|
|
|
Ten years, and how much has really changed? Well, the politicians’ faces are different. Al Qaeda has been substantially replaced in the chamber of Moslem horrors by Islamic State. Public opinion is better informed, public patience shorter in supply. But none of the rest - the terrorist violence, the stubbornly bien pensant political language, the lies in the press, the Establishment’s oily submissiveness towards Islam: ... and its endless devotion to multiculturalism - has changed from ten years ago today, when the London bombings scarred British national life. In memory of that event, I thought I might reproduce the article I wrote just four days after it. I wonder if, in another ten years, the same alignment of forces will obtain, or whether something new and powerful and surprising will have entered the picture. A train journey through the geopolitics of Al Qaeda. Or make that liberalism. I don’t often travel to London these days. I can’t feel the same for the place as I did in my childhood. But it happened that last Thursday I was required to catch the 8.20 from Lewes to Victoria. The previous evening a Portugeuse client had flown in to London to meet with me next day at 10.00am in a Bayswater hotel. These guys pay the piper. So a trip to town could not be avoided. Actually, it was a pleasant enough journey - quiet carriage, no twenty stone slab of lard sitting next to me. The rush hour was mostly past. The train didn’t fill until it reached multicultural East Croydon. It got in to Victoria shortly before 9.30am. The next two hours of my life were spent going nowhere very fast and being dragged to the inevitable conclusion that my Portugeuse client would have to lunch alone. I learned from the station tannoy that the Underground was closed due to “incidents”. Other travellers, no less frustrated than I, had come into possession of the knowledge that somewhere a bus had been bombed. Then the tannoy confirmed it. Bus services were also suspended. Outside the station, London’s amazingly ubiquitous black cabs had become as rare as hens’ teeth. My mobile phone did not function. I assumed that weight of call traffic was the cause (only later did I learn that the system was switched off for fear of remote detonation of terrorist bombs). It was time to get out of town. Back in the station more and more outbound trains were logged on the main display board as “Delayed”. My next train home – the 11.47 - was one of them. A Brighton-bound train was about to leave. I ran for it and stepped thankfully into the second carriage from the back. I took a seat, and the train rolled almost noiselessly out of the station. Travel in and out of London is a thing of surpassing ordinariness and, although we all knew this could not be an ordinary day in the life of Londoners, nonetheless in that carriage there was an atmosphere of ineffably unremarkable routine. After a few moments, however, a youngish, scarcely European male walked through from the rear carriageway and stood by the door, next to another male passenger. Almost immediately the non-Euro struck up a conversation with the other man. He was talkative, in fact unnervingly effusive. His eyes were shining with happiness for no reason that I could comprehend. His accent was French … a French Moslem, a Berber perhaps or a half-Tunisian? Anyhow, he had a back-pack. I looked around at my fellow passengers. They were all engrossed in their own thoughts and conversations. No one had noticed him. But I had and I decided to be perfectly mean-spirited and put some distance between me and that pack on his back. Three or four carriages further on I found a sweetly agreeable “English” environment and took a seat. Opposite me, divided from me by a white table, was a small, casually dressed man of my age, I would say. He was speaking on his mobile phone. I tried mine. Still dead, mysteriously. I commented on it, half hoping he might let me use his phone to call home, but no. He said something I don’t now recall and we started to talk about our frustrated travelling plans. Like me he had started out from Lewes that morning but got no further than Victoria. Like me he had grabbed a ride on this train in case it was the only one heading out of Victoria in roughly the right direction. My companion was plainly an educated man, middle-class, my age and balding like me but possessed of a much more impressive cranium. I could quite see him delivering excruciatingly dull lectures on psychology at Sussex University. Certainly they would be dull because he was a tight and cautious little fellow, not at all noisy and expansive as I confess I am sometimes too prone to be. Still, I didn’t want us to be best buddies. Our conversation, limping somewhat, moved on to the (largely rumoured) events of the morning. “This sort of thing,” I said, “certainly concentrates the mind.” And I told him of the young Arab with a back-pack and my very easily-taken decision to move carriages.” I expected him to say something like, “Don’t blame you. I’d have done exactly the same.” But he didn’t. “You have absolutely no reason to go about being paranoid,” he said baldly. There was such an unmistakable distance and disdain in his voice, I was slightly taken aback. It was as though he had discovered dog-shit on his favourite slippers. He had fully intended to scold me, and felt no compunction in doing so. Obviously, I had offended against his moral code - probably twice, having not only rejected Back-Pack Guy on racial grounds but committed the unpardonable crime of inviting his approval of it. Well, I simply don’t make an obedient moral inferior to leftist academics. Fuck you pal, I thought. I know you now. I said sweetly, “If paranoia keeps you alive it seems eminently reasonable to me,” “What did you say?” he replied, as if no one could possibly defend racism on the grounds of not wishing to be blown up. I turned my thought-crime into a question. He didn’t answer. I don’t think he even looked at me. He turned his attention to his document case and fished out a substantial paperback. It was Donna Tartt’s “The Little Friend”. Perhaps he imagined he had found himself sitting opposite a real-life racist of the Old South. What a pity, then, he didn’t extend me the opportunity to fully confirm his suspicions. I don’t suppose he gave a second thought to his encounter with a low and boorishly unintellectual example of white cultural recidivism. But I find that little episodes like this are frequently more instructive than great events, even one as great as the London bombings. I have been thinking on it. At Gleneagles on the day of the attacks Our Great Leader said:
It is quite amazing to me how many folk, great and small, leap to the conclusion that “our values and our way of life” and “what we hold dear” are under attack. I hold my Englishness and my European cultural heritage dear. So far as I know, Islamic fundamentalism isn’t remotely interested in either. The fate laid in store by Allah the Great, Allah the Merciful for an irredeemable infidel like me is one of submission or pain and death. It says so in that squiggly writing of theirs. That is all fundamentalists need to know. Scarcely more accurate than Blair, last Friday’s Telegraph leader informed us as follows:
It is really very depressing to see presumably intelligent, thoughtful and well-informed people parade such a limited, Euro-centric understanding. Alright, there is Iraq. Iraq has changed the language. Iraq does beg the sort of question that Blair and the Telegraph leader writer attempt to answer. We are, after all, America’s reliable ally – as was Spain at the time of the Madrid bombings. And, in fact, not just Spain and Britain but all the twenty-three nations that have helped in the neocon War, reliable or not, have been “punished” in some cruel and disgusting way. I see how Western journalists and policy-makers might conclude that “it’s all about Iraq” or even “it’s all about us”. But they are completely, profoundly wrong. The function of Islamic terrorism is not to attack us per se. The blood on the tracks is but a vehicle. The true function of Islamic terrorism is to unite the Ummah, the nation of the believers, behind the drive to purify Islamic lands of all Western influence and of the associated corruptions of the local ruling elite. In a curious way that ought to ring a few bells with the radical right in Western politics since. If it is worthy of its name, it will want the great process of race-replacement reversed in the West and the corruption of cultural Marxism expunged. We ought to be believers in difference and in national sovereignty, others as well as our own. If Moslem fanatics want to radicalise the Ummah that is their right. We ought to be unconcerned except to ensure that, firstly, the Ummah does not extend to our lands and, secondly, we can do business with whoever emerges the victor in the oil-producing areas of the Middle East. Beyond that we have no pressing interest in the matter. Israel is not a pressing interest. As it is, the radical right is precluded from influence. In America, a Jewish-globalist movement has seized the Republican helm. Bush’s criminal, Israel-first strategy of implanting liberal democracy in the Islamic world is precisely what Al Qaeda sought from the West when it slammed those aircraft into the twin towers. The more clumsy and heavy-handed the response the better, because the Ummah is watching intently and will be swift to draw its conclusions. Britons, especially, should have understood this at once. For many long, bloody years we grieved the lives lost to Sinn Fein/IRA atrocities. We buried the dead, repaired and rebuilt the damaged masonry and we wondered how the Catholics of Northern Ireland could lend their support to such base inhumanity. But they did, that’s the thing. Sinn Fein/IRA understood and relied upon this all along. A “spectacular” equated directly to a heightening of support. The leadership drew its strength and determination to continue “blattering away” at the hated Brits wholly from this. And today, for all its continuing murderous thuggery and blatant duplicity on arms, it is the main party of opposition in Northern Ireland (or the north of the island of Ireland, as they insist on calling it). Terrorist violence works, especially in a racially sundered OMOV democracy, because it forces the issue of loyalty. When put to the test in this way, faith and blood are always stronger loyalties than liberal political inclinations or faux-humanitarianism. Sinn Fein/IRA proved it. Al Qaeda is in the process of proving it. So where does that leave us? Well, obviously, with a leader and with elites who, even as the bombs explode, espouse a subtle anti-racism (ie, racism against whites) and not so subtly embrace “moderate British Muslims”. Never mind its famously bloody borders, Islam is being commended to us yet again as this denatured thing, the religion of peace. But Islam is Abrahamic and, therefore, basically a vehicle for the ethnic struggles of the peoples of Arabia, the Indian sub-continent, South-East Asia, and North and West Africa. It is a cultural artefact of the people who created it and I am unconvinced that it and they are essentially, indisputably peaceful. It is as its scripture describes it, and that is not necessarily as these “moderate” (and, of course, “British”) clerics and our own liberal elites would have us believe. They each have their own agenda, after all. To isolate fundamentalism they must neutralise the appeal of Al Qaeda. For, if they cannot succeed in that, the Islam of the fundamentalists will propagate and eventually sweep away both their dominions. So when Blair speaks of “our” precious CP values rather than our blood and our kinship, and the determination not to forfeit “our” way of life rather than the English way of life, he is not being entirely dishonest. He is talking about the MultiCult, protecting the MultiCult, keeping us enslaved to the MultiCult. He is exhibiting precisely the defensiveness of my interlocutor on the Brighton train, albeit carefully packaged for public consumption. Nobody must cognise racial difference nor, of course, a different racial motivation. That would be paranoid, racist, boorish and all the other sins fingered under those strangely violent emotions liberals suffer when confronted by a white person’s love of kind. Our train did not reach Brighton. The conductor announced that a suspect package had been found at the terminus, and until it could be dealt with we must be held at Hassocks station. Finally, my phone had a connection and I could ring home. My wife answered and, yes, she would drive to Hassocks right away. In a last gesture of goodwill I broke the silence and offered my little liberal friend a lift to Lewes. He declined. He would wait, he said, until the train arrived in Brighton and then catch another to Lewes from there. I didn’t try persuasion. I would like to think he’s still there, a moral suicide bomber targeting the racist English so as to drive them into the arms of the MultiCult. Now, isn’t that a thing? Of course, the eponymous liberal would think that Al Qaeda is trying to bomb him into facing Mecca five times a day. That’s his own methodology with us and the MultiCult. Blair’s right. It doesn’t work. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:18 | # Is this the one: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/on_traction_and_a_farewell_to_a_political_friend 5
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:08 | # I share your view, Guessedworker, on most of what’s been written in that article by you, but the line I’m quoting below, is where I have serious disagreement.
Islam has not acted as a vehicle for ethnic struggles in the Indian Subcontinent (South Asia) and South East Asia, it is instead a grotesque and deliriously ridiculous anti-racialist and anti-casteist creed which was imposed upon a segment of the peoples in that area through subterfuge and by force. Sita Ram Goel touches on this in ‘The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India’. Islam did not walk in there peacefully, and it was never interested in representing South Asian peoples. It has always acted antagonistically to the interests of the people in that region. In addition to that, the story of the rise of the Malacca Sultanate in South East Asia at the behest of a scheme hatched by Arab traders against the Majapahit Empire and against the Kingdom of Siam, the rise of the Sultanate of Demak and the Sultanate of Pattani, and the way that Islam’s expansion was successfully resisted by the people of Siam (Thailand) and by the people of the Philippines, and how people even entered into agreements with Portugal and Spain to fight against Muslims, shows clearly that many in Asia are willing to stand against Abrahamic infectious corruption. In the case of the Buddhist Kingdom of Siam, they used to compete against the Hindu-Buddhist Srivijaya Empire for control over the regions that the Sultanate of Pattani would later occupy when it arose, and after the Srivijaya Empire waned, the Kingdom of Siam fought essentially alone against the Sultanate of Pattani - as Muslim warlords in Pattani were essentially the satraps of the Malacca Sultanate who patronised them - for about 100 years, before entering into a defence agreement with Portugal and Spain which allowed the Kingdom of Siam to finally actually defeat the Pattani Sultanate and recover the land. Events would transpire that would also lead to the collapse of the Malacca Sultanate, which is a large part of why Islam was not able to expand to the whole of South East Asia, and instead is contained in the modern day mostly within Malaysia and Indonesia, with some small pockets of Muslims lurking in places adjacent to those borders. The way that South East Asia should be looked at, is that all those places where you see tiny little pockets of Muslims within the borders of countries that adhere to Dharmic religions, and those Muslims are complaining that they are ‘oppressed’, those Muslims are generally the remnants of demographic invaders who were ruthlessly crushed and are now in the modern era trying to appeal to liberal centre-left sympathisers to bail them out. Myanmar is a case that should leap immediately to mind, where Muslims are continually agitating and trying to get ‘rights’, and the government of Myanmar is thankfully not falling for that trick. The Islamic terrorist threat in the South of Thailand is also a case of Muslims alternating between pandering for pity from liberals, and Muslims engaging in aggression against South East Asian people. To say that Islam are a representative of South or South East Asian racial aspirations would be to grant Islam a legitimacy that it should never have. You should not grant them that. In Asia in this regional context really only three categories of people exist, according to the ancient scholars and sages: Group 1 - Law of the Ghosts: Those who are loyal to the original shamanistic cultures and derivatives thereof and also the ancestors, and are walking on that path, or Group 1 and Group 2 can and do get along well together and collaborate with each other when the need arises for teamwork. Those who belong to Group 3 however will ultimately be brought under severe punishment if they do not change their ways (see for example: text on this in the Kalachakra Tantra). Every strategy should be used to prevent Islamic expansion and every strategy should be used to undermine Islamic influence. Islam can never be accepted as legitimate, and should never be accepted as being ‘indigenous’ to South or South East Asia. 6
Posted by yes it can happen here/ no you can't just escape on Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:21 | # As I have found myself in a frustration of a different kind - the frustration of a place that is still White and thusly with people being complacent for that reason - this piece from “English Electric” about how the West Country is not a safe haven for White flight is a warning to those at present comfortably ensconced among their Euro-folk. It is a common rejoinder of Europeans (who have no experience of America) that Americans have a good situation, “because America is so big that they can just escape to places to get away from people they don’t like” - for example, from non-Whites. An honest and racially aware American will inform them of the myriad of ways in which that is not true - you cannot escape America in America. With that, you cannot escape the imposition of non-Whites upon you. I would begin by the example of my own family and its move from the growing black population and its menace in 1960’s Newark, New Jersey: Newark in 1926, the year after my father was born there: Newark in 1967, two decades after blacks started moving there in volume and five years after we left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf9Ea_9QKMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2ObNqHq7E We moved from Newark to the mostly White and upwardly mobile Montclair, so us kids could have access to “better schools” - or so my father cited as a prime reason for the move. Of course I got bussed to go to school clear on the other side of town, to the black part, by edict of The Montclair Board of Education in a program of “integration” of Whites with blacks (and what a nightmare that was). Nevertheless, while most other people seemed far more able to undergo self denial about the growing menace, in the back of my head I always felt that I would one day escape to a White place and be with Whites who wanted to stay White, yet retain the advantages of being in America. Tragically, I found that the rule structures and demographic make-up of America made that impossible. Ultimately, there was nowhere to escape where you could protect yourself and your legacy in America. I would have to leave. Now in Europe, I can’t help but clearly imagine a Dutchman in the overwhelmingly White Holland of times gone by saying, “oh that could never happen here.” Same with the French, “oh that could never happen, look at the wars we fought to defend our people and land - sacrebleu!” And on the denial, “that it couldn’t happen here or that you can just escape there.” But it did and you can’t. This article from Morgoth’s by English Electric makes the point once again, movingly:
More egregious than denial that the problem could come to White places in Europe, is the foolish and spiteful rejoinder of those nationalists or liberals who say, “that’s their problem” or even “they deserve it”: e.g., it is the problem of The French, The Greeks, The Italians, The English, etc. No they don’t deserve it… ..and as if it could not have spill-over effect.
9
Posted by Not A Cuckservantine on Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:58 | #
No need to be shaken. It is easy to imagine your intelligent, liberal/libertarian gentleman friend dispassionately discussing the disposition of racist, anti-semitic you and yours at dinner. Here’s a visual aid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU#t=520
10
Posted by Republican bait on Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:44 | # A trivial comment from a trivial person (Not A Cuckservantine). I will leave it for GW to delete, if he’d like. I would, if I were him. However, he might like a chance to see it, respond, or he may be simply eager to ignore it. Abortion is one of those issues that Republicans and people like this commentor would use to bait White people to imply that they are on their side and not the side of plutocrats, international corporations, YKW, etc.
11
Posted by Africans slated for Poland on Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:01 | # yes it can happen here/ no you can’t just escape.. http://whitegenocideproject.com/poland-stabbed-in-the-back-by-their-leaders-africans-on-their-way/
12
Posted by Not A Cuckservantine on Wed, 15 Jul 2015 23:54 | # Hey Cucks, Here’s another important cuckservantine issue to wrap your minds around! 13
Posted by No need for kosher filtered news on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:43 | # Quit trying to trivialize our threads, Not A Cuckservantine. We don’t need kosher news, there are plenty of places to go for that:
14
Posted by Not A Cuckservantine on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:50 | #
Abortion wasn’t the point,
15
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:16 | # Well, rather than telling him what you didn’t intend the point to be, you should instead tell him what the actual point was supposed to be! 16
Posted by Baitul Futuh mosque on fire on Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:48 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Dude on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:10 | #
What has changed of course, in some ways, is that over 50% of people in the UK now voice dissatisfaction with multiculturalism, which I think can fairly be translated as Muslim folkways. What to do with that 50% and how to edge them closer to the recognition of in-groups and group selection etc, away from assimilationist belief, is another thing.
As I said recently elsewhere, I like the chronology that has appeared, one could, if one wished, begin the beguine. See the trajectory of MR, through its various stages and attempts to engage, see the bright (and not so bright) come and go, friendships form and fracture.
On which subject: where’s the GW essay (essays?)that I could not find in a previous search on the dropping of ‘Conservative’ themes with a racial tint to a more avowed racial tint, with traditional mores more as a walk-on part?