higher level of understanding you and I possess Roberto.

Both commentors describe themselves as members. I dunno.

Posted by Ronery Asian Guy on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:55 | #

Quite true Roberto. Our way of life has constantly been evolving. With every new generation of immigrants comes a new layer to the rich tapestry of diversity which makes Britain the great country it is today. The multitudes of new arrivals should not be feared they should be embraced as they will be the Britons of the future. Britain has always been a mongrel nation of immigrants and the arrivals will add o the strength through diversity which we have always possessed as a nation. Remember during the war we crushed the white supremacist Nazis who were supposedly racially pure and the reason for this is racial hybrids such as the British are genetically superior through the advantages of tapping into a wider gene pool. Just as mongrel dogs are superior in every respect to pure breeds the same rule applies to humans. It is a pity a lot of the Neanderthals who comment on this forum are not capable of the higher level of understanding you and I possess Roberto.

Is this guy serious? His entire post is littered with non-sequiturs and historical inaccuracies

Posted by AunDoorback on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:14 | #

“Comment 9” is a spoof, surely? To pack that many multicult cliches into so small a space takes effort.

Mind you, it lacks use of “vibrant”, which would be the clincher.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:11 | #

Further to the list of questions asked in Brussels by Griffin and Brons, I had a go at firing some pertinent enquiries at the chief financial officer of Unilever, whom the Telegraph had roped in to answering reader’s questions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/7926139/Your-chance-to-quiz-the-money-man-behind-Persil-PG-Tips-and-Marmite.html

Naturally, he did not answer any of my questions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/7929962/Unilevers-Jean-Marc-Huet-answers-readers-questions.html

And no thread to ask why!

Foregone conclusion, I suppose.  Still, politically Unilever is an enemy, and richly deserves our hostility.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:51 | #

“Mind you, it lacks use of ‘vibrant’, which would be the clincher.”  (—AunDoorback)

LOL

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 08:56 | #

Quite true Roberto. Our way of life has constantly been evolving. With every new generation of immigrants comes a new layer to the rich tapestry of diversity which makes Britain the great country it is today. The multitudes of new arrivals should not be feared they should be embraced as they will be the Britons of the future. Britain has always been a mongrel nation of immigrants and the arrivals will add o the strength through diversity which we have always possessed as a nation. Remember during the war we crushed the white supremacist Nazis who were supposedly racially pure and the reason for this is racial hybrids such as the British are genetically superior through the advantages of tapping into a wider gene pool. Just as mongrel dogs are superior in every respect to pure breeds the same rule applies to humans. It is a pity a lot of the Neanderthals who comment on this forum are not capable of the higher level of understanding you and I possess Roberto.

I have almost never read anything quite so simultaneously stupid and factually inaccurate.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 10:20 | #

Notus Wind,

You are a scholar and a gentleman.

The problem with the Far Right is that it has always attracted a disproportionate share of belligerent, caustic, oppositional personalities. It seems to go with the territory. It takes strong characters to resist an ideology - liberalism - that is at once hegemonic and self-righteous, yet unbelievably idiotic and obviously incorrect in its diagnoses and prescriptions. It is virtually calculated to annoy a normal man.

We need more persons who are by nature positive, upbeat, agreeable, conciliatory, self-effacing and team-oriented. But it is difficult even to maintain those qualities in the face of an impending catastrophe at once world-historical, viciously denied, and still largely unnoticed or poorly understood.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 10:56 | #

GW,

Thank you for the lengthy reply addressed to me. This site is quite dangerous. Of all the WN (and merely conservative) ones I have (pa)trolled over the last decade, I find MR to be the most intellectually demanding: one can never, at least in good conscience, merely emit a verbal belch or two, and then beat a hasty retreat! One must justify one’s thoughts - always a hard task. I have gained a sense of how the poor fools accosted by Socrates must have felt (which also explains something about the hemlock) ...

I, on the other hand, do not intentionally, impliedly impose any reciprocal burdens on others, including you. What I have written above as elsewhere was done in a spirit of genuine inquiry. I am fascinated to find others who share the same political goals (at least wrt racial issues) as I, yet who seek a very different set of justifications for their politics. Although I am unlikely to abandon my core beliefs, either about metaphysical reality, or political strategy, your retorts are a true challenge, and as such, reflecting upon them can only strengthen the content of my own evolving arguments.

So I look forward to your further reflections on the issues I have broached, and, in the meantime, after posting this comment, I’m going to gather my thoughts (so annoyingly un-cogent at the moment, perhaps following from a long week), and then try to respond to your reply.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:58 | #

Leon,

... one can never, at least in good conscience, merely emit a verbal belch or two, and then beat a hasty retreat!

I’m glad we are doing something right.

Although I am unlikely to abandon my core beliefs ...

And neither should you.  The important thing is to remain open, which is also to remain curious about the world.

I’m going to gather my thoughts, and then try to respond to your reply.

I look forward to it.

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:12 | #

Quite true Roberto. Our way of life has constantly been evolving. With every new generation of immigrants comes a new layer to the rich tapestry of diversity which makes Britain the great country it is today. The multitudes of new arrivals should not be feared they should be embraced as they will be the Britons of the future. Britain has always been a mongrel nation of immigrants and the arrivals will add o the strength through diversity which we have always possessed as a nation. Remember during the war we crushed the white supremacist Nazis who were supposedly racially pure and the reason for this is racial hybrids such as the British are genetically superior through the advantages of tapping into a wider gene pool. Just as mongrel dogs are superior in every respect to pure breeds the same rule applies to humans. It is a pity a lot of the Neanderthals who comment on this forum are not capable of the higher level of understanding you and I possess Roberto.

Although the above talking point is stupid and historically inaccurate, unfortunatly it IS accepted as reality by both Libword and most who call themselves “conservative.”

How did this happen?

Simple, here in the USA we are constantly bombarded with mindless crap like this: “We are a nation of immigrants”....“Diversity is our strength”........ and my favorite: “The American people are for legal immigration, it’s illegal immigration they’re against.” IDIOCY! Every time I hear that I want to puke. Especially when it rolls off the tongues of Republican politicians. But then again, I shouldn’t be surprised. The Republican establishment is just as enthusiastic about promoting and embracing multiculturalism/racial-diversity as the Dems - eg, the Big Tent Initiative. But back to legal immigration vs illegal immigration. America’s Ruling Class, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, are selling the idea that the ongoing third world invasion would be perfectly acceptable if only they swamped our country legally. Unfortunately the propagandized, bamboozled hoi polloi seem to agree. I can’t tell you how many times I hear regular folks say they support immigration as long as it’s done legally. Do they know the vast majority come from the third world? Do they understand the longer term consequences of massive third world immigration?  Do they have a clue? A half a clue? A thousandth? Do they even care?

Anyway, once the latest version of amnesty is enacted, look for a doubling or tripling of legal immigration. A few years ago Ben Bernanke clued us in. He suggested the U.S.  increase its legal immigration from 1.2 million per year to 3.5 million. See here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2006-10-04-bernanke-retirement-programs_x.htm

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:43 | #

Leon,

You are a scholar and a gentleman.

Thank you, those are very kind words.

The problem with the Far Right is that it has always attracted a disproportionate share of belligerent, caustic, oppositional personalities. It seems to go with the territory. It takes strong characters to resist an ideology - liberalism - that is at once hegemonic and self-righteous, yet unbelievably idiotic and obviously incorrect in its diagnoses and prescriptions.

As GW has noted in a different thread, the Far Right has been excised from public discourse and confined to the margins where marginal personalities abound.

Speaking personally, I am only interested in the truth.  And if some of that truth has been relegated to the margins then I think that tolerating a few personalities is more than worth it.

We need more persons who are by nature positive, upbeat, agreeable, conciliatory, self-effacing and team-oriented. But it is difficult even to maintain those qualities in the face of an impending catastrophe at once world-historical, viciously denied, and still largely unnoticed or poorly understood.

I completely agree.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:13 | #

GW,

Still gathering those thoughts (see above), which may be as numerous, but unfortunately not so readily at hand, as the proverbial lilies of the Sceptered Isle’s fields ...

Posted by fellist on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:18 | #

Meanwhile, the zoo creatures of the Telegraph are nodding towards disaffection too…

There’s a spoof ad in the current issue of Private Eye for a Roman Polanski extradition-thwarting commemorative plate—limited edition of six million, oven-proof.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:14 | #

Dan, Roger Scruton used to edit a quarterly journal in the early 80’s called the Salisbury Review, which I used to browse from time to time. Though he himself steered clear of any racial controversy, he did publish the occasional article by people like John Casey (from Peterhouse, if I remember rightly) who did believe that we ought to deport large numbers of non-whites. When interviewed by Searchlight though, he made it clear that that wasn’t his own position.

The Review became notorious for publishing an article by a headmaster called Ray Honeyford which decried the deleterious effects of multiculturalism (as it was then practiced) on the education of British education; for example, he said he’d encountered white chilfdren (this is the north of England) who knew the dates of all the Hindu festivals but didn’t know who Jesus was. If I remember rightly, the controversy provoked by article forced Honeyford to take early retirement.

P.S. I recently posted an interview with Scruton in the Phora’s philosophy section. He makes it clear there that he isn’t a racist, so I think you’ll be disappointed if you want him to join your club.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:41 | #

I recently posted an interview with Scruton in the Phora’s philosophy section. He makes it clear there that he isn’t a racist, so I think you’ll be disappointed if you want him to join your club. - Retew

There are more than a few club members here who are also not racist, in the conventional sense of the term as deployed by you and your friends.

My own view is that Scruton’s views on heritage, culture, nationhood and belonging more than compensate for any perceived lack of ideological purity, and that he is more of an asset for our side than for yours.

I don’t see, btw, how you could draw any conclusions about Scruton’s supposed non-racist credentials from the Baggini interview, if that is what you refer to. I think you’ll get a far-more rounded view of his actual views on nationalism and ethnicity from his full-length works, as well as longer essays such as ‘On the Need for Nations’.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:17 | #

He may surprise us, but I think we can safely assume that Retew will deny that a process of race-replacement of white people is underway, which renders the rest of the question moot.

But the question should really be recast to separate the terms ‘race-replacement’ and ‘government-enforced’, since the compounding the two rests on the assumption assumes that a conspiracy exists, which may or not be the case, thereby rendering the question as originally posed open to objection as being ‘leading’.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:18 | #

wretched typos:

“... since compounding the two rests on an assumption that a conspiracy exists…”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:53 | #

”But the question should really be recast to separate the terms ‘race-replacement’ and ‘government-enforced’, since compounding the two rests on the assumption that a conspiracy exists, which may or not be the case, thereby rendering the question as originally posed open to objection as being ‘leading’.”  (—Dan Dare)

But with our own eyes we see government enforcing it.  Every day of the week.  How does one account for that if government isn’t enforcing it?  Optical illusion?  Hallucinogens in the drinking water?  If you see someone carrying out an act with your own eyes, let’s say a carpenter hammering in a nail, you’re beyond wondering who hammered in the nail:  you saw the carpenter do it with your own eyes.  You now know the carpenter hammered in the nail.  Open any newspaper any day of the week, turn on the television or radio news any hour of the day, and you will see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears government enforcing race-replacement of white people.  Exactly as Andrew Neather said.  What’s open to question?  If I didn’t see that carpenter hammer in that nail with my own eyes yes, I’d still be wondering who did it, still searching for clues, still applying deduction to figure it out, my conclusions still perhaps debateable.  But I saw him do it.  Every day of the week.  Every hour of the day.  Every time I read a newspaper or listened to the TV news.  My own eyes saw it, my own ears heard it.  Eye-witness testimony is enough to condemn a man to death.  Eye-witness testimony isn’t enough to conclude that government enforces race-replacement of white people?  Eye-witness testimony of one man condemns a man to death and eye-witness testimony of every single person in the country who watches TV, listens to radio, or reads newspapers isn’t enough to draw a conclusion?  Maybe the words used are unclear?  What is there about the word “government” don’t you understand?  About the word “race-replacment”?  “Enforce”?  Where is the difficulty here?

We know race-replacement of white people is being enforced.  We know government is enforcing it because we see it as clearly as we see the carpenter hammer in the nail.  Yet we are accused of “making an assumption” when we say what every man, woman, child, and old person in the country sees with his own two eyes and hears with his own two ears?

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:48 | #

Fred, there is little doubt that a demographic transformation is underway in much of western society, on that we can certainly agree. But where you, together with many others here who tend towards your interpretation of the events, and I part company is in why it is happening, who is responsible and what their motivations are.

We had a full and frank discussion about the relative cases of the Cock-up Crowd and the Conspiracy Theorists on another thread and I saw little reason on that occasion or since to modify my position, despite your regular exhortations to ‘connect the dots’.

Posted by BIll on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:18 | #

But the question should really be recast to separate the terms ‘race-replacement’ and ‘government-enforced’, since the compounding the two rests on the assumption assumes that a conspiracy exists, which may or not be the case, thereby rendering the question as originally posed open to objection as being ‘leading’.

If what we have been discussing here since goodness knows when is not or cannot be attributable to government connivance in a greater conspiracy for race replacement or dispossession of indeginous whites, then to what do we attribute the phenomena of mass non white immigration into every Western white nation?

Cock up!  You jest sir.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:36 | #

”Fred, there is little doubt that a demographic transformation is underway […W]here you […] and I part company is in why it is happening, who is responsible and what their motivations are.”  (—DD)

But in the above little exchange regarding Retew, “motivation” never came up, only whether or not government was enforcing it.  I didn’t get into “why” they were, I only said they were.  Enforcing it.  Government is enforcing race-replacement of white people.

Are they, Dan?  Yes or no please.

Try to go against it in any meaningful, effective way and see whose side government intervenes on, race-replacement’s or yours.  Never on yours.  Always race-replacement’s.  Leave “motivations” aside for the moment.  Is government enforcing race-replacement of white people?  Yes or no please.

The reason you find that claim outlandish is you’re basically on the side of the mentality that feels people aren’t supposed to notice it, noticing it is vulgar, immoral, not right somehow, only the wrong kind of people notice it, noticing it is wrong in such a way that it’s far better to ignore it and let the process go to completion than besmirch yourself by noticing it, a shocking thing to do.

Well too bad, I’ve noticed it.  And others have as well, and too bad if they’ve all forced people like you to face it.  I feel your pain, Dan.  No, really.  Defo.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:45 | #

Unless you think what’s happening isn’t race-replacement of white people.

Posted by pug on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:04 | #

If Western race-replacement does not occur according to one creature that calls itself Retew, then it should explain why I’m reading this.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:19 | #

I don’t believe that the demographic transformation currently underway has race-replacement of white people as its principal, underlying rationale. Nor do I believe that that is the goal of ‘government enforcement’.

We arrive at our present predicament through a combination of factors, including the universalist and egalitarian dogma which has been the prevailing idiom since WW II, the international human rights regime, an activist judiciary, rampant ‘Anglo-Saxon’ capitalism and its ugly stepchild economic globalisation, ease of transcontinental travel, political myopia, the doctrine of Managed Decline and, not least, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Each of these factors - and there may be others which haven’t immediately sprung to mind - have their own rationale and subsidiary raisons d’être.

I don’t believe that reliance on articles of faith, or on facile approaches that involve connecting the dots to end up with the desired answer in the form of the mythical little men behind the curtain, assist us in understand the causes of our affliction, or in working out ways in which to overcome them. The picture is far, far more complicated than many here are prepared to accept. Unfortunately.

Posted by John on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:25 | #

“We had a full and frank discussion about the relative cases of the Cock-up Crowd and the Conspiracy Theorists on another thread and I saw little reason on that occasion or since to modify my position, despite your regular exhortations to ‘connect the dots’. “

Not merely a conspiracy but one which was planned over 100 years ago
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/crimes_that_our_grandchildren_will_see/

Posted by pug on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:54 | #

I refer Fred to the Dachau trial, where a charge of “Common Plan” or “Common Design” was hatched up to solve a similar conundrum:

The evidence adduced by the prosecution seems to fall short of showing a conspiracy among the accused in the strictly technical sense of the term. There is no evidence that any two or more of them ever got together and agreed on a long-term policy of ill-treating and killing a great number of the inmates, and then put this agreement into operation. The accused did not all know each other, nor were they all at Dachau at the same time, but as they came and went the system remained and as each of them took over his position, he adhered to the system.

It seems, therefore, that what runs throughout the whole of this case, like a thread, is this : that there was in the camp a general system of cruelties and murders of the inmates (most of whom were allied nationals) and that this system was practised with the knowledge of the accused, who were members of the staff, and with their active participation. Such a course of conduct, then, was held by the court in this case to constitute “ acting in pursuance of a common design to violate the laws and usages of war “. Everybody who took any part in such common design was held guilty of a war crime, though the nature and extent of the participation may vary. The degree of the participation of each accused found its expression in the sentences which ranged from 5 years’ hard labour to death.

If Dan truly believes that the elites are, at this point, blind to the genocidal consequences of their actions—the gentile components of whom may or may not have primarily done this for short-sighted, short-term economic interests—then he is just wrong. Because, you know, people tend to notice brown squatters colonising the place after a while.

I also hold responsible the colonisers who have become aware that they are being there at the expense of the natives’ livelihoods and existence, and will not undo their error for the sake of those who have, so far, been so tranquil about their horrible actions.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:07 | #

If Dan truly believes that the elites are, at this point, blind to the genocidal consequences of their actions—the gentile components of whom may or may not have primarily done this for short-sighted, short-term economic interests—then he is just wrong. Because, you know, people tend to notice brown squatters colonising the place after a while.

I think don’t anyone in the Eurosphere can be oblivous to the presence of such squatters, no matter how well insulated they may be from its effects by reason of wealth or domicile. What I would question is whether the managerial elite perceive such a presence in genocidal terms; few of them, particularly in the political branch, have the necessary long-term perspective to pursue a project that might take generations to come to fruition. Most often I suspect it is seen through the prism of their liberal sensibilities which arise a result of their social conditioning and viewed as a natural and even desirable outcome of the economic imperatives that they answer to.

Posted by Retew on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:28 | #

I’ve read JWH’s pdf file about EGIs. From that I would accept that a process of demographic transformation is underway, insofar as the proportion of non-European origin in the population is rising and appers set to continue rising. No one seriously disputes that (apart from maybe Beautiful Burnout on CiF).

I wouldn’t call it “replacement,” because so far at least the new population is being added to the existing one (and unless you assume that a substantial portion of the country’s emigrees are leaving because of emigration, you can’t asssume parallel motivation, i.e. that one is leaving because the other is arriving).

Dan, when we discussed this on Sandee’s board I told you I preferred the word “adulteration” as a derogatory alternative for what might otherwise be called “enrichment”. That remains my view.

Racism? Here’s the definition we use on MSF when people select their profile options, and to which no one’s objected so far;

“Racism is the belief that race is a significant determinant of human traits and capacities. Racism means judging and/or treating people in accordance with their race, whether positively or negatively.”

By that token I’d say everyone in the club here is “racist” and would not dissent from that view.

Is Roger Scruton one of the club? If you claim Geert Wilders as a member (who definitely does not make race part of his platform, and whom I heard on the radio say he wasn’t racist), then I agree that Scruton is too.

BTW, Scruton’s just released a new book, “The Uses of Pessimism,” which I browsed quickly. Support your local bookshop!

Posted by pug on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:40 | #

Evidently, the elites did not engage in such volatile behaviour for the benefit of the commonfolk. A child could see through the sophistry of cheap labour bringing benefits to the yeomanry. Assuming they are not the enemies they would be as if they had aimed for race-replacement is strategically wrong.

As for the process taking generations, are you really sure about that? Unfortunately, the link I have posted above in response to Retew has strangely had its webpage pulled—perhaps memory holed? Luckily, the window was still open, so I am quoting it for posterity (my emphasis in the article):

Revealed: The UK maternity units in which only 1 in 10 mothers is of white British origin
By Jack Doyle, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last updated at 6:03 PM on 8th August 2010

New statistics taken from NHS records of women who have just given birth show that white Britons now account for an average of just six in ten of those receiving maternity care.

They also reveal the startling changes that a decade of record migration is having on different parts of the country.

In some inner city areas the proportion of white British mothers slumps to fewer than one in ten. But the impact on parts of Middle England is even more staggering.

NHS trusts which cover parts of the home counties - such as St Albans - report less than six in ten mothers are white British.

The figures will reignite the debate about the scale of immigration and the scale of social division, as well as the impact on public services.

Ministers have pledged to force migrant workers to buy their own private health care to help reduce the burden on the NHS.

Under the proposals non EU migrants would be entitled to emergency care but would have to buy insurance to cover the costs of GP visits and most operations.

The statistics raised fears the country is becoming increasingly divided along ethnic lines.

Of 652,638 deliveries in 150 NHS Trusts in England last year an average of 62 per cent of mothers were white British. But in some parts of rural England more than 95 per cent of mothers fell into that category.

These included North Devon with 97.4 per cent, Co Durham and Darlington with 97.1, and Northumbria with 96 per cent.

But at the other end of the spectrum, North West London NHS Trust - which covers Harrow - just 9.4 per cent of mothers were white British.

Another inner city trust - Sandwell and West Birmingham - had just 16.5 per cent. Just over one in four mothers were white Britons at Guy’s and St Thomas’s hospital in central London.

But the West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, which covers St Albans, just 57 per cent of mothers giving birth were of white British origin.

Of the remaining 43 per cent, the biggest groupings were ‘other white’ - which includes Eastern Europeans - Indians, Pakistanis and Africans.

Backbench Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: ‘I think we have to face reality and that is if you continue to have mass immigration it’s going to have a very significant impact on the demography of our country - and it’s going to have a significant impact perhaps on the sort of country that we are.’

Last month it emerged that Britain’s population growth is outpacing every other country in Europe.

Immigration and rising birth rates driven in part by the children of new arrivals - the so-called ‘immigrant baby boom’ - meant this country gained more people than anywhere else in the continent.

There were also warnings last week that Hungary is set to hand two million passports to people living outside the EU.

Ministers have pledge to put a limit on the number of immigrants from outside the EU given work permits for the UK.

David Cameron has pledged to reduce the level of net migration - those arriving minus those leaving - from the hundreds to the tens of thousands.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301338/New-figures-reveal-barely-half-new-mothers-parts-suburban-England-white-British-origin.html

I hope that these figures are wrong, and a new, corrected article will pop up, but they wouldn’t surprise me. If they are correct, then England will cease to be English really soon.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:45 | #

“What I would question is whether the managerial elite perceive such a presence in genocidal terms”  (—DD)

You have to perceive the obvious inevitable portent of your forcibly applied policies in some terms or other, whether or not you recognize them as genocidal — doubtless the men running the show at present don’t look at it as genocide because there are no gas chambers or because they refuse to recognize race or some such, but none of that holds water.  Maybe the Young Turks who genocided the Armenians would have denied it was genocide because “Armenians aren’t human.”  That wouldn’t hold up before any reasonable judge any more than denying present policy clearly portends genocide, on grounds “there are no such things as races” or whatever else might be passing through the “liberal” minds currently pulling it off.

Sorry, such excuses don’t hold water and won’t in court when these criminals are called to account.

But how could they miss that portent of their coercive actions?  They can’t.  As I vaguely recall arguing in what must have been among my first comments at this blog years ago, if you turn on the water in the bathtub and stand guard with a rifle to keep anyone from turning it off you must want the tub to overflow.  Who says A must say B.  There is no possibility of ignorance of the, yes, the genocidal portent of present government policy, any more than in the hypothetical case there is a possibility of ignorance of the intention to make the tub overflow.  (We’re assuming of course the men in charge aren’t outright psychotic and fit for straitjackets and padded cells.)

“I don’t believe that the demographic transformation currently underway has race-replacement of white people as its principal, underlying rationale.”  (—DD)

All right Dan, if it’s not the “principal” aim, is it nevertheless an aim?  In other words was Andrew Neather, a government speechwriter and insider who presumably knew, and said it did have exactly that aim, was he telling the truth?  Even without Andrew Neather’s admissions, is it possible it isn’t at least an aim, a secondary one perhaps, but an aim?  Otherwise how do you explain aspects such as the extremely heavyhanded government punishment and suppression of dissent specifically in regard to that particular implied outcome of present policy?  If it weren’t an aim and an ardently desired one, why can’t people be allowed to discuss it frankly, oppose it openly and organize accordingly without government demonization, and so on?  Why is a policy enacted and at the same time measures taken, very forceful ones, to quash, demonize, punish, etc., all frank, open questioning of and especially opposition to, that policy?  Why isn’t the other side guileless in other words, instead of calculating and cunning?  Why did they treat Nick Griffin the unprecedented way they did on that appallingly rigged hatchet-job of a Question Time program?  Who was behind that if there was no ulterior motive having to do with demonization of protestation at white replacement?  We could go on and on and on and on and on with example after example after example.  The government behavior in all this is not the behavior of someone in principle impartial without ulterior motive who intends to let all sides be heard equally without the tactic of prior demonization of any one, and may the best man win.  It’s not that at all and hasn’t been since Enoch Powell was shouted down for fifteen years straight and hounded out.

Posted by Retew on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:59 | #

pug said;

“If Western race-replacement does not occur according to one creature that calls itself Retew, then it should explain why I’m reading this.”

Good luck in finding people who will answer your questions when “addressed” in that manner. I’m not one of them.

And by the way, the article appears to have been deleted now.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:03 | #

”I would accept that a process of demographic transformation is underway, insofar as the proportion of non-European origin in the population is rising and appears set to continue rising. […] I wouldn’t call it ‘replacement,’ because so far at least the new population is being added to the existing one”  (—Retew)

Retew thinks that pouring a pint of blue paint into a quart of yellow won’t “replace” (Retew’s choice of quote marks around that word) the original color with a new one.  All you’re doing, you see, by Retew’s lights, is “adding a new color to the existing one.”  It’s just like the owner of a zoo adding grizzly bears to his collection of kangaroos, right Retew?  No replacement there, just adding to the existing animal population, so in like manner there’s no reason to think adding twenty million Nigerians to forty-five million Englishmen will end up replacing the original race with something new and different.  After all, adding grizzlies to kangaroos didn’t so why should this?  Retew, all I can say is seeing how stupid you are I now regret I got into this timewasting argument with DD on your dimwitted account.  You’re an absolute fricking moron and timewaster.  Bog off back to CiF or wherever you came from.

”Racism? Here’s the definition […]: ‘Racism is the belief that race is a significant determinant of human traits and capacities.  Racism means judging and/or treating people in accordance with their race, whether positively or negatively.’ “  (—Retew)

Wrong. That’s the marxist definition.  The real definition of racism is habitually being mean or unjust toward someone on account of his race.  By that definition not a single soul among this blog’s bloggers or regular commenters is a racist.  Now bog off, will you please?  This site isn’t congenial to freaking imbeciles.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:06 | #

I’ll be perfectly clear:  Retew is a race-replacement advocate and an especially dimwitted one to boot.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:09 | #

What I would question is whether the managerial elite perceive such a presence in genocidal terms; few of them, particularly in the political branch, have the necessary long-term perspective to pursue a project that might take generations to come to fruition.
>Dan Dare

Once again, they (“the managerial elite”) do not have the necessary perspective.  The media, financial and energy-corp elite, viz. the moneyed elite and true ruling class, have that perspective.  I suppose it’s just a coincidence that this very elite is majority Jewish.

And if they are not genocidal I wonder what it is that impels them to smash even the slightest hint of criticism vis-a-vis their agenda with fanatical malevolence.  It clearly is something more than the profit motive driving such actions.

—-

Your thirst for the facts in these matters is laudable, what is not laudable is your apparent attitude that if a conspiracy cannot be seen then it doesn’t exist.  If the FBI had such an attitude, the Italian Mob would still be up to their old tricks.  Think of what we’re doing here, in regards to the elites, as a RICO investigation where all the evidence - factual and circumstantial - is pertinent to the final analysis.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:23 | #

“And if they are not genocidal I wonder what it is that impels them to smash even the slightest hint of criticism vis-a-vis their agenda with fanatical malevolence.  It clearly is something more than the profit motive driving such actions.”  (—Gudmund)

Precisely and well said.

“Your thirst for the facts in these matters is laudable, what is not laudable is your apparent attitude that if a conspiracy cannot be seen then it doesn’t exist.  If the FBI had such an attitude, the Italian Mob would still be up to their old tricks.  Think of what we’re doing here, in regards to the elites, as a RICO investigation where all the evidence - factual and circumstantial - is pertinent to the final analysis.”  (—Gudmund)

If they have a clear conscience, Dan, and if this is all so innocent, why aren’t all the facts and motivations out in the open and on paper, no exceptions?  Why are they hiding it, leaving us guessing, and not only that but demonizing anyone who snoops?  Why must we look at matters the way Gudmund rightly calls for there, as if we’re conducting a RICO investigation (a kind of U.S. racketeering investigation of mafia gangsters)?  Only one answer:  their conscience isn’t clear.  They’re up to dishonesty, they know the people don’t want it, and they intend to ram it through anyway.  Can you think of another reason for the opacity, DD?

Posted by John on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:29 | #

“Multicultural” societies, a uniform coffee-coloured mixed race (of the non-elites), which per my link above they’ve been planning for at least 140 years, are not ends in themselves. I believe they are motivated by,

elites’ fear of ordinary Westerners (with in varying degrees our independent/individualist streaks) becoming self-sufficient and wealthy enough to challenge them or figure out they don’t need them

the fact that European peoples if left in homogeneous nations are the only people intelligent and possibly motivated enough to resist effectively the following NWO plans,

  a reduced population, decreased fertility and ultimately control of individual reproduction decisions, more androgynous men and women, one world gov’t, one world currency/banking/financial/taxation system where all decisions are made from the top and any remaining vestiges of free enterprise are removed, a managerial/socialistic/police state with mongrelized and dumbed-down to various degrees “world citizens” to run it and act as their servants, a microchipped population, and one world religion/culture/language (to name but a few of their objectives). To say that race-replacement immigration is motivated by “cheap labor” is shallow to say the least, imo.

They want control over every aspect of our lives (including our spirituality and our dreams, even). They are attacking us (and everyone else) on many fronts (agriculture, medicine, to name a couple), not just the multiculti/racism stuff.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:07 | #

… No one seriously disputes that [the proportion of non-European origin in the population is rising and appers set to continue rising] – Retew

Where do you stand on the desirability or otherwise of that particular change? Many of your friends and associates positively welcome it as something to be celebrated, do you?

I wouldn’t call it “replacement,” because so far at least the new population is being added to the existing one (and unless you assume that a substantial portion of the country’s emigrees are leaving because of emigration, you can’t asssume parallel motivation, i.e. that one is leaving because the other is arriving).

‘Displacement’ might be a better term for the current phase of the process. It remains to be seen what the long-term effect will be on the indigenous population. In Western Europe and the UK in particular all the projections that I have seen show it trending downward, as the ethnic population trends upward. I think that all current projections attribute that to the falling indigenous birthrate, rather than emigration. It might be the case that emigration again accelerates in the later stages of the process (assuming there are still places to emigrate to) and in that case the term replacement might then become appropriate.

Racism? Here’s the definition we use on MSF when people select their profile options, and to which no one’s objected so far;

“Racism is the belief that race is a significant determinant of human traits and capacities. Racism means judging and/or treating people in accordance with their race, whether positively or negatively.”

By that token I’d say everyone in the club here is “racist” and would not dissent from that view.

I’d imagine that not too many here would subscribe to the first part of your definition, since it’s not race but rather genetics that plays the key role in the hereditability of such things, in so far as anything does. Race is itself just another outcome of the genetic endowment and is itself a consequence and not a cause. As for the second part, it’s simply bosh, as is your indiscriminate and reckless labelling of MR contributors in the whole.

In fact, many of us would probably take up the theme developed by our esteemed host which, as a regular observer on CiF you may even be familiar with. That is that is not we who are the racists, but rather your friends and associates on the other side who deny the existence European ethnies their right to uninterrupted and undisturbed tenure, free from unwanted intruders, in their ancestral homelands.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:47 | #

A good deal of energy has been expended in this thread about the intentions, (genocidal or otherwise), of a power-elite.

But what difference does that make?

If I’m being run over by a truck, the knowledge that the driver never saw me is not going to comfort me. If anything, it is going to make me MORE angry.

So, why does it matter if our elites KNOW they are committing genocide?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:06 | #

I totally agree, Fred.

I didn’t write my comment for your benefit. I wrote it for the benefit of those who might not be at that point yet. It’s a big step just to acknowledge that we are disappearing as a race. If people can do that, and feel confident enough to mention it in public, they will soon find out on their own that it’s not OK to be concerned about such things. From that point on, it becomes easier for them to identify the intentionality, and they won’t need to take the word of a WN. Our enemies will prove it to them.

Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:35 | #

A review of Scruton’s new book:

Pessimism is the recognition that these constraints and boundaries make impossible any planned, rational transformation of society.

Hey, that’s funny. I’ve been saying the same goddamned thing for years. I guess I should’ve been born a British conservative!

Posted by Bill on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:36 | #

Meet Simon Hughes MP.  Deputy leader of the Liberal Democratic Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZYXOm898Q

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hughes

Posted by Bill on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:52 | #

In liberal circles, negative discussion of immigration is considered impolite and bigoted (Brown in Rochdale.)  To skirt around the issue enables the liberal to claim the high moral ground where victory is always claimed.  I suggest the same goes for discussion of conspiracy theories (hee hee) where they can claim the intellectual high ground and remain aloof.  Anyway consider.

Mass non white immigration into white lands.

Over a 100 different groups constituting tens of thousands per group imported by our government.

Political correctness and and all its trappings.

Attack on civil liberties in the guise of anti terror laws.

Politicicing of our police force. Sensitivity training.

NWO.

UN agenda 21. WTO. IMF. CFR. Trilateral Commission. Fabian Society, yadda - yadda, yawn, yawn.

Government clamp down on any anti immigration sentiment.  For any dissenting politician is clear your desk time.

Suffocating media censorship, unremitting promotion of multiculturalism.  Bread and circuses.

Affirmative action.  Whites need not apply.  Whites back of the housing queue.

Brown gives evidence on Iraq enquiry. Saddam Hussein was obstruction to NWO.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzA5kPNRPEA

London. Birmingham. Bradford. Leicester race for first white minority status.

Our oppressors are opportunists to boot, taking any crisis, any new technology to further their goals.

Our population, quite frankly, is incapable of grasping the complexities involved that enmesh them in impotence.

There’s only one thing they understand and that is they are systematically being dispossessed of their living space, their rights, their identity, by their own politicians and yet they continue to vote them into power by the millions.  LOL.

PS.  Forgot the big taboo.  NWO central plank it is said, is to reduce (cull) present world population of 6.5 billion to under 2 billion within two generations.  Pandemics, abortion, birth control, manipulation of water and food supply, wars you name it.  IOW’s, sustainable living arrangement under the guise of global warming threat.

Posted by Retew on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:12 | #

“Where do you stand on the desirability or otherwise of that particular change? Many of your friends and associates positively welcome it as something to be celebrated, do you?”

I’ve answered this on the Phora but I’ll say the same again; no, I don’t welcome it as something to be celebrated, at least not in the numbers we’ve been experiencing since 1997. If I thought it was something to be celebrated I wouldn’t have been badgering you on the Phora to tell Digby he’s wrong about uncapped immigration.

A lot depends on quality though; Somalis (sadly) seem to cause problems wherever they are, whereas Hindus have in my opinion been an asset to the country. I actually agree with you and David Goodhart on this; “numbers are of the essence”, though I’d most likely set the accepted level a lot higher than you would.

“Displacement’ might be a better term for the current phase of the process.”

Yes, in the long term perhaps (i.e. once we’ve reached the limits of our current carrying capacity) I’d agree with that.

“It remains to be seen what the long-term effect will be on the indigenous population. In Western Europe and the UK in particular all the projections that I have seen show it trending downward, as the ethnic population trends upward. I think that all current projections attribute that to the falling indigenous birthrate, rather than emigration. It might be the case that emigration again accelerates in the later stages of the process (assuming there are still places to emigrate to) and in that case the term replacement might then become appropriate.”

Agreed; there are a lot of variables here, such as the state of the economy vis-a-vis others (countries which are prospering will become a magnet for immigrants).

“I’d imagine that not too many here would subscribe to the first part of your definition, since it’s not race but rather genetics that plays the key role in the hereditability of such things, in so far as anything does. Race is itself just another outcome of the genetic endowment and is itself a consequence and not a cause.”

Fair enough, that’s a good point. I might raise this on MSF and to Dark Reaver in particular as he is the one who came up with that definition.

“As for the second part, it’s simply bosh, as is your indiscriminate and reckless labelling of MR contributors in the whole.”

Really? Name one regular contributor here who doesn’t think that racial differences in intelligence, criminal proclivity etc. exist, in line with MSF’s definition.

“In fact, many of us would probably take up the theme developed by our esteemed host which, as a regular observer on CiF you may even be familiar with. That is that is not we who are the racists, but rather your friends and associates on the other side who deny the existence of European ethnies their right to uninterrupted and undisturbed tenure, free from unwanted intruders, in their ancestral homelands.”

Whenever I’ve tried to answer this on MSF you’ve always accused me of liberal hand wringing. But OK, once more; that would only be true if we weren’t complicit in those changes, which we are by progressively making the countries they come from less and less habitable and this increasing the pressure on those people to emigrate.

This is something I never see mentioned on here or other pro-white boards, but merits a mention anyway. Would we have so many Somali immigrants if we weren’t ruining the seas they depend on for their food supply, by industrial scale fishing with trawlers against which their primitive boats can’t compete and toxic waste dumping in the Red Sea? Or so many Bangladeshis if we hadn’t cut down the trees in the Bengal delta for timber, thus greatly increasing the area’s propensity for being flooded? So many Nigerians, if it were not for the depredations of the oil companies in the Niger delta turning their seas into a toxic slum? The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico wouldn’t have merited a blip in the headlines if it had happened there.

Here’s the very white Elizabeth Kubler-Ross on the nuclear threat;

“[The nuclear threat] is a result of our ever increasing greed, of our ever increasing destructiveness, to have more and more and more of everything. In order to have more, we have to be more destructive with our resources, with our wildlife, with our anuimal life, with our mineral resources, and with our forests.” (From Voices of Survival, 1987).

Not just ours, any more, but increasingly theirs too.

Posted by Retew on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:35 | #

Fred being his usual charming self;

“I’ll be perfectly clear:  Retew is a race-replacement advocate and an especially dimwitted one to boot.”

Wrong for the first part, as I hope is clear from my response above. What I do advocate though is that as far as possible birth should not automatically be destiny, and as part of that, everyone should have a right to emigrate to another country if they can find another country willing to take them.

I come from a part of the world which is noted world wide for its mining engineers (there’s a fair chance you’ll find a Cornishman, or a descendant of one, anywhere in the world mining is being undertaken), and the reason for that is that those same engineers and their ancestors were forced to seek employment overseas when the mines at home became exhausted or the price of the minerals they were mining collapsed.

If I allow them that right (and I do), I can’t in all conscience deny it to people from other countries who are also seeking a better life elsewhere or trying to escape disaster - though obviously there have to be limits on this and our country’s rapidly reaching capacity.

As for the second part, whether I’m dimwitted or not is for others to judge (as Alan Clark MP once said in a different context). In my experience though, people thinking you’re dim is sometimes a point of advantage; they spend less time trying to persuade you of something if they think you aren’t going to be able to take in what you’re saying (think of Manuel in Fawlty Towers).

So; feel free to think I’m dimwitted and not worthy of the efforts of such Olympian intellects as yourselves if it makes you feel better, it means I’ve got an excuse not to spend any more time on here (I spend more than enough time online anyway).

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:57 | #

Retew,

If you had to choose between living in a secure white America of the 1950s and an America of successful multi-racialism, such as Slick Willy used to promise back in the days, or even the Razib Khan America of Hindjews and techno-Whites, with a few dumb white blond chicks about for Raz to fantasise over, which would you choose?

(It goes without saying, of course, that the successul multi-racial option is and always was impossible, and choice is between 1950s America and chaos, but I am not asking you about that).

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:29 | #

Posted by Dan Dare on August 08, 2010, 11:07 PM | #

If Dan truly believes that the elites are, at this point, blind to the genocidal consequences of their actions—the gentile components of whom may or may not have primarily done this for short-sighted, short-term economic interests—then he is just wrong. Because, you know, people tend to notice brown squatters colonising the place after a while.

I think don’t anyone in the Eurosphere can be oblivous to the presence of such squatters, no matter how well insulated they may be from its effects by reason of wealth or domicile. What I would question is whether the managerial elite perceive such a presence in genocidal terms; few of them, particularly in the political branch, have the necessary long-term perspective to pursue a project that might take generations to come to fruition. Most often I suspect it is seen through the prism of their liberal sensibilities which arise [as] a result of their social conditioning and viewed as a natural and even desirable outcome of the economic imperatives that they answer to.

——————————————-

This is an OUTSTANDING answer!! The last sentence of Dan’s response I have quoted is one of the best I have ever read (although its grammar could be considerably improved). The elites who push immigration are thoroughly deluded, but mostly sincere, fools, who combine a core racial egalitarian bias (indeed, psychological impetus), with (sometimes mis-)perceived economic interests favoring the importation of cheap labor (put another way, they mostly possess a short term outlook which sees foreign labor as an easy way to artificially hold down wage rates, and thus boost profits without having actually to provide better products or services).

I’m sorry, but I tend to disagree with the conspiratorialists, at least when discussing non-Jews. I do believe that there are many Jews with influence who consciously wish to flood Western nations with non-whites (those here who think Jews will thrive under this non-white demographically hegemonic situation are quite wrong, however, as are the Jews themselves: they will do very poorly under full blown multiculti conditions where there is no longer a beneficent white majority protecting them). But most whites who go along with their own race-replacement do so sincerely: ie, they really don’t see a problem with proliferating numbers of non-whites, and often (mis)perceive advantages accruing from immigration. Nutty, to be sure, but only from either an ethnopatriotic or national survival/security perspective. The former violates their brainwashed liberal universalism, the latter they simply don’t recognize (as a function of the same mentality that succumbs to universalist nonsense in the first place).

Sadly, absent total anarchic social collapse, there is no way around acknowledging the need for mass de-programming of our people.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:48 | #

I forgot to add that I personally have known many sincere race liberals who are white (not Jews), do NOT hate their own race, do NOT individually benefit from immigration (and are harmed by affirmative action - at least the males), and yet support the whole multiculti agenda. They do so because they are silly fools (see this “Retew” above) and actually believe the nonsense. I am ceaselessly amazed at how gullible whites are, which, given that each generation is worse than its predecessor, has many profound implications for social psychology, and the social sciences more broadly. After all, how is it possible that a people can be brainwashed into supporting policies which violate its own interests?

Indeed, that question must surely be a conundrum for the more ‘deterministic’ in the MR community. With all your talk of EGI, the higher IQ of whites compared to most races, and the alleged (but false) non-existence of (moral) free will, how is race-replacement even possible in advanced, militarily powerful democracies like Britain and America?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:10 | #

Retew:

Name one regular contributor here who doesn’t think that racial differences in intelligence, criminal proclivity etc. exist, in line with MSF’s definition.

How can it be racist to think that?  Please explain.

that would only be true if we weren’t complicit in those changes, which we are by progressively making the countries they come from less and less habitable and this increasing the pressure on those people to emigrate.

Who is the “we”?  Do you mean “white men”?  Which white men, all of us?  Would it not, by your own definition, be racist to claim that, as well as outrageously false?

Would we have so many Somali immigrants if we weren’t ruining the seas they depend on for their food supply, by industrial scale fishing with trawlers against which their primitive boats can’t compete and toxic waste dumping in the Red Sea?

Because they are wanted here by the white men, oi vey, who run the global economy!  Do you really think the Third World could enter our lands en masse and unopposed if “we” had a government that served “our” interests?

“We” are the oppressed.  “We” are the voiceless.  “We” are the victims.  It is us, not Somalis, who are losing our lands and our collective life.

Retew, you are tied to a morally-impoverished, liberal-twit aesthetic of the kind we eviscerate every day.  When are you going to realise that, and give it up?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:25 | #

Leon,

The elites who push immigration are thoroughly deluded, but mostly sincere, fools, who combine a core racial egalitarian bias ...

Not the Jews among them.  No delusions there.  They know what Olam Ha-ba means, and what has to be done to achieve it.  Without it, there will be no Age of Messiac, and no perpetual supremacism for the Jew.

It is important to separate the interest groups in global elitism.  Sure, there are strands motivated as you say.  But there are others who are not.

I personally have known many sincere race liberals who are white (not Jews), do NOT hate their own race, do NOT individually benefit from immigration (and are harmed by affirmative action - at least the males), and yet support the whole multiculti agenda.

But they are no more than useful idiots.  They are not at Bilderberg or Davos, on the Trilateral or CFR, the Club of Rome, or any of the fora where the genuine elites meet and talk.

After all, how is it possible that a people can be brainwashed into supporting policies which violate its own interests?

See my comment here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/announcing_a_new_series_the_ontology_of_mind/#c97675

Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:46 | #

I am ceaselessly amazed at how gullible whites are, which, given that each generation is worse than its predecessor, has many profound implications for social psychology, and the social sciences more broadly.

Let’s skip the “profound implications” and settle for plainly noting what has happened. Our fathers were vile and so are we, said Horace, and doomed to bring forth still worse.

After all, how is it possible that a people can be brainwashed into supporting policies which violate its own interests?

Divagation for “normativity”, as the social sciences probably have it, is a human specialty. Whites have so divagated that they esteem adherence to abstract, universalized principles higher than adherence to tribal loyalties they long ago outgrew. The cult of reason, the Jews, urbanization, war, the media .... I’m surprised any whites are left acting semi-normally at all.

With all your talk of EGI, the higher IQ of whites compared to most races, and the alleged (but false) non-existence of (moral) free will, how is race-replacement even possible in advanced, militarily powerful democracies like Britain and America?

The higher you build that tower, the more you’ll find it wants to lean, warp, and topple.

Posted by uh on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:47 | #

*from

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:16 | #

Excellent summary by Bill in his last comment of the ways in which government quashes dissent on the subject of excessive incompatible immigration and its immediate social effects which people hate and would perfectly naturally rise against in the absence of this governmental mailed fist (Bill’s list) sternly warning them off the matter, a governmental mailed fist intended to keep the people at bay till the process be judged irreversible.  A glance at Bill’s list screams “hidden ulterior motive.”  The men in charge are not innocent or open with a clear conscience but furtive and calculating, pursuing a goal behind the scenes while cunningly rubbing their hands together, a goal they know the broad public would reject in an honestly-worded referendum (less and less though as the race itself changes more and more, as planned) and the clear aim is to force the lid down on the pressure cooker until as they see it there be an impossible-to-reverse fait accompli on the theory that “you can’t unscramble an egg.”  All that is what is screamed out at you as you glance at Bill’s list.

Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:28 | #

What a complete and utter load of bollocks from Retew.

As far as I know no Hull, Grimsby or Peterhead trawlerman has ever in history set off for the Red Sea (the coast of Somalia for the unintiated), rounding either the Cape of Good Hope or going via the Suez Canal (blocked until 1977), by way of Gibraltar and all points south, to fish in sea known for its paucity of fish - excepte perhaps the famous ‘shark fishery’ that keeps the fuzzy-wuzzies n protein.
There’s never been much call for steak of Tiger shark at yer typical British fishmongers, the rich bounty of the North Sea (cold water raises superior fish) cod, haddock,herring, plaice, whiting etc etc just a hop, skip and jump away fills the larders.

We does MR find these dicks?

Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:58 | #

Dan Dare,
          The picture is not ‘far more complicated’ than many would have believe.
Would the Victorian English (just a few generations prior to Windrush), for one second have put up with massive immigration and settlement of blacks?
  Would the English of the 1920s have done likewise?, at that time the English were known for taking race consciousness very seriously indeed - just look at the pains the British Raj took to keep the Indians ‘on the side of the line’, the refusal to fraternise, the blank refusal even to consider any type of social equality, how the Officers’ Clubs of the time kept the ‘browns’ out.
Going back further in time, how about Good Queen Bess and her edict to ‘cast out’ the ‘blackamores’ from the Realm?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:18 | #

Angry:

As far as I know no Hull, Grimsby or Peterhead trawlerman has ever in history set off for the Red Sea

Quite.  Whilst Retew can be absolved from expressing the usual quantum of liberal malice on the subject of white rights and interests, he is deeply infected with the ideology du jour and plainly accepts, like the eyeball-swivelling Prof Heinz Kiosk, that “WE ARE ALL GUILTY”.

He can grown up now.  No one is stopping him.

Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:40 | #

.....and just imagine.By the time the trawler reached home after weeks at sea in the boiling hot Red Sea and Mediterranean the catch would be reeking to high heaven.

Bengali timber?, Never heard of it, but it might have been imported at one time, but the fact remains that 99% of wood used in Britain either came from Scandinavia, Russia or Canada - think of all those good ol’ fashioned 2 x 8” floor joists in London’s myriad of Victorian semis.

As for Nigeria’s oil, well at $80 per barrel, the Nigerians have the bounty of the earth literally pouring out of the ground, how blessed they are as nation with a teeming population and no industry to speak of to have pennies from heaven showering on them, for zero effort on their part.
The fact that Big Chief Umbongo stuffes all the cash in his back-pocket is by-the-by.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:40 | #

Would the Victorian English (just a few generations prior to Windrush), for one second have put up with massive immigration and settlement of blacks?

No. But then neither would the Conservative governments of Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain during the 1930s. Then it all changed. Why?

Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:30 | #

Clement Attlee’s 1948 British Citizenship Act, tht expressly extended ‘Britis citizenship’ to the ‘Commonwealth’.
Enoch Powell correctly identified this as the watershed.At that time all non-Commonwealth immigration was strictly restricted by the ‘Aliens Act’ of 1900 (or thereabouts), which was specifically aimed at keeping Russian Jews out.Amongst provisions of that Act, all ‘aliens’ had to carry ID cards and report regularly to police stations to ‘sign in’ - it was a very strict and restrictive regime.Continental Europeans came under the scope of ‘alien’.
As usual, Powell was on the money.Why was the Commonwealth priveleged? - Well Empire was on the way out.Various politicians unable to face up to the fact that independence actually means independence tried to keep the notion of Empire alive as ghost or phantom by means of the Commonwealth, of which Britain was supposed to be the natural leader.The 1948 Act was a sop to this deranged and wrong-headed sentiment.

Posted by John on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:40 | #

What I would question is whether the managerial elite perceive such a presence in genocidal terms; few of them, particularly in the political branch, have the necessary long-term perspective to pursue a project that might take generations to come to fruition.

They have had this planned for at least 140 years:

But the future man of the American Republic will be a thoroughly composite being. It is not simply the union of the Mongolian and Caucasian types to which we are to look forward, but an agglomoration of almost all races and nationalities to make up the coming man. The old English of New England, Virginia, and the Carolinas, already blended with Huguenot, Norman French, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, French, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian blood, will receive from the Canadian French on the one side and the Hispano - Americans on the other, an accession of French, Spanish, and Portuguese blood not wholly free from an admixture in all degrees with the Northern Indian, the aztec, and the negro races, and these, with the blending in our own Southern and Southwestern States with the African stock, and the combination in the not distant future of Chinese, Japanese, Hindoo, Malay, and Polynesian, will give to the average American of a hundred years hence, a darker complexion and very different intellectual and moral characteristics from those which we possess today…”

One Hundred Years’ Progress of the United States, 1870.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:34 | #

Clement Attlee’s 1948 British Citizenship Act, tht expressly extended ‘Britis citizenship’ to the ‘Commonwealth’.
Enoch Powell correctly identified this as the watershed.

This is a common fallacy, and actually untrue.

The BNA 1948 had nothing whatsoever to do with migration, and British citizenship did not come into existence until 1981. The BNA48 conferred no rights to residence on British subjects that had not existed before.

What changed after 1945 was that the political will to deter and remove ‘undesirables’ evaporated. It is in coming to understand why and how that happened that we come to a real understanding of the root cause of the immigration debacle.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:46 | #

I am literally clueless on all this.

You put stock in the specifics.  Ergo, you’re clueless.  The specifics mean jack shit.  The Narrative is what counts; the mind-control machine issues the narrative, and the herd obeys.

In other words, the facts of history mean fuck-all in either case.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:49 | #

Clearly there is/was an evolutionary defect latent in the white race.

Yup.  We look enough like Ashkenazis that we’re vulnerable to their aggressive mimicry.