The allure, or the danger, of political realism

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 31 March 2012 00:11.

I had a brief online exchange today with Paul Weston, leader of British Freedom, the post-LJB party of cultural nationalism. Paul frequently comments at the DT, cutting a capable and clued-up figure. Today, he arrived on the thread to an Ed West piece on the maverick George Galloway’s rather remarkable by-election victory in the hitherto safe Labour seat of Bradford West.

There have been opinion pieces galore on Galloway’s triumph. Most, like West’s, have talked about the implications it may hold for a new politics of identity. Galloway, of course, appeals to the Moslem electorate. An ethnic sundering of voting habits may be in train, and that would spell destruction for the big three parties and a huge opportunity for the minnows. Paul Weston, as the new leader of a very new minnow, certainly understands that, and took the opportunity to expand upon it on the thread. My replies follow suite. I may have been a little hard on him. But I just don’t believe in this necessity to disavow our true purpose.

paulweston

I respectfully disagree Ed, that poor whites will turn to the Conservative Party.

I am afraid the old order is changing now, and nothing can stop it. When the native British were still “native” the old political order could have continued on for many more decades.

But the importation of foreign races and cultures has effectively ended that. Over the coming years we will see more division and societal friction, more riots, more rapes and murders and more retaliation from the whites.

It is unprecedented that an ancient race of warlike people (the English) could possibly accept their soon-to-be-minority status in a land much fought for, when faced with a clear and growing vision of how their children and grandchildren will be treated when they become a minority.

We are entering Weimar Republic times Ed. The 2015 elections will probably be the last of the historical political order in Britain. After that it becomes impossible to predict, but a new era of angry “monocultural” politics is fast descending upon us.

I no longer fully believe our future survival can be ensured peacefully, so why Blair and Brown are not facing treason trials is quite beyond me. I can only hope they will be held to account one day at our own version of Nuremberg.

Paul Weston
British Freedom Party
http://britishfreedom.org/

billprendergast

Paul,

Not 2015. In my view - and I think I know rather more about the entirety of this subject than you do - we have til the middle of the 2020s to make politics.

And by “we” I mean the English people, and by “politics” I mean racial nationalism, not the weak-tea, Muamba-weeping, culturism to which you and your party subscribe.

If we have not made these politics by 2025 or thereabouts, then the failure of that modus of salvation will be noted by men of a non-political nature. Another form of resistance will begin to crudesce, and within ten years we shall see warfare.

Let us hope that politics will be possible. But it must be a decisive and honest politics to which our people can look for their salvation. I know Lee - I have interviewed him - and I understand that culturism has come about as a response to political reality. Here is my challenge to that view:

Change the reality. Fight the war of discourse so that the political war can be fought on a true basis, and all that political correctness has put beyond speech in the last twenty years can be the public profession of any and every loyal Englishman.

paulweston

Politics is the art of the possible. The vast majority of the electorate, or Middle England, remain blissfully unaware of what is going on in this country, and what has been done TO the people of this country.

This is why they will not vote for an explicitly nationalist party a la BNP, as should be evident by the recent election results.

You may deride my party as “Muamba weeping,” but I can tell you now, a “Muamba bashing” party ain’t going anywhere politically.

billprendergast

You fail to understand that the relationship of nationalism to liberalism is revolutionary.

If you do not know this ... if you do not know that you can’t simply finesse your way from a liberal polity to a nationalist one, you do not know nearly enough.

As I said, I understand why good guys, unquestionably, who have given years ... decades ... to the cause of saving our people should think that “realism” will get further than truthfulness. It is an alluring thought. But it ignores the essential character of nationalist and liberal politics.

This is the problem:

Liberalism as a thought-world invests all of us within it with presumptions about our individuality. Liberalism is the politics of the unfettered will, and “unfettered” here means the breaking of all the bounds ... those of our race, our gender, our sexuality ... everything. The breaking of the bounds is the precondition for self-authoriality as the sole arbiter of the fully human.

Now, that is an intellectual formulation of something that is so intrinsic to our polity and the way of life that can be practised in it, that most people have no idea that any of this applies to them. But it all applies to them.

The politics of the unfettered will ineluctably denies and dismisses the nature of men, their sense of history and belonging and connectedness, their love, their peoplehood, their very being. Nationalism, as the politics of all that ... the politics of the genetic interests of peoples ... is so profoundly separate from liberalism’s self-authorial obsession, and so hostile to it, no bridge, no political path exists to carry the individual to his natural self.

That is the problem, Paul. Your problem. And that is why the only possible political stance for nationalists is revolutionary. Yes, within the liberal umbrella politics is the art of the possible. But saving our people is not within the liberal umbrella.

I commend you to a deeper understanding of the politics you (almost but not quite) profess.

paulweston

Bill, politics will become increasingly revolutionary, just as you state. BUT, a party that stakes out its claim today as explicitly ethno-nationalist is doomed to fail. As I have said before, politics is the art of the possible.

billprendergast

Paul,

You are not staking your claim. You are advancing the ethnic interests of Africans and Asians. You are respecting the lineaments of political correctness and anti-white statute. You are in the position of a beggar trying to con a few bob out of the next mark, not a leader of our people.

Leadership in postmodernity requires the power to define one’s own politics, to communicate one’s own Weltanschauung, and to carry the day. When all that appears in our political lives, it will not talk apologetically about culture and shared values. It will not open the door further to our race-replacers. It will show them the door.

I do believe that the cultural experiment might as well be tried. But we should be under no illusion that the true politics of our people’s survival is something quite magnificently different to that, and we are only going to survive with it.

When it comes, you will need to get out of its path and not cling to your achievements, whatever they may be. If you see yourself as anything more than a herald of the coming good, you will become a damned nuisance and obstruction.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:03 | #

GW, it would be interesting to have Paul join us here to put the case for cultural nationalism. Perhaps he might make a better fist of it than Lee John Barnes. Do you suppose that might be arranged?

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:04 | #

Having read through a number of Paul’s contributions at Gates of Vienna, especially the three-part series on How to Destroy a Country (here, here and here), I have to say that I find his diagnoses to be quite acute, while at the same time feeling that his historical analysis and, in particular, his curative prescriptions to be somewhat simplistic.

Nevertheless, he appears to represent a quantum leap forwards in terms of intellectual contribution for an aspiring British nationalist leader. If only he could be persuaded to look beyond the drearily familiar triumvirate of hard leftists, their liberal familiars and militant Islam as the root cause of our travails then the BFP might be something to put our shoulder behind.

Quite promising, though.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 07:41 | #

Leadership in postmodernity requires the power to define one’s own politics, to communicate one’s own Weltanschauung, and to carry the day. When all that appears in our political lives, it will not talk apologetically about culture and shared values. (billprendergast)

What is the response when this type of “politics” lands one in jail?

I incline towards Paul Weston’s position. “Gradual radicalization” is the answer. A party is needed focused relentlessly on damage (ie, immigration) control. It must build up that moderate position to one of vast popularity. It does not even need to discuss race or EGI - at first. Once immigration has ceased, then the party will be strengthened and in a position to ‘up’ its demands. People like winners, and are afraid of associating with losers, especially in something so sensitive as racial politics.

Posted by Robert Reis on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:02 | #

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/the-reason-beta-males-pedestalize-women/#comments

Posted by The Hyperbolic Dirty Bull on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:19 | #

I hope I’m not guilty of hyperbole here, but in my humble opinion, Galloway’s overwhelming political victory is the biggest seismic event in Britain’s sorry post-war multi-racial history (bigger than the Powell speeches), and also probably the most shocking by election since Orpington way back in the 60s.
Here are the facts. A constituency which has an overwhelmingly Pakistani Muslim population votes for an explicitly self-interested political party, strip out all the fluff, and that’s all that ‘Respect’ stands for. It is notable that Pakistanis have the gumption to do what the indigenous British have consistently failed to do and most likely never, ever will do ie vote for a party of their own racial self interest.
It was also remarkable to see the Pakis discard like a used dish-cloth a political party that bowed, scarped, grovelled and privileged them to an obscene degree, when that said party was no longer useful to them.
Anyway, my point is that the Muslim population is growing massively and exponentially in this country, whist ethnic Britons continue to decline precipitiously. The implications are obvious - the Pakistanis will vote for their own people and interests.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:33 | #

Comment I tried to leave on one of those threads (couldn’t recall my password):

Can’t you English weaklings rise up and demand the RACIAL CLEANSING of England? Who needs these worthless Muslims anyway?

1. STOP ALL non-European/white immigration
2. Round up and expel all illegal aliens on pain of death should they ever return to the UK
3. Eliminate all benefits for immigrants
4. Begin the long campaign for TOTAL RACIAL EXPULSION OF ALL NON-WHITES FROM UK SOIL.

“GREAT” Britain will not survive without these measures.

I will never understand how you Europeans were so feckless and unable to learn from America’s Negro disaster, which was perfectly transparent for the whole world as far back as the race riots of the 1960s (actually, since before I was born).

Indeed, GW, you have lived your entire life in the shadow of Britain’s insanely unnecessary racial decline.

You were born in what no one would have questioned as being a white nation. You may die in Third World Britain. Oh, the books that are yet to be written explaining how that transition was ever effected, and not only legislatively, but psychologically: what was wrong with the Europeans? Why no rebellions, once the scope of the damage ensuing from multiracialism started becoming apparent?

I think I know why. It was the fault of the Left. They have dominated global intellectual life since before WW2. They laid the ground work for the moral consensus which still to this day renders ethnonational patriotism and even mere biological realism morally suspect if not odious. Nationalism will go nowhere until there is a countervailing morality (which must be a majority of the white population(s)) legitimizing racial realism, and the way of life which grows out of that.

Posted by Comprehensiveboy on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:42 | #

“It was also remarkable to see the pakis discard like a used dish-cloth a political party that bowed, scarped, grovelled and priveleged them to an obscene degree, when that said party was no longer useful to them.”

Touche. A well known scene from the film Alien springs to mind. The advantage of this rather stark occurance is that it may, as Dirty Bull says, serve as a key awakening point for some elements of the native political classes. Having made this balanced and sage like utterance to suggest my inate reasonableness, my narural response, I’m sure like of many ordinary British people is “F******g Hell!” The sound of the british people crying this in sprontaneous unison is the only way this will be stopped. May God strengthen our arm.

Posted by A Pensive Dirty Bull on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:57 | #

From a historical perspective, the disastrous train-wreck fuck-up that was the shitty New Labour regime of 1997-2010 will most likely be remembered as not only the regime that more or less destroyed the English *people* (the open door policy was really the final coup-de-grace of a long, protracted process, but it set the seal on the same and made it more or less irrevocable), but also destroyed the nation state that the British people moulded as a home for themselves.
As GW rightly says, politics in Britain is unlikely to be the same again, a spanner has been cast into the works of the duopoly, and what eventually emerges from the wreckage remains to be seen. Ed West might be on to something, but like GW I strongly doubt that England’s great chavy lumpen proletariat can ever, ever be persuaded to vote Tory - they’d rather not bother voting at all.
So far they have proved impervious to all entreaties and blandishments from nationalists.
Another Labour monumental fuck-up, Scottish devolution messes things up even more. As we all know, Labour would never again be in a position to govern England if Scotland goes - which is more likely than not.
What will this mean?, Is one party Tory rule really on the cards?, will Labour pander even more to the ethnics? and what of UKIP - they seem to me to be people to watch.

Posted by PM on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:43 | #

What to make of the fact that the Muslims cannot find a leader from amongst their own? There are plenty of doctors and lawyers within their ranks, yet the qualities needed to form a leadership cadre in an advanced Western democracy still seem beyond them, meaning they have to rely on a wily old socialist steeped in the ways of Westminster to advance their cause….for the time being.

On a fundamental level Asians, even the smart ones, just do not ‘get’ Western society. They do not understand how things work, who are the people that matter, where lie the levers of power and influence. This is why whenever their dumb-asses make a shitty bomb they would rather direct it towards a night-club full of those symbolic Western ‘sluts’ that they love to hate, rather than, say, a far better target like Glastonbury.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:35 | #

C’mon, PM, you know you can’t generalise night-club bombing to a couple of billion people, whether Asians grasp the fundamental of democratic politics notwithstanding.

Posted by PM on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:55 | #

Actually GW I was rather regretting that comment for the first half of my statement, rather than the second (yes, it was a generalisation, but their choice of targets and rhetoric often does show how little they really know of their new homelands).

If there are those within the Islamic community who possess Western political savvy, then they must be men like the defeated Labour candidate in Bradford Imran Hussain. I was perhaps too struck by the incongruous sight of this white Marxist Scotsman leading a Muslim party, and my mind wandered back to countless editions of Question Time and other news programmes in which I have seen Islamic community leaders and ethnics give utterly woeful and ignorant performances, often in broken English. It was an extrapolation too far.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that up to this date the Muslim community has been in the position of the British far right—that the ambitious and educated amongst their ranks would not touch extremist or ethnic parties with a ten-foot pole, preferring instead the safety and status that comes from the endorsement of the establishment parties.

So, now that they can see that they have the potential support, maybe the next stage in this shift for the Muslim community will be when men like Hussain decides that his future no longer lies with Labour but with leading his own people, and shove Galloway aside in the way he has shoved the Labour party aside?

So…if Respect is a nascent Islamic party, could not the same thing be the case of Weston’s for the English? Could it not be used to create a groundswell of acceptable moderate-sounding support before entryists shove him aside in favour of a better candidate?

PS Galloway’s comments on his victory are worth reading. I like this—

“This peaceful, democratic uprising comes from the same wellspring of discontent and alienation that fuelled disturbances in British cities last summer. But it is a positive counterpoint – bringing forth a new generation of political leaders, not another cohort trapped in the criminal justice system. Every politician should take notice, as they did not last summer”

Well, who can argue with that? It certainly seems like the same wellspring to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/bradford-version-of-riots

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:01 | #

Dirty Bull

Why would Scottish independence be bad - a small homogeneous (97%+ Euro) European nation is a good thing, yes? It would also allow English political life to start to question the old ways of doing things. The emergence of a little England and the recovery of English ‘cultural political’ from the dying shell of Britishness might also be a very good thing too.

Britain is rapidly becoming a ‘failed state’ - I too have a deep emotional attachment to the Isles but let’s put aside our ‘expressive feelings’ for some analytical sharpness. The SNP are, unwittingly, English nationalisms biggest allies - I think the death of the UK is once in an epoch opportunity for the English not a threat. Equally that is true for the Scots and in a post-Union Scotland I would be happy to be very active in a new ‘postmodern’ implicitly ethnocentric ‘right’.

Serious English nationalism needs to think through these issues - working class people are not going to become Tories but they do want an alternative to all of the mainstream parties - and in time so will the middle-classes. Understanding what they need to do to be a successful ‘catch-all’ political movement is vital - how to appeal across the lines of socio-economic stratification - both a section of the educated middle-classes and a segment of the working classes is sociologically necessary to gain traction. It’s not either or. The ability to modulate tone and register as appropriate is part of being a successful political machine. The working classes have their particular worries and so increasingly do the middle classes. Understanding how to articulate both is important.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:49 | #

I have been reviewing the BFP’s constitution and manifesto (available here) and find that the only thing I would take serious exception to is the commitment to withdraw from the EU. Both seem to be quite cleverly crafted, in that they press all of the necessary buttons and are unlikely to appeal to the overwhelming majority of ethnics. while at the same time sailing close to, but not transgressing, current Equality and Diversity regulations.

I don’t see any reason why the BFP, should it avoid further doctrinal schisms and develop critical mass, could not be a useful ‘halfway house’ for ethno-nationalists. The major issue I see at the moment are the Zionist-tinged tendencies of its leader, but perhaps he could be persuaded to quietly drop those since they are, in truth, not just completely unnecessary but also counter-productive.

Again, GW, could you invite him here for a chinwag? That should be somewhat easier to swing now that the Richards Tendency appear to have decamped for pastures new, I should have thought.

Posted by A Reflective Dirty Bull on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:02 | #

PM,
Pakistanis living in Britain have been anything but ‘politically naive or unsophisticated’ neither have their oldtime symbiotic partners in crime, the Labour Party.
The deal (until bollock-brained Blair fucked it up in 2003), was as follows - Labour panders to the pakis, allows them to import as amny spouses and OAPs as possible, the pakis delivered sackfulls of votes (literally, in the case of widespread postal voting fraud). Both sides gained handsomely, a true win-win gain if there ever was one.Labour had a rock-solid voting base - the pakis got racial priveleges and the ‘right’ to import close kin.
The deal was all brokered through senior Labour big-wigs - fat, corrupt, cunning old style gangsters of the Roy Hattersley school and Pakistani elders (basically wizened old henna bearded men who run UK pakidom like tribal chiefs).
As I said it worked like a charm until shit-for-brains Blair fucked it up by being Bush’s bitch over Iraq and Afghanistan.
The hatred and anger that UK pakis feel over both cannot be under-estimated. Galloway a canny, callow Scot with strange sympathies and loyalties, exploited it to the hilt plus a bit of blather about zionists and palestinians, another point, the Jews cannot like the Bradford result.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:07 | #

This article explains a lot as regards British Freedom Party and is produced by the England First Party ;

http://efp.org.uk/british-freedom-party-hosted-by-terrorist-group/

Paul Weston is a nice guy on a personal level, but the problem is that he has linked the BFP to the Zionists completely.

The BFP is now not just pro-Israel, it is now run for the benefit of the international zionists who want to provoke a clash of civilisations in the UK and to profit from it politically.

Paul Weston is not an Ethno-Nationalist, he is not even a cultural nationalist - he is in fact a Kosher Conservative.

The BFP is now also Kosher Conservative not Cultural Nationalist.

Dan Dare though, as usual, is too thick and ignorant to understand the difference.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:24 | #

On a marketing point I would drop the term British from the name of any political party in England - be as neutral as possible - the “Freedom Party” isn’t too bad or “Radical Democrats” or some such.

I have no real issue with a tactical ‘Zionist’ public face for a reformist party - the trouble is do such people actually ‘support’ Israel in their heart of hearts? - if they do they are effectively useless shabbos goy. My own ‘line’ on that topic is that Israel is just another nation that the UK/England will deal with in our own national interest and on the Palestinians say it’s as much their historical homeland as anyones and that a multi-ethnic ‘one state’ solution (with equal rights for all) is the appropriate one in that region.

But why not have this chap engage at MR - we don’t bite - well not too hard anyway! I don’t follow the personality politics of British nationalism (bald men having a fight over a comb springs to mind) so I have no idea who or what he is.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:31 | #

Has Weston ever responded to this, Lee?

... By any standards, it is astonishing that the leader of a British nationalist political party should associate so closely with the Jewish Defense League. If Paul Weston was acting
out of ignorance, he should educate himself before presuming to act as a political leader.
If he was acting in full knowledge of the JDL’s record, then he is unfit for any association
with British nationalists.

[Taken from your link]

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:36 | #

A question for Lee - where do England First and British Freedom differ in terms of objectives and policy?

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:48 | #

Paul Weston has been linked to the Jewish Defence League for years. See here, here, here.

As for the BFP and EFP - I have no idea what the EFP stand for and I no longer have anything to do with the BFP.

I left when they decided to link with the EDL.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:52 | #

Interesting. All the more reason to have here for a chat.

Sorry, Lee I had the impression that you had moved to England First. My mistake.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:57 | #

No, I am not involved in any nationalist parties.

They are all fucking useless and run by halfwits, crooks, drunks and perverts.

The nationalist political struggle is finished - the only way forward is the social struggle.

We need community, cultural, legal, civil rights and social movements - not political parties.

The nationalist social struggle must precede the nationalist political struggle - and as that has not happened, then nationalist politics is a total waste of time.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:26 | #

Linking with the EDL seems to be a spectacular own goal, as well as being totally unnecessary.

What possible benefit could accrue to a new party, which has just purged its previous ‘tainted’ leadership cadre in an effort to on take a veneer of electoral respectability, in aligning itself with the second-most vilified ‘extremist’ organisation after the BNP itself?

I’d really like to hear Paul Weston’s explanation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:01 | #

Well, I have sent a request through the party website, Dan. So we’ll see if he responds.

It is much rumoured that the EDL is close to establishing a party of its own, so I guess the BFP is trying to prevent that happening. It would be curtains for them if it did.

It does seem that the Breivik Axis - EDL + JDL + Zionist blogs like GoV, Spencer, BJ - is gearing up to occupy the space left by the (almost but not quite) collapse of The Griffin Party. I still find at the DT a huge groundswell of negative feeling about Islam. There is a constituency. It is a tragically mistaken constituency, but ever since 9/11 the public perception of Islam has been shaped by the media and by government. People are suggestible.

I don’t think we should assume that anti-Islamic politics represents a half-way rest on the road to racial consciousness. I see it as wrong turning and a cul-de-sac.

Posted by JM on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:02 | #

I think that the anti-islam thing is a wrong turn too.

It mistakes symptoms for causes.

The muslims are a symptom - a parasitical opportunistic group who are moving into a vacuum.

The cause is Jewish ethnic warfare. Anything that stops people realising that is a bad thing.

The reality is that if the muslims left tomorrow, soon we would be dealing with another threat conjured up by the Luftmensch.

They are the ones we need to face up to not the wogs. Deal with the Jews and the wog thing goes away quickly.

Another aspect of the wog thing that annoys me is that we are being asked to set ourselves up in an alliance with poofters, Jews, wimmin, cripples and other ethnics who all united with the wogs against white men when it suited them. Now one element of that unholy alliance is breaking ranks we are supposed to step in and bail the alliance rump out. Well, like fuck will we. Saving that alliance improves my position from being the lowest of the low in their eyes to being one up from the lowes of the low. If the wogs took over even they would give us a better deal than that so we owe it to ourselves not to play this fraudulent game. I prefer to play to be number one, not number nothing.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:26 | #

Is it just me, or has the text size of MR appear to have shrunk a bit?

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:41 | #

It’s the march of time Leon, it comes to us all eventually.

But no, it appears just the same to me

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:24 | #

Now it looks back to normal to me, too.

So far, the march of time is more visible at my waistline and hairline, which unfortunately seem to be inversely correlated, and moving in precisely the opposite directions from what I would wish.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 04:18 | #

If we have not made these politics by 2025 or thereabouts, then the failure of that modus of salvation will be noted by men of a non-political nature.

*yawn*

The English don’t have those kind of balls.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 04:21 | #

They are all fucking useless and run by halfwits, crooks, drunks and perverts.

LOL

Takes one to know one, Barnesy, you feckless bastard.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:27 | #

The English don’t have those kind of balls.

Well, who does, these days?

Not yer krauts that’s for sure. Nor yer stateside faux krauts either, they’re as likely to head for the hills as to face Rastus in his pomp.

How’s the American Defense League coming along Cap’n?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:26 | #

I wrote this comment on AR’s site in response to a book review by Jared Taylor of what might be called a work of Left-nationalism, the kind that might be expected to appeal to the Kai Murros wing of ‘global white nationalism’, which I argue includes a number of writers here:

http://amren.com/features/2012/03/a-radical-left-plan-for-racial-survival/

This was a good review of an interesting, if undoubtedly wrongheaded book .... The reviewer hit the main objections, namely, that the modern Left is defined by its moral commitment to diversitarianism and white race-replacement, and that any egalitarian economic platform will disproportionately negatively impact white Americans, who own most of the property and businesses, and pay most of the taxes (this is true even when we remove Jewish families from the equation).

I would add one more criticism, one which I have spent time trying to get into the heads of the various British and European nationalists at majorityrights.com, at least some of whom would be sympathetic to Herr Herfurth’s positions. One cannot ask people to change their basic psychology and moral values, at least not immediately. Such change has occurred at many points in history, but it only had practical effects when it was aligned with some basic grievance or sense of injustice. It is far easier to effect change when such change is presented as compatible with, or even integral to, the majoritarian moral values of the group or people at issue.

Contrary to Herfurth, most white Americans do not perceive our system of political economy to be fundamentally unjust, even if it in fact is unjust (and I would not assert that). Those who do feel this way are leftists, who are also overwhelmingly supportive of racial integration. Most white Americans, especially non-Jewish ones, are basically conservative, though not harshly so (and not to the extent we once were). If this assertion is correct (and electoral data would seem to bear me out), which racial politics is likelier to succeed : one which emphasizes a revolutionary economic agenda, or one which seeks to persuade the average white American that the present racial situation is a perversion of our nation’s fundamental principles (which it is in fact)?

Ultimately, there are no clever political solutions to a problem which is (still for the moment) educational and finally moral. All too many white Americans still do not understand the biology and sociology of race differences, and thus continue to fall prey to the lies (and hence “solutions”) of egalitarian liberalism. And even more debilitating, far too many whites continue to think that a politics founded on race realism and authentic racial justice for whites is morally problematic (in particular, that it would be un-Christian). The solution remains to disseminate the facts of race as widely as possible, while concurrently producing a new public understanding (at least among whites) of the morally allowable and even mandatory scope of efforts to prevent white extinction. (Haller)

I know I’ve made this point before, but as these issues seem to go round in circles, I feel it ought to be made again here. Who is the base of English nationalism? I realize that the Kai Murros/Alex Linder/Jimmy Marr Squad already thinks this is the wrong question, and that if we show ‘pride’ by parading around in chic uniforms, we will excite the masses into swarming our way. I’m skeptical.

Nationalism may as a movement be about far more than quotidian politics. But it is only through legislative change that we can realistically end immigration, and that is the sine qua non of white survival. As a race, we are so outnumbered globally, and our people are so devoid of instinctual clannishness, that it is only by constituting sovereign territorial demographic majorities that we will survive. We simply must maintain white majoritarian nations, and I fear that current levels of immigration will overwhelm our historic ones, especially if we insist on a nationalist politics, either in policy or in style, too far removed from majoritarian outlooks and values. Recognizing this is called “political realism”.

I think GW has it exactly backwards. The ‘allure’ for nationalists is in eschewing political realism in favor of exotic displays of ‘heroic politics’ - often confused with adherence to first principles. A passionate, denunciatory style may feel good, but will it aid in ending immigration as soon as possible? That should be the question uppermost in any political discussion.

I’m a foreigner, and my knowledge of the UK is scanty. But I do think England’s only hope lay in getting Conservative MPs convinced of the need for immigration cessation. I think the way to do that is for nationalists to be as Conservative as possible, while stressing the dangers, for the Tory party and the interests of its voters, of not ending the invasion. I also think nationalists should commit to one of two paths: either start a single-issue anti-immigration party, to threaten Tory “wets”, or seek to infiltrate the Tories as much as possible, with the goal of an internal party revolution on racial issues.

In mature democracies, radicals cannot start by advocating the end goal, and working towards it. One must gradually radicalize, pushing the Tories just a bit on a nationalistically popular issue like immigration, then pushing some more, and more ....

Posted by Trainspotter on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:30 | #

Leon Haller: “I will never understand how you Europeans were so feckless and unable to learn from America’s Negro disaster, which was perfectly transparent for the whole world as far back as the race riots of the 1960s (actually, since before I was born).”

I hear you. I remember feeling this way back in the 80’s and 90’s, before developing a real understanding of the system and the anti-white elites, Jewish and otherwise, who dominate it. Even with that knowledge, and this may cut more closely at what you are alluding to, it still disturbs me that more of the native population has not mounted a meaningful resistance to blatant non-white colonization.

As you say, the race problem has been broadly evident in this country for generations - really from the beginning. But sticking more closely to recent decades, we have riots, rapes and murders galore. We have massive wealth transfers, the destruction of literally thousands of formerly good neighborhoods and schools, legal discrimination against whites, and a massive level of cultural destruction for good measure. Is this not plain enough, for anyone with eyes to see?

Apparently not. In time, and to my great astonishment, I found that in many European circles the United States is looked upon as a “model” of racial integration and success. Yep…we’re a success story! Unbelievable.

I remember talking to a well educated Czech girl about the racial situation in the United States (she had married an American, by which I mean a white, and planned to stay here permanently). This was approximately ten years ago, during the boom and before the bust. Apparently she had not been brainwashed sufficiently at that time, because without prompting from me she plainly stated that she wanted to live in a white community. She made no pretense whatsoever of being race blind, or adhering to the absurd “race doesn’t matter” pablum. She even expressed concern that her homeland would follow in America’s footsteps, and that non-whites would pour into Prague. She wasn’t radical in the sense that I am, just a nice girl with legitimate racial concerns.

Were it not for what she said next, I probably wouldn’t even remember the conversation at all. I talk to people all of the time, and it’s not as if the above was exactly groundbreaking in its revelatory power. But then she said, “It seems to work.” By this she meant globalization, free trade, and mass immigration of non-whites. She said this without enthusiasm, perhaps even with regret, almost as if she understood or at least sensed the inevitable cost of this monstrosity “working.”

But it seems to work…materialism uber alles.

Let me tell you, any European kinsmen reading this who still live in lilly white areas. It doesn’t work - even in the material sense, except for the minority of whites who are positioned to exploit the non-white colonizers. For almost everybody else, non-white influx just means that racial aliens scoop up all of the affordable housing, making it very difficult for young whites to get going in the world. They bring rape, crime and disease. They destroy trust. They destroy entire neighborhoods, one after another, and the schools with them. The less fortunate whites are washed under the mud tide, often going native (I should say alien) until they are either murdered or miscegenated out of our tribe. Everyone else has to pay a “white premium” or white tax to avoid the disaster, at least for a while. Expect to pay more for everything, whether a hotel stay or a restaurant, just to keep the rif raff out.

Affordable but pleasant all white neighborhoods become a thing of the past, so you better have the bucks, babe - at all times. Previous generations of whites, if foolishness or merely treacherous luck should betray them in the economic sense, had to make do living in a low income, but still all white neighborhood. Perhaps it wasn’t great, but it was nice enough. In fact, a lot of those lower working class neighborhoods were even charming. I remember some from my childhood in the 70’s and 80’s, when such places still existed in my region (they don’t anymore).

Once the aliens move in and either cleanse or integrate these former refuges for the low earners and the down on their luckers, watch out. Becoming poor no longer means banishment to a low prestige but still all white neighborhood. It means, quite literally, being thrown to the Bantus. Either that or find a bridge to live under. Odds are, the bridge is the better option.

I can accept that if I were to become a low income earning white, I may have to live around other low earning whites. I find it rather more difficult to accept that if I become a low earning white, I am to be cast into a Bantu hellhole. Fortunately, I haven’t been in that situation, but my heart truly goes out to the millions of whites who have been given this devil’s choice, and even more for their children. I don’t think I’m engaging in too much hyperbole to say that the present evil system is, in effect, engaging in human sacrifice of these white children. These innocent white children are abused and in many cases literally destroyed, sacrificed on the altar of diversity to satisfy its beastly god. A consquence, just one of many, of losing one’s nation.

But it seems to work.

The biggest lesson, for me anyway, has been the utter impotence of anything resembling conservatism to mount a meaningful resistance to this process of racial, civilizational and national destruction. All that has transpired, and barely a shot fired in resistance. It’s really quite astonishing when we consider the relative ease with which the anti-whites have completed their handiwork.

It’s not even enough to say that Jews and other hostile anti-whites took over our institutions, and used that power to browbeat the masses into submission. That won’t do at all, for it still raises the question: why did conservatives allow the anti-whites to take over every institution that matters, even when they clearly had most of the population on their side?

What is it about this damnable, pathetic cockroach called conservatism that allowed this to happen? What a disgusting and ridiculous cur it turned out to be. What an utter disgrace.

But then, when one takes an even broader view of the matter, there is the recognition that conservatism is simply a component part of a broader liberal order, and it is that order which must be done away with. And once one realizes THAT, then the lack of resistance, while still disturbing and on a certain level puzzling, makes much more sense. And so does the solution.

Posted by Realistic Dirty Bull on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:33 | #

The Tory Party will never, ever take serious anti-immigration measures. Period.
In fact they are the bastards who are mostly responsible for the status quo, and not Labour as is commonly thought. Just look at DD’s recent excellent series of posts.
If only UKIP was to eclipse and replace the right-wing of the Tory Party.
As a parting shoot, despite al his lies and blandishments, mass immigration into Britain has actually *increased* from the ludicrous levels Labour bequeathed.
I’d rather trust a snake than trust the Tory Party.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:41 | #

Trainspotter,

We are in a situation where we need creativity. Conservatism’s inapplicability for us resides in the fact that it is not a creative philosophy but the state of a mature polity. It is characterised by stability - which, in the European world, happens to be the social foundation of authentic individual freedom.

Amid the running tide of a liberal polity, conservatism’s only response is to try to drop anchor wherever it can ... just to try to endure. It does not possess the creative power of change. It is an appeal for stability, really, and if a creative philosophy such as one or other form of nationalism replaced liberalism systemically, then that, too, would arrive at a point of maturity where people again speak of conservatism.

We should hope to be able to welcome that one day. But there is an element of wish-fulfilment in looking to conservatism right now. It just can’t do what has to be done.

Posted by Trainspotter on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:12 | #

We do in fact have a tremendous educational task on our hands. It is a vital and necessary endeavor.

Here is the problem: it won’t be sufficient. Not that it may not be sufficient, but that it will not be sufficient.

I’m now in my forties, and my childhood memory stretches well back into the 70’s. Back then, the average white was far more aware of racial realities than is the case today. I remember, as one minor example amongst hundreds, observing a group of realtors in the 90’s. They were required to sign a statement affirming the richness and joys of diversity. As a group, they laughed out loud at the nonsense, but they signed. I assure you, that wouldn’t happen today. They’d just sign, and leave it at that.

When Nixon spoke of the Silent Majority back in the 70’s (or perhaps late 60’s), he was no doubt correct. The Silent Majority, by which was meant more or less conservative whites who disapproved of the leftist direction in which the nation was heading, probably existed well into the 80’s, maybe even a tad beyond.

To consider an obvious and identifiable behavior, I had never even seen an example of miscegenation until the 90’s. Go back to the 80’s, and any white teenage girl would have reacted with at least amused disgust at the idea of miscegenation. That’s gross! The famous Molly Ringwald scene captures this perfectly (at the moment I can’t remember the movie title, 16 Candles maybe?). A high portion would have given a response that would make a Stormfronter blush, and these were just normal, non-political white girls, without a radical bone in their bodies. (I’ll refrain from the joke that I badly want to make)

Point is, it would take a phenomenal effort just to restore the widespread racial awareness that existed amongst whites back in the 70’s and 80’s, and even somewhat during the 90’s. Frankly, I don’t think it’s possible with the enemy controlling all of the key institutions of cultural transmission. But even if we could, here is the bad news: all of that racial awareness did absolutely no good. It didn’t slow the anti-white juggernaut down in any meaningful sense. Actually, that’s probably not entirely true. It did, perhaps, buy us a couple of decades in certain respects, at least delaying widespread miscegenation. Unfortunately, those decades are now spent. The deluge is upon us.

It is my understanding that, back during the fifties and sixties, the white public in Britain was overwhelmingly against non-white immigration. Just like here, what good did it do? Whatever time it bought is, like here, long since spent.

The problem is that our enemies are implacable and utterly immune to reason. They also have precisely zero interest in being fair, or responding to democratic entreaties. They love to extol the wonders of democracy…so long as the results suit them, and only when the results suit them.

We no longer are the Silent Majority, and given the demographic transition that has been foisted upon us, against our will, we never will be again - at least as our nations are currently constituted. And history shows that, even when we were the majority, the so called democracies did not respond to legitimate democratic pressures. The dark tide continued unabated. We would be foolish to imagine that it will be any different next time, especially with the demographic and institutional obstacles that we now face. Simply put: if we couldn’t win democratically when our populations were almost entirely white, and almost entirely supportive of our position on non-white immigration, how are we going to win democratically in the future? The Magic 8 Ball is telling me, “Not Likely.” The truth is that our liberal democracies are not really democratic at all.

And yet, are we so captive to the current liberal order that we will allow our people to die, simply because we can’t win at a game that is clearly rigged against us? I hope not. We owe more to the generations that have gone before us, and the generations to follow that will only exist at all if we are successful. Who are we to say that if we can’t win a rigged game, that we will accept the outcome anyway? There is only one outcome that we can accept: securing the existence of our people and a future for white children. Nothing else matters, and nothing else is worth much effort. If the best we can work for is a world where some mulatto has respect for Robert E. Lee, or some half-caste proudly waves the St George’s Cross, count me out. That’s a fundamentally liberal and anti-white outcome, and just another form of replacing us with them. It’s just not worth the candle, and I’d rather take up golf and hit the links.

As it happens, I suspect that nationalist political parties can make some important headway in certain European nations. I am always thrilled when one does well, and I’ve never been as genuinely happy on an election day as when the BNP won the two seats in Brussels. I’m less optimistic about political parties in America, though I will still vote A3P.

But, short of a black swan event that one can’t, pretty much by definition, foresee, the electoral process cannot get us where we need to go. Its primary function must be to help build white solidarity, and perhaps fuel a broader cultural and political movement that develops and maintains the absolute necessity of our people to exist in perpetuity. That can’t be faked or avoided. It’s something that, I believe, can be presented in a far more attractive, meaningful and appealing manner than it has in the past, but it can’t avoid the basic point: we as a people, and our various component peoples, have a right to exist. In fact, we rather insist upon it.

This is how the success of electoral activity should be definined. A nationalist political party may never be able to win a rigged system in a fundamentally liberal order, but if it can be part of creating a strong white movement that is confident and cohesive, and is ready for the next step, then that could be a wonderful thing. In any event, if a political movement helps this process, then it is a success. If it sells out this process for short term gain, it is a failure. A fatal failure, that could well cost us the existence of our people.

So for those who are setting electoral deadlines of 2015, or 2025, I say great. We need to start setting deadlines, instead of letting this thing drag on forever with our people declining and dying every day. I’m just suggesting that we be ready when that deadline passes and the electoral system hasn’t gotten us where we need to go - because it won’t. Again, this is not to say that some important good can’t come out of it, just that we need to have a Plan B. Because we’re going to need it.

I truly believe that we are going to win this thing, but I am equally convinced that the liberal order will never let us go. In the meantime every count must be proven, or so the poem goes. Let’s just make sure that, whatever deadline is ultimately agreed upon, we do everything we can to make certain that we reach that point in time with more radicals and revolutionaries, with a movement that is confident and utterly committed to its cause, whether the liberal order responds or not. A movement that won’t give up and go home just because a rigged (and now demographically stuffed) system won’t let them win.

To the extent that electoral politics moves us toward that objective, all to the good. Not so if political participation leads to nothing but craven sycophancy while playing by the other guy’s rules - rules that are rigged for his benefit. Our cause is simply too great, and our circumstances too desperate.

Posted by John on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 11:23 | #

The Americans’ as well as our “feckless Europeans’” elites (the ones at the very top, anyway) are anything but racial equality ideologues and know exactly what they want (look around you). One could conclude they have been planning exactly this for hundreds of years http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/crimes_that_our_grandchildren_will_see/ They no doubt have a post-race-war end game planned.

Posted by FB on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:48 | #

DD, why do you want GB to stay in the EU?

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:58 | #

FB:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/from_lisbon_to_vladivostok_europe_a_nation

Posted by Metal Gear / Iceman on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:34 | #

Islam is a violent, imperialistic and reactionary religion. Nobody should be deluded into thinking that Islamic fundamentalists will ever politically ally in a meaningful way with people of other religions.

That being said, at times Muslims fight American and Israeli capitalists. They at times drive at the invaders. They at times commit terrorism against the elite power structure.

Basically the problem is the bourgeois class. In the long run a socialist regime will conflict with islam, but in the short run Muslims can be used to bring down the ruling class.

Posted by Metal Gear / Iceman on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:39 | #

Why do you assocaite Kai Murros with Alex Linder?

One is a Finnish National Bolshevik who is on my good side (friends on facebook), the other is an American “neo-nazi” who is on my shitlist for allowing my address to be posted on his website.

Posted by HW on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:58 | #

Saw this on the Beeb this afternoon ... another great victory for FAGs? Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYvPfkz3ks0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

Posted by Ken on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:42 | #

To be fair Paul answered those accusations in the comments to this article.

http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/guest-column-transforming-britain-into-lebanon/

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:12 | #

Ken @41

Are you referring to this comment by Paul Weston?

Paul Weston

March 19, 2012 at 9:29 am

Sean, in retrospect it was a mistake addressing the JDL in Toronto. They provided me with bodyguards whilst I was over there, which nobody else would, so I felt duty bound in a way. More importantly, you should be wary of using material from Wikipedia to make false allegations. CBC (owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Coporation) made the initial claim that the JDL was a terrorist organisation, which was promptly swallowed by the naive and unthinking. See the following for CBC’s on air retraction of this false allegation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5gT3qpQNxo

There are many other rumours circulating, some of which seem to be accepted by the unthinking, suggesting I am Jewsih, a Zionist, not a nationalist, married to a Chinese wife etc, etc. All of these are untrue and I will shortly be issuing a statement to this effect.

He doesn’t make any reference to Jews or Zionists in the article itself, perhaps the promised statement might provide some insight into his actual stance.

It’s rather astonishing that he would attempt to come to the defence of the JDL when even the ADL distances itself from them.

http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp

Posted by FB on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:31 | #

DD, setting aside the dream of some united Eurasia. Don’t you need to first destroy the EU for a new alliance to emerge, one based on different criteria? Secondly, isn’t the EU “human rights” system and its neo-liberal economics major impediments to GB’s liberation?

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:56 | #

Not necessarily, FB. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the book used by the cultural marxists when they were planning their hegemonic assault. Their approach was to capture existing institutions, and to ‘re-purpose’ them, rather than inventing new ones. It seems to have worked like a charm.

Posted by danieljantinora (daniel 3) on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:57 | #

Only a United Europe can put the boot on the American throat. Somebody needs to stop us.

Revivified Euro nationalisms would spring out of a strong, identitarian based European Federation. It would present a living and strong opposition to creedalism and show the lie of constitutionalism for what it is. This Europe would stand aside history, facing forward thru history, not demanding that it stop (petty American conceit), but rather, carry out forward into a real future.

Long live our mother, our home, our Europe.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:39 | #

Good call Daniel 3!

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:11 | #

I rather agree with Daniel3. There is nothing political I would rather see than a militant WN Europe: racialist, eugenicist, pro-natalist, re-imperialist, authoritarian and ready to fight for the White!

Then I could stop worrying about the 14words, and just be the good limited-government Constitutional American pro-capitalist conservative I am at heart.

Posted by Paul Weston on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:43 | #

I would be more than happy to discuss my take on nationalism with you. How about sometime tomorrow evening?

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:06 | #

>>> when even the ADL distances itself from them.

There’s numbers of tiny Amer-Jew organizations who can be praised for being focused on sending money to orphanages/etc back here in the Moledet.

All of the ones YOU know about, the “major” (= issue press releases to the mainstream media) American Jewish organizations - are like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson….. in it for the money.

The salaries of their leaderships are GIGANTIC.

To understand why ADL doesn’t want to ruffle any goy feathers by saying nice things about JDL types (Meir Kahane wrote: “every Jew a .22!”), one must comprehend how nicely-feathered a nest Abe Foxman has built for himself.

Fight Words against the American Nazi PArty (or whatever they call themselves recently) must be seen in this context. ADL needs the BrownShirt marchers more than the other way around, as ADL has a larger payroll to support.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:41 | #

Contrary to Paul Westons statement that it was a ‘mistake’ that he met up with the Jewish Defence League, here he is pictured with one of the leaders of the Zionist para-military group The Jewish Task Force - another Zionist terrorist group ;

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/update-to-update.html

On the left is Paul Weston, in the middle is Chris Knowles and on the right is the one of the leaders of the Jewish Task Force.

The photographs were taken at the EDL demo in Amsterdam.

The guy in the picture with Paul Weston standing in the middle is Chris Knowles -a board member and representative of the Centre For Vigilant Freedom ;

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Center_for_Vigilant_Freedom

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Christopher_Knowles

Look at who is the leader of the Centre For Vigilant Freedom ;

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Christine_Brim

and look who she works for ;

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Center_for_Security_Policy

Here is some info on the Jewish Task Force and the EDL ;

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/45294/edl-partners-far-right-us-jewish-group

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

So Paul Weston has met up with not one, but two extremist Jewish Zionist terrorist groups, these being the Jewish Defence League and the Jewish Task Force, and he is also linked with people who work for US zionist neo-con organisations linked to Richard Perle and Dick Cheney and the Jewish Institute For National Affairs via Chris Knowles and Christina Brim and the Centre For Security Policy.

Being linked with one Jewish terrorist group could be seen as simple mistake, but being linked to two is not.

Add in the links between Paul Weston and Chris Knowles and Christina Brim - and we see a network run by the US Neo-Cons working for the benefit of the Zionist agenda both in the US and UK.

Put the pieces together and you start to see a network operating to its own zionist agenda.

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Jewish_Institute_for_National_Security_Affairs

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:59 | #

Why Galloway won (or Labour lost)?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/04/02/ross-mckibbin/why-galloway-won-or-labour-lost/

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:59 | #

Contrary to Paul Westons statement that it was a ‘mistake’ that he met up with the Jewish Defence League, here he is pictured with one of the leaders of the Zionist para-military group The Jewish Task Force

If Weston made his mea culpa subsequent to those photos being taken (when else would he do it if he were not brain dead?) your “gotcha!” moment can only be deflated, wouldn’t you say, Barnesy?

Doofus.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:55 | #

Paul,

Some initial questions.

1. The sexualisation of the Sub-Saharan male causes far greater loss of genetic interest to our people than Islam. How does cultural nationalism protect against such loss?

2. Given that the primary object of nationalism is the preservation of our people, not our culture (which is a tertiary interest at best), and given that preservation requires mass repatriation/relocation, at what point in the evolution of cultural nationalism does it reveal its true racialist face?

3. Do you believe that Jews have an interest in preserving our people, or are you merely trying to dodge the inevitable attack?

Posted by Paul Weston on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:16 | #

Question 1. Cultural nationalism cannot protect against such loss.

Question 2. Repatriation/relocation becomes necessary when the ethnic numbers involved threaten the primacy of the native race. We are set to become a minority in our own homeland within a few decades, so ethno-nationalists can argue that such an ethnic number has already been reached. Cultural nationalism can do very little about this I am afraid, but neither can a party which endorses repatriation. The British people had a chance to elect the BNP on just such a mandate, but refused it.

Question 3. There are some 250,000 Jews in Britain. Do British Jews wish to preserve our people? I would imagine some do and some don’t. It is apparent that many Marxists, liberals and socialists wish to see the demise of the native British and no doubt there will be some Jews amongst them. But not all Jews are Marxists. My battle is with the Left, I don’t care if they are Jewish, Islamic, Christian or atheist.

As a cultural nationalist I cannot argue against any of your points regarding the threat to the indigenous English. We are going to be effectively cleansed from our homeland before 2050 and there is nothing cultural nationalism can do about this.

BUT, a cultural nationalist party does have some chance of winning an election. Not in 2015, but possibly by 2020. Who knows what the British people will be feeling by 2020? Perhaps at that point they will feel able to vote for an ethno-nationalist party – should one exist and be large enough to be seriously considered.

In the meantime, I will continue to promote cultural nationalism and resistance to Islam. I hope this will enable British Freedom to break out of purely “nationalist” politics and enter the mainstream. Middle England is where the votes lie, so middle England must be what we target. I cannot overstate how vitally important it is to be seen as politically acceptable by the easily swayed electorate.

Having said that, who knows what will happen between now and 2020? If there are more terrorist outrages or widespread looting, raping and murder, British Freedom may possibly decide to fight the 2020 election on ethno-nationalist grounds. It would have to be large enough to be seriously considered electable of course.

Not being an ethno-nationalist myself, I would have to step down if that was the direction the party, its members and supporters took. My immediate job though, is simply to build British Freedom into a serious political contender acceptable to middle England. Without power, all ideology (be it cultural or ethno-nationalist) is irrelevant.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:32 | #

Thank you for taking the trouble to come here and engage Paul, I’d like to hear more about your concept of cultural nationalism, and how that might work out in practice. We’ve had Lee John Barnes here on several occasions giving us the benefit of his views on the matter, which I’ll take the liberty of paraphrasing as “Cultural Britishness - if you want it you’ve got it!’. It all sounded quite casual, like lending someone one of your old overcoats if he doesn’t like the style or colour of his own.

But in the meantime, I’d like to take up a couple of your other points, starting with:

The British people had a chance to elect the BNP on just such a mandate, but refused it.

To what extent do you feel this is a reflection on the BNP itself rather than its political platform? Various surveys have indicated that the latter has considerably more public appeal than the former.Do you feel it is absolutely unthinkable that radical measures like voluntary repatriation (which has actually been on the Statute Book since 1971) could ever be taken up by a mainstream party, or even a ‘respectable’ fringe operation like your own. Might it not have been the case that the BNP and its various antecedents carried simply too much baggage?

On the JQ, which is also something we discuss regularly here, what do you feel is to be gained politically from showing openly Zionist sympathies? We know that this is an important part of the platform of the PVV, and others, and I wonder to what extent the public statements that you and others in your party have made, and the affiliations that you have taken up, reflect an intention to emulate an obviously successful model (i.e. the PVV).

Posted by Paul Weston on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:41 | #

I just don’t know the answer to that Dan. I am aware that many people state they support the policies of the BNP, but whether the low electoral turn out is due to Britain’s difficult election rules (for small parties) or because of NG himself, is something I just cannot comment on. I really don’t know.

There is nothing to be gained from showing “Zionist” sympathies. This has been blown out of all proportion. The photograph of me alongside an apparent Jewish Task Force bloke is ridiculous. I was speaking at an EDL rally in Amsterdam, and he wanted his photo taken with me. I had no idea who he was.

The British Resitance site is always on about this. Yes, I went to the holocaust Museum when I was in Israel, and I was in Israel along with the European Freedom Party leaders, and Vlaams Belang. I do not regret this in the slightest.

Speaking at the JDL event in Toronto was probably not a good idea. It was organised by someone I trust, but I will look deeper into these things in the future.

I am never going to be persuaded that Jews pose a dire threat to Britain or the West, but I am fairly ambivalent about them otherwise. I support Israel’s right to exist, but no more than that. I don’t write about Jews or Israel because I am not overly concerned about either. British Freedom is pretty much the same. This whole Zionist thing is not completely unfounded, but vastly overstated.

Voluntary repatriation? I was talking to some ex-BNP high ups the other day, and we thought repatriation from 1997 onwards could be permissible because Blair’s speechwriter, Andrew Neather, admitted they had set out to destroy traditional Britain via mass immigration.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:42 | #

Thank you for the response, Paul, I hope we can maintain the dialogue for a little while longer although I understand you must get many demands on your time and it is appreciated that you have agreed to respond to our queries here. Hopefully others will be joining in and the tone can remain respectful and non-adversarial.

Your answers are quite enlightening if not entirely satisfactory, at least from the perspective of ethno-nationalists who might be considering your organisation as a means to an end, a ‘halfway house’ if you like, in the absence of more appealing moorings. It has to be said though that, for the outer fringe of our tendency, the images of you donning a yarmulke and (seemingly) enthusiastically participating in commerations at Yad Vashem will place you eternally beyond the Pale. Others amongst us, however, might be inclined to draw a veil over that and other episodes except that you seem to be blissfully unaware about the nature and extent of the Jewish contribution to our present societal malaise. It’s understandable that as an aspiring mainstream politician you might not wish to speak or write about the JQ but to claim that it is irrelevant is simply astonishing and reveals a deep lacuna in your politico-historical understanding.

Similarly, it is very surprising and not a little disturbing that you are also apparently unaware of the various surveys and academic studies that have been conducted concerning the latent appeal of the ‘extreme right’, or rather the policies that are typically presented as such, across a large swathe of the British electorate. I’ll see if I can turn some up for you.

As for voluntary repatriation, my reference to 1971 concerns the Immigration Act of 1971, which is still the primary legislation on the subject. This conferred on the Home Secretary the power to provide financial assistance to migrants who wished to return home and it remains into effect today (in somewhat modified form). So, voluntary repatriation was not a concept invented by the BNP nor was it something which only became permissible following NuLabor’s treasonous excesses, it has been the law of the land for decades. It’s just that nobody has, as of yet, had the political will to implement it effectively.

I still look forward to your thoughts on how cultural nationalism is conceived by the leadership of the BFP and, in particular, what measures are being proposed to promote and encourage it.

Thanks.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:47 | #

Four simple questions for our guest:

(1) He wishes to attack the left. OK but is there anything about the contemporary right that is unhelpful or contrary to his political project?

(2) What are the pros and cons of movement/ideology of neoliberalism and how do they relate to the politics of nationalism (of whatever form)?

(3) If UK breaks up what are his views as to what the likely political consequences would be within a post-UK England?

(4) Which thinkers, writers etc., have most positively influenced his political outlook - a top three or four perhaps?

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:24 | #

Trainspotter, Dirty Bull, GW @32-35

In my comment #31 (which, to be honest, contributed more in fewer words than much of what has followed, right down to the exchange with Paul Weston, whose substance in part was addressed there), I did not mean to imply (nor do I think I did, as it happens) that “conservatism” or the UK Conservatives will save, respectively, the white race or England. I am not a ‘dispositional’ conservative, one fearful of change or enamored of stasis as an independent good in itself. Such a view is 99% idiotic (the 1% of truth that ‘dispositionalism’ contains is that mere order is good, insofar as disruptions of order more usually have led to misery than improvement). Conservatism is valuable only insofar as what is being conserved is worthy of conservation, and ‘worth’ in this context (the secular political realm) can only be judged in light of ultimate biology, of what is the base of culture and civilization.

So, given the entrenched, trans-party, ‘dispossessionist’ rulership of the UK today, of course some form of revolutionary EGI politics is called for, and this even by honest non-racist conservatives. If the ultimate goal of English conservatism is to preserve all that would fall under the heading of “traditional England” or “the English way of life”, what evidence is there that this could be accomplished without stopping and reversing race-replacement? (And ontologically, is that question even meaningful? Would not the very definition of “Englishness” or, indeed, the way of life of any nation, include an unbridgeable racial component?)

But, as I said above:

Nationalism may as a movement be about far more than quotidian politics. But it is only through legislative change that we can realistically end immigration, and that is the sine qua non of white survival. As a race, we are so outnumbered globally, and our people are so devoid of instinctual clannishness, that it is only by constituting sovereign territorial demographic majorities that we will survive. We simply must maintain white majoritarian nations, and I fear that current levels of immigration will overwhelm our historic ones, especially if we insist on a nationalist politics, either in policy or in style, too far removed from majoritarian outlooks and values. Recognizing this is called “political realism”.

I think GW has it exactly backwards. The ‘allure’ for nationalists is in eschewing political realism in favor of exotic displays of ‘heroic politics’ - often confused with adherence to first principles. A passionate, denunciatory style may feel good, but will it aid in ending immigration as soon as possible? That should be the question uppermost in any political discussion. (LH)

WRT the exchange between Paul Weston and GW and Dan Dare, the main issue is whether “cultural nationalism” has as its central objective gaining power in order to stop immigration. I haven’t seen this addressed. Of course, the ultimate nationalist (and conservative) goal must be the racial cleansing of England - re/expatriation of all nonwhites from English soil (preferably to their ancestral lands, though that is unimportant, except insofar as doing so would increase the ethical acceptability of the acts of removal). But surely stopping immigration precedes removals of existing immigrants?!

If the purpose of CN is to pave the way electorally for WN, per another portion of my comment #31 (“In mature democracies, radicals cannot start by advocating the end goal, and working towards it. One must gradually radicalize, pushing the Tories just a bit on a nationalistically popular issue like immigration, then pushing some more, and more ....”), then I think it might be supportable. Is that the case, Mr. Weston?

If CN is asserted to be, in itself, a solution to Britain’s problems, however, then its proponents are naive (though CN could still possibly be supported and used by a ‘piggybacking’ WN). Weston does seem correct, however, in recognizing both the reality of and need for electability. English ethnonationalism has not succeeded thus far.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:07 | #

Incidentally, those were very solid comments from Trainspotter @32, 35. All thoughts I’ve had over the years, too, especially about the ugly ‘price of poverty’ that unfortunate whites must pay in multiracial societies (one reason I oppose, except for tactical/rhetorical reasons, the Graham Lister/Silver “multiculturalism of the White” strategy, whereby we emphasize ‘harmless ethnocommunitarianism’, that is, that historic European peoples have a right to live as peoples, whether our race-replacers are morally/culturally inferior or superior; all true, but we are, objectively, superior, and superior rights and separate concerns flow from that fact).

I, too, have witnessed (and harped about here at MR) the radical change in American attitudes towards miscegenation. I had a back-and-forth with Guest Lurker some time ago on the problem of white female/Asian male miscegenation in CA, and whether that was worse than the WF/black male type. I think it is. Both kinds are horrifying, as their ultimate effects are the same, but the former is indicative of a greater loss of white male power/sexual status than the latter. Black men have long been associated with a type of subversive female sexuality. But greasy little Asians??! When I was growing up SoCal in the 70s-80s, you NEVER saw a white girl with an Asian guy (other way around has been common since WW2). Unheard of and humiliating, just as you never saw anyone but lower class white girls with blacks or Mexicans. I recall a teen house party I attended when I was home from boarding school over Christmas ‘83. Two white girls literally got into a classic ‘cat fight’ because the one had taunted the other about having a Chinese boyfriend (which the accused had strenuously denied).

Today? It is quite common in LA and San Francisco to see very attractive white women strolling in ‘couples’ situations with disgusting Asian dorks. My mother and (older) sisters are simply incredulous at how this could be. Hell, my half-Asian girlfriend would never date an Asian guy (not because she’s ‘self-hating’, but just doesn’t find them appealing). But often higher class (economically) WFs now find themselves attracted to gooks, when there are plentiful white men. Explain that. It is not just the removal of a social taboo, allowing for the satisfaction of formerly prohibited desires (as with blacks, for some females). It is a change in the very nature of those desires.

Ahh, but how we’ve all benefitted from diversity… ‘Diversity’ is a plague, and that’s in part how WNs should be discussing it to the mainstream.

Posted by Anon on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:35 | #

We are now entering a point where nationalism will become a threat to white people. The cultural nationalists are promoting integration.

Integration is a code word for race mixing. Race mixing is genocide.

Cultural nationalism = genocide.

There is only one narrative that is going to save white people and that is the anti-genocide narrative.

You all wonder what heroic lofty cause white people can get behind. Opposition to genocide is the cause to get behind. What can be more heroic and idealistic than opposition to genocide? I am sure that anti-genocide is the sort of thing that mainstream whites can get behind. Whites can proudly walk down the street wearing a t-shirt saying “Genocide is bad”. Opposition to genocide is a human rights issue and is totally free from any hate baggage.

Anti-racism is a hate ideology. Anti-racists are fuelled by a pathological irrational hatred of white people. White people are well trained in opposing hate, so we need to work with this, not against it. All that needs to be done is to educate them that anti-racism is hatred of white people. Once they learn this, they will oppose anti-racism because they oppose hate.

I can’t help but think that it’s eventually going to be left wing whites who save the white race. The right wingers will get sucked into the “integration narrative” and become complicit in genocide.

‘Diversity’ is a plague, and that’s in part how WNs should be discussing it to the mainstream. - Leon Haller on April 03, 2012, 04:07 PM

Calling diversity a plague is hateful language. WN should not be using that language to the mainstream. Instead they should reframe diversity as the hate ideology by deploying the genocide narrative. When you use the genocide narative, the tables are turned and all of a sudden, you become anti-hate, whilst diversity becomes pro-hate.

White people are against hate, work with this fact, not against it. Re-frame anti-racism as the hate ideology. You are a wonderful honorable anti-hate, anti-genocide, human-rights campaigner with not a single hateful bone in your body. It is the anti-racists who are consumed with hatred, not you. You are nothing but love and healing. You need to have an aura of hippy about you

Posted by Paul Weston on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:36 | #

Graham Lister

He wishes to attack the left. OK but is there anything about the contemporary right that is unhelpful or contrary to his political project?

The contemporary right forgets it is a small talking shop. The mass electorate are not well informed about nationalist matters and consequently have no real interest in them. Talk of Jews and white Britain (coupled with media smears) renders the contemporary right unelectable.

“What are the pros and cons of movement/ideology of neoliberalism and how do they relate to the politics of nationalism (of whatever form)?”

I am not overly concerned about neoliberalism.

“If UK breaks up what are his views as to what the likely political consequences would be within a post-UK England?”

We would be weaker, and further under the boot of the EU. Divide and Conquer is their objective.

Which thinkers, writers etc., have most positively influenced his political outlook - a top three or four perhaps.

Samuel Francis, Lawrence Auster, James Burnham (Suicide of the West.) and Fjordman.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:37 | #

@Anon

Decent points there - I myself have attempted to move the debate onto the territory of love not hate - Aristotelian philia and the like - after all human love of place and persons is particular - not the universal abstract of liberal sensibilities.

The language and demeanour of hate and hate mongering is disastrous on many levels - intellectually, morally, tactically, in PR terms, raising the ‘psychological costs’ for the audience to give you a hearing on any topic etc., as well as empowering every weirdo and marginal ‘personality’ and their bizarre hobby-horses. The latter of course has both a toxic ‘polluting’ effect (guilt by association) and a ‘chilling’ one (all of the discourse becomes ‘off-limits’ in general) so in a double-whammy their actions and attitudes keeps the whole thing within a self-constructed ghetto - which is what I think the vast majority of WN types pro-actively enjoy and want (sociologically they are a classical ‘deviant’ subculture).

But I often feel as if I’m hitting my head against the metaphorical brick-wall (apparently total war, utter ecological collapse et al., are all ‘solutions’ for Western civilizations revivification…Jesus wept as the saying goes).

It seems fairly obvious to me that people observed to be caught up in nothing more than the emotional dynamics of juvenile-like seething hatred will not win the trust or confidence of normal, everyday, typically average people - for quite good reasons Mr. & Mrs. Average judge such people to be untrustworthy and unreliable at a pre-political psycho-emotional level. Let alone consenting to such people assuming the moral and intellectual leadership of society!

I mean it’s not that radical an insight that, in wanting to persuade someone of an idea or proposal, one should make it as ‘easy as possible’ for them to get on board - intellectually, emotionally etc., - this incorporates not only what one says but how one communicates it - on every level - language, demeanour, mannerisms, tone, dress, body language etc. The potential receptive audience for the typical WN is vanishingly small even if they did present well-formulated and cogent arguments.

The medium is the message - at least on many occasions it is.

Posted by Paul Weston on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:41 | #

Leon Haller

You use the expression “gradually radicalise”. This is good. How does one go about overturning 60 years of lies, smears and propaganda overnight? It is possible over a long period of time, but not before an election in 2014 or 2015. Of course we must gradually radicalise.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:50 | #

Calling diversity a plague is hateful language. WN should not be using that language to the mainstream. Instead they should reframe diversity as the hate ideology by deploying the genocide narrative. When you use the genocide narative, the tables are turned and all of a sudden, you become anti-hate, whilst diversity becomes pro-hate. (Anon)

Literally, you are correct; essentially, not. By using “plague” I meant WNs must point out to white people the Costs of Diversity (that would make a good monograph, wouldn’t it?), and what will happen if we do not stop it. Fear is the key (not love, as some WNs, and most paleoconservatives, seem to think).

White people are against hate, work with this fact, not against it. Re-frame anti-racism as the hate ideology. You are a wonderful honorable anti-hate, anti-genocide, human-rights campaigner with not a single hateful bone in your body. It is the anti-racists who are consumed with hatred, not you. You are nothing but love and healing. You need to have an aura of hippy about you (Anon)

This is utterly naive. What is happening to whites is not ‘genocide’ as that term is defined or as most whites understand it (the exception being the current fate of our brothers in Southern Africa). Whites murdered by blacks in Baltimore are seen to be victims of criminal murder, not state or ethnic genocide. I agree that Diversity is Death for whites, but that requires an advanced understanding of things, or a sensibility existing or formed outside the liberal ‘noosphere’.

There is just no way out from the hard task of making whites understand the negative consequences for them if these diversitarian trends are not reversed or at least stopped.

Posted by Paul Weston on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:52 | #

Dan Dare

I still look forward to your thoughts on how cultural nationalism is conceived by the leadership of the BFP and, in particular, what measures are being proposed to promote and encourage it.

We simply state that multiculturalism is wrong and British culture mandatory. One immigrant in a thousand natives, who adopted our culture, is not really an issue.

The numbers involved today of course make the above scenario increasingly unlikely, in many parts of Britain. As this gradually dawns on the electorate I expect they will veer further toward an ethno-nationalist party.

OK, I think I’m through on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to participate.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:57 | #

Weston, what is your true opinion of National Socialism, both in the abstract and as historically incarnated?

Yes, I know, you will feel yourself compelled to give some glib and perfuctory answer; and will do as such. Yet I pose the question none the less.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:57 | #

@Paul Weston

OK thanks for those answers - they are most revealing - and not unexpected.

I would suggest your answers reveal a painfully thin and superficial level of analytical insight into the dynamics and consequences of this phase of liberal ‘super-modernity’ in world history - a focus on the symptoms not the causes - but each to their own.

Odd also that you make a fetish of the (relatively) ‘inorganic’ state-nation called the UK - it’s effectively dead as a unitary political stage I’m afraid - perhaps Scottish ‘cultural politics’ is not of any interest to you? But on that topic do you think Vlaams Belang are wrong for undermining Belgian unity in the cause of Flemish nationalism?

Just one point of clarification when I wrote about the contemporary right I was meaning the mainstream right - Tories, Republicans and the like, not the oddballs and detritus of the BNP etc.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:17 | #

Dr. Lister,

I believe I’ve asked this before, and my apologies if you answered, because I’ve forgotten about it.

What is the state of Scottish ethnonationalism? Is Scotland going to regain its ancient independence, and, if so, what approach to immigration is it likely to adopt? The SNP seem very leftist to me. Will they go steroidal open borders, perhaps because Scotland is relatively poor in ‘diversity’? Will the people tolerate this?

BTW, on the love/hate thing: of course, WN hatemongerers are extremely counterproductive (your comment about “deviant subculture” is spot on). My point, however, is that whites in so many places, esp the Anglosphere, have been so denuded of their natural patriotism that at this time an emphasis on the physical and financial worries likely to stem from further ‘diversification’ may work faster on the consciousness than renewed appeals to love of fatherland and community.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:18 | #

I still haven;t responded to the monster Lister comment on the economics thread. But I will, rest assured. Just real busy, and focusing on other commentary here.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:21 | #

Weston, you have demonstrated in the past your willingness to adopt Jews as bedfellows of convenience. That was your precise and conscious calculation. You know that to be true. So then, you are less as man of honor and more a man of practical cunning. Why should the British people place their trust in such a man? Why should the British people believe that you are different from any other politician whose locus of decision-making rests ultimately with his perceived self-interest and not with the ethnic interests of the British people?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24 | #

WN hatemongerers

You really mean to say “anti-Semites”, don’t you, Leon?

Posted by Robert Reis on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:52 | #

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040260/Maciej-Dakowicz-Cardiff-After-Dark-binge-drinking-images-turned-Britain-laughing-stock.html

http://ajanlo.kapu.hu/pics.php?d=cardiff

During my recent travels through the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, I have seen countless scenes of the hopelessly degraded behavior of the young white people as shown above. Other than the families of German and Spanish tourists, the native white populations seem to have produced a younger generation of degenerate trash.

The bottom was reached in Dublin when two British homosexuels bragged to two unattractive British sluts about the men they had shagged in the youth hostel in which they were staying and the homely alcohol swollen young females cheered them on.

In six weeks, I have not seen any social behavior among the natives that is worth preserving.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:56 | #

...what is your true opinion of National Socialism, both in the abstract and as historically incarnated?

Hitler lost a war, not a debate. Military hardware did him in, not errors in his philosophy. Hitler was right about the primary importance of good genes in making good people, who in turn are necessary for making good culture. He was wrong in thinking Germany would be able to demonstrate the correctness of that idea to a world dominated by Jewish finance. - David Sims

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:03 | #

In six weeks, I have not seen any social behavior among the natives that is worth preserving.

There once lived a people, far beyond hope
whose daughters were whores. Sons on dope
Without conscious decision
they watched Talmudvision
and had their brains washed in Jewish soap

Posted by Paul Weston on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:13 | #

Captainchaos, I have no political self interest. I am entering the political arena at a relatively advanced age, because I think the English are under threat. I am trying to make a soft version of nationalism mainstream. As I said earlier, yatter about Jews and white Britain renders any political party unelectable. You typify the reason why the right is regarded in such bad light. You have a simple choice, remain as you are in the political wilderness or get behind something that might, just might, become a genuine political force.

Graham Lister. Vlaams Belang are not wrong, but then again who really cares Belgium? My thoughts on the right, eg the Conservatives, is simple. They are career politicians interested in the next election but disinterested in the long term future of the country or the native people. I consider them to be part of the traitor class.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:29 | #

@Robert Reis

I wouldn’t disagree - I have long said that the UK is the most culturally degraded nation in Western Europe - read Theodore Dalrymple on cultural and social mores in England (and the Isles in general). In many ways Euro-Americans, in their everyday manners and conduct, are far better (the ideas in their heads sadly tend to be much worse - misguided notions about ‘individual freedom’ being the key to everything etc.).

In Italy it’s widely thought disgraceful and shameful to be seen drunk in public - in the UK you’re ‘not normal’ unless one gets drunk or high on a regular and very frequent basis.

see for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2012/apr/03/student-drug-users-become-reckless

I’m planning to write about liberal hedonism and the recent ‘happiness agenda’ - with some emphasis upon the UK - when time and energy allows.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:56 | #

Interesting again – yes who cares about Belgium?

Couple of thoughts:

Such a parochial attitude to developments in European nationalist politics both prevents the picking up of good ideas, best practice etc., and also is not in the spirit of European solidarity.

Secondly moderate ethno-linguistic nationalism has much lower ‘entry costs’ for Mr. & Mrs. Average than any other form of nationalist politics. Due to our language we are are overly shaped by American cultural and political norms, tropes etc. - we need to become more European not less - and articulating how and why is a key task. So again dismissing developments in Flemish circles etc., as ‘irrelevant’ and of no interest whatsoever seems, to my mind at least, a rather crude blunder. They and the Dansk Folkeparti at least might have something to teach would be politico’s operating within an utterly moribund scene in England.

BTW Americans – in general – bring very little of value to the table on these issues for a whole series of cultural and ideological reason (their commitment to various forms of liberal normativity do go very deep indeed). Again the reasons why should be obvious.

Posted by daniel 3 on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:41 | #

Jimmy,

Never invade Russia. Certainly not in Winter.

The more I read about Stalin the more I wish him and Hitler would have faced West.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:55 | #

Robert - Drunken ratbags staggering about fighting and throwing up get a lot of attention.

We arent all like that you know. Me, Ive all but given up drink anyway and I can assure you that me & my friends dont act like that, have never acted like that.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:50 | #

Cap,

It is easier to believe a politician who espouses a self-interest. A man who has an English wife and children may be highly motivated to secure a future for his kith and kin.

Weston says he respects “real men” who stand up for their beliefs. He sees the lack of that in the modern UK.

“I watched tennis a few years ago and I saw this Russian tennis player Marat Safin turning up to a match with a bruised eye. Apparently, he got himself involved in a fight over a girl in the club. I think that’s a real man, not the kind of metrosexuals we see around.

However, his assessment of NG is some what less effusive. Not exactly the stuff “real men” are made of.

“Nick Griffin is a Holocaust-denying Nazi lunatic but in my view he is also stupid.

Who knows, he may be right?

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2010/5/5/interview-paul-weston

Also of interest is the following posted at the British Freedom site.

http://britishfreedom.org/the-new-nazis/

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/new-nazis.html

Paul Weston · London, United Kingdom

The liberal world is insane. The troubled teenagers who make up the UAF refer to those who criticise Islam as “right-wing Nazis.” But who are the Nazis here? Islam reveres a leader who is beyond criticism, just as the Nazis revered Hitler and placed beyond criticism. Islam wishes to eradicate the Jews, as did the Nazis. Islam wishes to eradicate the homosexuals, as did the Nazis. Islam regards women women as second class citizens fit only for child birth, the kitchen and the place of prayer, the Nazis summed it up with “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” children, kitchen, church. Islam wishes to rule the world under a global calphate, the Nazis wished to rule the world under the Third Reich. Islam considers non-Muslims to be second class people, the infidel, whilst Nazis considered non-Aryans to be sub-human “untermensch” and Islam historically conquered countries via military might, as did the Nazis.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:20 | #

Robert Reis @74

I’m actually rather relieved that so many of you find those pictures offensive. I’ve seen and been around much, much greater degeneracy in LA, NYC, Vegas and San Francisco. I’ve only been to a few parties (except for those of much older people) in decades in which there hasn’t been coke in bathrooms (I’m talking at private homes) or even out on the kitchen table. I’m usually considered rather strange because I don’t partake (mainly for paranoid health concerns). MJ, drunkenness, public urination - rather par for the course in public party areas, no? And I certainly don’t party in da ‘hood (I can only imagine the savagery). I confess the one startling thing about YOU BRITS is the seeming comfort level with very public urination: in the USA, people, even drunkards, at least try to hide themselves a bit (which is why you never want to have an apartment near a heavy pub scene, unless you don’t mind negotiating fluids ...).

If, per Lister, Euro-Americans are better behaved than Brits, it is almost certainly due to our greater religiosity. Europe (and USA) needs more of that: a return to a racially renovated, morally authoritarian public Christianity. (I may sound hypocritical, but at least I rhetorically defend what’s right.)

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:07 | #

@Leon

Of course my comments regarding Euro-American behaviour was based on ‘middle America’ e.g. Minnesota - I know big city life is different especially on the coasts. As for the open snorting of coke at dinner parties you must move in different circles from me - the worst I experienced was aging academics wanting to smoke some ganja and complaining about the difficulties of getting any ‘decent stuff’ in the local area.

I don’t partake in such things and actually the people doing them seem really dull and I have no desire to join them - but I recall a discussion as an undergraduate in which I suggested the best time to do ‘drugs’ was in one’s last years as the negative consequences, if any, will have less impact upon one’s life. A fairly silly thought - going ‘out’ on a high with hookers and multiple chemical experiences!

On drugs I’m in two minds on their status - this essay by Theodore Dalrymple is a good summary of the issues.

Don’t Legalize Drugs - City Journal

Man’s desire to take mind-altering substances is as old as society itself — as are attempts to regulate their consumption. If intoxication in one form or another is inevitable, then so is customary or legal restraint upon that intoxication. But no society until our own has had to contend with the ready availability of so many different mind-altering drugs, combined with a citizenry jealous of its right to pursue its own pleasures in its own way.

Full essay here - http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

What is interesting is why per capita the UK population is the one that ‘enjoys’ the most illegal drugs and drinks to excess more than most other European societies - what does it say about a culture in which temporarily obliterating or radically altering one’s consciousness is the height of enjoyment for millions? Dalrymple has often commented on his patients telling him how much they enjoy their ‘nights out’ - when Dalrymple asks what they did on their ‘night out’ the typical response is - it was great I got ‘wasted’ and can’t remember anything about the night!

There is probably no simple and overly concinnous explanation but I feel the shaping of cultural values by liberal sensibilities is somewhat prominent in the toxic mix.

Posted by PM on Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:25 | #

It was a wasted opportunity to have Paul Weston here and to start bashing him over the head about Jews. Really, what did anyone expect him to be able to say on here about that? I would have liked to hear more about what this term ‘cultural nationalism’ really means to him, and what he defines as English or British culture. It is interesting to note that he cites Lawrence Auster and Sam Francis as people who have influenced his political thinking. Both of these writers are extremely racially aware, all the more so because they are/were American and deal in an environment where identity politics is more about race than ethnicity. Anyone who reads these writers must be very racially aware.

The more I think about ‘cultural nationalism’ the more I see its shortcomings. Presumably the term is supposed to denote that our culture is sovereign and supreme in this country, without the controversy of dragging race into the equation—as long as non-whites adhere to British/anglo-saxon culture, they are welcome. But there is just no getting around or away from the issue of race. It is naive to think the left would let us. How do you define what aspects of modern/traditional culture are British and which foreign? Morris dancing supposedly has Moorish roots. yet we would all regard it as utterly English. What about recent musical trends such as Trip Hop or Dubstep? Both were born in these islands, yet to the likes of people here they betray their African roots. I would regard them both as inferior and injurious to our aspirations for rebuilding a higher, European culture. But this is clearly a racial view—is a party born of compromise and fear really going to dissuade people from listening to African derived pop-music because it is not part of our superior native culture? Of course not. But if we cannot control and reverse such trends, what is the use or meaning of cultural nationalism, other than a staging post elsewhere?

It is not hard to see where this approach ends up: the focus remains entirely on the outward symbols of nationalism and our civic instiutions: flags, anthems, the rule of law and democracy, because these are the kind of things that can be totally inclusive and least controversially defended. Islam becomes the sole ‘foreign’ cultural bogeyman because this is the only thing foreign, alien and threatening enough to thoughtless people that it can be easily attacked without opening up a can of worms about race and definitions of culture. So it is civic nationalism by another name, is it not?

I should have liked to know more from Paul about his manifesto promise about ‘freedom of speech’, Along with an end to immigration, this seems the strongest reason to support the party. But the more I think about this, the more I see problems with this, too. If Paul’s party won, would I be able to go into work and say ‘I think blacks are ruining this country and I want them all to leave’?It seems unlikely. An employer would still have a lot of leeway with regards to what their employees would be able to say. What about a journalist who said the same? If there was an orchestrated campaign to dissuade advertisers from using a newspaper that had a ‘racist’ columnist, how would freedom of speech laws really be able to save him? These are the kind of things I should have liked to know.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:03 | #

PM,

Here is Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan shilling for civicism:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100148816/and-when-we-leave-the-eu/#disqus_thread

I’ve had two or three brief run-ins with Hannan on his threads, but he doesn’t respond to me any more. It isn’t because he disposes of my arguments with insouciant ease. It’s because his own arguments are so easy to trash.

I think Paul Weston was in a similar position when he consented to come here. We are all experienced in these matters, most of us more experienced than him. We do not need to ask naive, formative questions and receive simple answers. Our questions were designed to test the limits of his ideology, not just on Jews but everything that interests us.

The one area I would have liked to probe Paul about is his contention - Lee’s too - that racial nationalism cannot be politicked to the electorate. This is usually said to be because of the very boring but obviously successful tactics of the mad-dog anti-racist left, and because of the media lock-down, and sometimes because of some supposed British rejection of “racism”. This all needs to be explored, and the presumed truths contained it put to the test.

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:12 | #

Racial nationalism, let alone ethnonationalism, can’t be voted in right now. It’s a feeling, an emotional complex and a mode of being that is antepolitical and cultural and it has no ontological status presently and therefore no constituency.

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:14 | #

That is to say, I believe, that constituencies create candidates and not the converse.

Isn’t that why we dread and despise democracy?

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:18 | #

Minnesota isn’t really a good example of the “Heartland” Graham.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:19 | #

If Paul’s party won, would I be able to go into work and say ‘I think blacks are ruining this country and I want them all to leave’?

As I recall, the party’s manifesto calls for the repeal of the Equality Act so there would be no legal sanction at that point against you uttering such a statement. If you got the sack, and you wished to contest it, it would be a straight fight between you and the employer at a tribunal.

It would be like 1960 all over again.

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:24 | #

Leon,

Stop hanging out with Jewish lawyers. Even me and my low brow brothers have the decent to snort our cocaine in the handicap stall.

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:34 | #

1960 ain’t enough.

I’m shooting for 1560 or earlier. At the very least, 1660, so we have a shot at undoing the Bank of England and ensuring Cromwell receives his second death.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:53 | #

What about the Dakotas, Iowa, Wisconsin - pretty ‘heartland’ I would have thought? Well more so than NYC or California.

On the drugs issue I recall occasional news reports of crystal meth arrests/labs busted from the most incongruent ‘small town’ places in these states.

Anyways such things are fairly off-topic.

On Weston I didn’t ask any ideologically ‘dangerous’ questions (I don’t think) but his seeming non-interest or unwillingness to engage on that territory I think speaks volumes - intellectual and political vapidity is not a good starting point - grasping something of the depth, subtly and complexity of the issues at hand is essential in any political movement worthy of the name - even if much of that ‘heavy-lifting’ is not for public consumption per se. Really it’s not that one needs to write a philosophical treatise, but some interest in and analytical engagement with the world in general and the wider landscape of political ideas seems to my mind somewhat necessary in order to seriously and substantially engage in political life.

There is quite an important distinction between diagnosing symptoms and grasping the underlying causes/generative mechanisms.

Even the disinterest and apparent non-thought as to the potential dynamics of English politics in a possible post-Union state, just from an instrumental perspective, seems a rather large oversight to say the least.

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 02:05 | #

The others are more representative. Iowa in particular.

Meth is a small town scourge. Especially in the South.

Posted by PM on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 02:21 | #

GW—but how much can the man say on a public blog? Putting myself in his situation I think I would have to assume that anything I said to anyone, anywhere, could be used against me. I get the feeling he wants to say more than he is letting on. He seems to be saying that he regards the party as a staging post, which will hopefully gain momentum, and as national circumstances deteriorate, become a springboard for a new leadership with a little more backbone. I don’t think this is wishful thinking on my part. Perhaps what we need right now is an amiable liar, sad though that seems. I don’t like it any more than anyone else here.

I’m glad you think that the case for a racial nationalist party has not been made. This has always been my feeling. I have found surprisingly little resistance to my views, sometimes so little that I have actually found it quite funny—the gap between what I had been lead to expect and the reality, that is.
One has to believe that there is a hunger amongst the English public for something of real substance. If we do not believe this, then what is the point, would we not be dead already? A multi-racial, multicultural homosexual-friendly England could never really speak to the soul of higher things, could it? If anything it appeals to people’s vanity, and their desire to conform. If a far-right party were to find a leader who could communicate a really strong sense of compassion and mission for his people, who could pick up on that Tory phrase ‘broken Britain’ and really make it resonate with an honest cry-from-the-heart about the horror of an Englishman and his family living in a dangerous multi-racial slum…if he could make his race appeal to the better part of our natures, and if he could combine this with skillful propaganda which made a bold and striking use of unashamedly white figures in an unashamedly historic setting, appealing openly and boldly to notions of ancestry and belonging, then he could tap into something latent within us all that currently cannot be quantified or accounted for because it has atrophied and withered to such an extent that few even know it is even there. All this would be to his advantage. Attempts to mock this approach would only alienate those for whom the message had struck home. It could happen.

Unashamed is important. Nick Griffin on QT was so apologetic he was almost literally cringing like Gollum as he begged for people not to hate his horrible views. John Tyndall on the other hand seemed almost to revel in the noteriety of his opinions (Nick used to do this too. Far-right politics is corrupting). Proud yet compassionate, a man with an obvious burden, a mission, not a grievance-monger or consumed with ethnic self-pity; rather a measured pride in his roots and a realistic yet ambitious and attractive plan for the way an ethnic British isles could look. He has to be able to make his detractors seem petty and desperate shouting ‘racist’ to his exhortations.

For what it’s worth, and I know it aint much, this seems eminently possible to me.

Posted by Verwood on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:17 | #

A man who has an English wife and children may be highly motivated to secure a future for his kith and kin.

Where is his wife from? I’ve heard that she’s Japanese or something.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:42 | #

Dr.Lister@84

The approach to getting wasted is certainly different between Britain and the Continent (esp Southern Europe).

1. In my travels, I found the English to be the absolute worst in their drinking behavior. Is this impression incorrect? What are Scots like (apparently the Welsh have little to be proud of)? I recall no particular excesses from when I was in Scotland in ‘94. Irish are notorious drunkards, but they don’t seem to sheerly debase themselves as much (ditto the hard-drinking Germans). Russians in my experience get morose and/or violent. Southern Euros seem to hold their alcohol better, or at least they imbibe moderately.

Americans are more like English, I’m afraid, esp in our horrifying ‘frat’ culture. The difference to me is that English keep up this frattybagger behavior way into adulthood, and they seem proud of it. A book you (all) will very much like - even if written by a race-leftist it is hilarious - is Buford, Among the Thugs, about 80s soccer hooliganism. One scene I recall vividly, it was so funny. The poor author was trying to ‘man up’ in an English pub with one of the ‘thugs’ he was befriending for his investigative purposes. At one point the John Bull type looked at him with great disappointment, remarking, “You’re not much of a drinker, are you?” Buford, bleery-eyed on his ninth pint of ale, could only ruminate sorrowfully on his inadequacy.

2. There is probably a deep ‘ontological’ explanation for modern narcotics, beyond simply the availability of things never before experienced thanks to modern chemistry. Modern alienation, insufficient sense of ‘transcendence’, etc.

3. I have plenty of non-drug using friends - a majority, in fact. I’ve just long been into various ‘party scenes’, mainly because that’s where you find the most hot women. I don’t know why so many pretty women on the coasts have to be attracted to (moderate) drug activities, but they are. I think it’s more sexual than actually narcotic (a lot of women like ‘bad boys’, and associate them with illicit substances).

4. I have no opinion re drug legalization, seeing costs and benefits with both options. I disagree with the libertarian “our right to drugs” nonsense, but I fear the free market sociologists are correct: stopping genuinely consensual behavior in otherwise mostly free societies is probably ultimately impossible.

The one good argument for the drug war, however, is that it does sweep up a lot of otherwise undesirable blacks, and gets them into prisons. The notion that these are just profit-maximizing entrepreneurs with ‘rational expectations’, who would purvey detergents instead of drugs were the incentives changed, is too ridiculous for comment.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:46 | #

@Leon

Scots can and do get drunk. Those Welsh pictures are very bad but similar could have been taken in any large town or city in the Isles.

Fraternities and sororities - yes I’d forgotten all about those - at least they keep most of that behaviour ‘in house’ so to speak. There is something quite sad about being witness to chronologically mature people (40s upwards) acting like teens out on their first ever night drinking. It’s fairly disgusting for onlookers and quite sad - it also makes city centres ‘no go areas’ on weekend nights for most moderately civilised people. Is it a meaningful life that has as its ‘goal’ to be blind drunk as often and frequently as possible?

Mind you I have a new game when I’m out and about in general: spot the oldest person with a tattoo - yes I’m spotting freshly done ones on people in their 60s and above! Classy, yes?

In Spain (with Spanish people - not in the ghastly tourist venues) I have rarely seen a drunk person and typically have observed many young families out and about on weekend nights - a lovely relaxed atmosphere. People enjoying food, conversation, a drink or two (not 10 or 15 pints of cheap beer).

I don’t know about anyone else but post-30 I can’t do the ‘get completely blind drunk’ routine even if I wanted to - the hangovers etc., are just too awful. I can’t even imagine doing drugs on a regular basis. Yes OK I’m an ‘old fart’ at heart.

But Dalrymple is right about a citizenry zealously enjoying their hedonistic pleasures - even if that’s imbibing/smoking/injecting/snorting a horse tranquilliser for its “dissociative anesthesia” effects.

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:14 | #

The top half of my right sleeve is Laoocon and His Sons. What’s not classy or un-Western about that?

Fuck. As Disraeli (or Freud) used to say, you silly English bastards where tattooed savages when the Levitical proscription was in full force!!!

100

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:55 | #

“Exposing shallowness”

Theodore Dalrymple on tattoos.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/demello-dalrymple-2647

The tattoo was once a resolutely proletarian form of body adornment which the middle classes regarded as symbolic of lower-class savagery, bad taste, and irresponsibility (the decision to be tattooed was, indeed, often taken while drunk in the company of other drunks). A middle- class person who had himself tattooed was thereby at once déclassé: a slide down the social scale more precipitous and serious than that brought about by a mésalliance, insofar as tattoos last longer, and are more difficult to obliterate, than marriages contracted in haste . . .

Having listened to an unspecified number of tattooed members of the middle classes, the author identifies several motives, all of which struck me as unflatteringly revealing of the soul of modern man.

First there is the assertion of individuality. One of the author’s informants says,

[Being tattooed] separates me from anybody else. No one else has anything like what I have. I feel a little bit different from Joe Shmoe in the street, and I guess it makes me feel special.

This is infinitely sad. That a person’s individuality should be made to depend upon so crude an outward sign as a tattoo is in fact an indication of the fragility of that person’s identity. He must feel simultaneously overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people around him who make it so very difficult for him to differentiate himself from them, and an urgent necessity to do so. This necessity is all the more imperative in an age of celebrity, when fame and public notoriety are to so many people the only goals worth pursuing: indeed, when public adulation itself seems almost the sole guarantor of true personal existence. But their reach exceeds their grasp.

Rather relevant to some of the themes MR is concerned with, yes?

101

Posted by Briggs on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:12 | #

Breaking news. Paul Weston the British Freedom Party’s leader. Has a Chinese wife.

http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/2012/02/breaking-news-paul-weston-british.html

“Shades of Tony Ward from Liverpool then (another unwelcome freak), they both like a bit of sweet and sour, so to speak.”

102

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:28 | #

Graham,

The thematic import and quality of my art cannot be understated! Lolozzzlolzies!

It is part of fitting in where I come from. There is no longer a stigma associated with it. For the record, I have been sober for all of them. And since there is nothing inherently repulsive or wrong with it I’ll consider Theodore’s prejudice just that.

It does not compare to throwing up in front of a kebab stand in southeast London bro.

103

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:31 | #

I mean… As I never tire of repeating, I’m a fascist. I have no problem with drawing a civilizational Maginot. I think this is a case of barking up the wrong tree.

I will consent that, despite being a huge consumer of, pop music has to go. Plato was right.

104

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:21 | #

Theodore Dalrymple is of course a member of a certain ethnic/religious minority. Real name Anthony Daniels. He seems to positively revel in the despair of the British white working class.

Tanstaafl has pointed out that we are condemned for committing suicide via liberalism but anytime it looks like we get an clue about fixing it we are written off as crazed nazis. One gets the feeling that Theo would be trotting out that line quite happily.

105

Posted by daniel 3 on Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:45 | #

Exactly. Tattooed Whites are angry White Nazis-in-waiting who are so committed they would permanently brand their flesh. I could, in a day, write a positive psychological portrait of the tattooed-as-ubermensch that would demolish Theodore’s nonsense.

He would prefer we all sit around listening to Schoenberg. Tattoos do not a philistine make except in the overactive imagination of the hyper-literate kike.

106

Posted by robinson on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:02 | #

Much of the rise in popularity of tattoos has to do with their promotion by Jewish trash pop culture. Not because more people started reading William Pierce or something.

107

Posted by daniel 3 on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:10 | #

Jews often get in on the ground floor of a White subculture (and sometimes subkultchures) and twist it to their own end. It’s containment. That’s why it’s now hard to get a swastika ratio in a shop when it was once easy.

They destroyed classical music too. Medicine. Cosmetology. Law. Finance.You’re making the argument for reclamation and not proscription.

I’m more than willing to give it up in a future White Republic should I have to.

108

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 01:27 | #

Well Dalrymple has his limitations and blindspots - but then who doesn’t? He’s a good essayist if one knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

His insight that we live in an age of mass individualism paradoxically resulting in mass conformity, hence undermining genuine individuality and reducing both the depth and strength of our characters - to be replaced by the vulgar, superficial and shrill - seems an acute one.

Look at the ever inflationary rise of our utterly moronic ‘celebrity culture’ and the values it promotes - linked as Dalrymple suggests to the tattoo craze - and I think, like Dalrymple, that cultural and politics are deeply interconnected (in often unexpected ways). And it is not really helpful to allege all of this is nefariously foisted onto an unwilling public. Many people pro-actively affirm and delight in what is served up in the cultural marketplace we all presently ‘enjoy’. There exists both a supply and a demand element in this relationship.

And the customer is never wrong! What is freedom other than the ability to choose from the exciting range of possibilities on offer at the tattoo parlour etc.?

109

Posted by daniel 3 on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 02:36 | #

There isn’t that much possibility. There are a few schools of tattooing.

As long as we can generate ideological conformity we can push tattoos to be an expression of adherence to ideology.It’s a side issue.

110

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:42 | #

Graham - yes, some truth there. TD has his uses but he is very much part of the ‘leading the horse to water and not letting it drink’ department. And Im leaving out jewish identity here.

Dan3 - agreed.

111

Posted by V.Viking on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 05:24 | #

Paul Weston does NOT, I repeat NOT, have a Chinese wife.
Paul Weston would NEVER have intimate relations with a Chinese woman.
Let me be clear on this very serious issue, these malicious lies are a defamation of character.
Paul Weston has never engaged in intercourse with any Chinese female (nor with any other female for that matter).
To set the record straight (pardon the pun), Paul Weston is actually having a rampant sexual relationship with a Chinese ‘Ladyboy’.
So in future please refrain from spreading hateful gossip about Paul Weston and his Ladyboy partner.

112

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:35 | #

Tattoos - well isn’t that point TD makes - they are trivia but symbolic of a wider set of cultural trends?

And yes he is a member of the tribe - and I can read him without a tin-foil hat and survive - shocking but true all the same!

113

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:54 | #

Lurker@104

“Anthony Daniels” is Jewish? Do you know that? I knew a “Daniels” in college; he was Christian. Likewise, the actor Jeff Daniels is not Chosen (as I suspected, and Wiki confirms).

Lister et Daniel3

Tattoos are a sign of increasing Western degeneracy. “Painting” one’s body has long been associated with savages, not white men (whatever modern WNs might hold to the contrary). I’ve heard it originated in the South Pacific (though I thought the ancient Romans had some kind of military tattooing or perhaps branding. Today, especially, it mostly represents a conscious revolt against the ridiculously unenforced ‘strictures’ of bourgeois society.

In White Zion the first generation (the old fighters) will of course be unmolested in their possession of ‘tats’. For subsequent generations, tats will be allowed only to authentic tough guys; say, special identifiers for particular military platoons or special forces companies. Those who wish to cover their psychic inadequacies with ‘body art’ will be told to get a life, or else light out for re-primitivized lands like the USA.

Let us never forget that, however utopian or distant the dream of the White Republic may seem, we ought still to give some thought to how we will live post-Liberation (I don’t mean foodstuffs and electricity, but what kind of people we will seek to be). I will fight vigorously for a deeply conservative/traditionalist vision, one balancing libertarianism in the economy, with authoritarian social, cultural and moral norms.

114

Posted by daniel 3 on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:48 | #

We’ve reached pure prejudice now. There is really no sense talking about it further especially in a thread devoted to something else.

115

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 02:37 | #

Anthony Daniels - wikipedia

His father was a Communist businessman of Russian ancestry, while his Jewish mother was born in Germany and came to England as a refugee from the Nazi regime.

So, half jewish ethnically and as he had a jewish mother 100% jewish technically. The dad being Russian and communist, thats sounding a bit suspect too. Is that Russian or ‘Russian’?

Not to be confused with Anthony Daniels - wikipedia the bloke who plays C-3PO in Star Wars, though they around the same age.

116

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:13 | #

Graham: His insight that we live in an age of mass individualism paradoxically resulting in mass conformity, hence undermining genuine individuality and reducing both the depth and strength of our characters - to be replaced by the vulgar, superficial and shrill - seems an acute one.

This is the standard critique of every reasonably thoughtful social conservative, and has been so, in fact, since the emergence of romanticism in reaction to the industrial revolution and its associated debilitations.

117

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:34 | #

@GW

Of course it’s not an original thought - perhaps it is simply more apposite than ever before? We have ever more ‘surface’ - think of the Oprah Winfrey-fication of culture and life - at the expense of depth of character.

On Oprah herself this captures the phenomenon quite well:

http://abitoffryandlaurie.co.uk/sketches/oprah_winfrey

Stephen: Hello, I’m Oprah Winfrey. Today we’re looking at self-esteem, what is it, do we have enough, where can we get more if we need it? With me is Louella Della Twee, author of ‘I Think I’m Great: Why Don’t You?’

Cut wider to include Hugh, lolling in a chair in extravagant garb.

Louella, first of all, have you got self-esteem?

Hugh: No. I don’t have it. Don’t ask me why.

Stephen: Oh. Alright.

Hugh: God knows I should have it.

Stephen: Really?

Hugh: I’m an intelligent, beautiful, warm, loving, funny, sexy, rich, almighty heap of a woman. The only thing I don’t have is self- esteem.

Stephen: That’s a bugger, isn’t it? . . .

118

Posted by daniel 3 on Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:40 | #

In another sense, the surface is neglected. People don’t take enough care. They’re overweight, underdressed, etc.

It is underthought, overperceived, boilerplate of the right.

119

Posted by David Fox on Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:11 | #

Zionsists push to divert British Nationalism into putting Israel before Britain

http://barenakedislam.com/2012/04/16/warning-to-the-west-about-islam-by-paul-weston-head-of-the-british-freedom-party/

Weston has just showed his true colours. Notice how he defended Jews and Homosexuals(twice) but not Britains? That vicious attack on BNP members shows what low filth this man is. Very few BNP members were like that: they wanted to save their country and the people. Note also, that he and Robinson are constantly interviewed by Michael Coren!!!
In a previous speech he said that the senior officials in the BFP who were in the BNP left because Blacks were not allowed to join. That is a lie. They left after the party collapsed after the 2009 General Election and the Barking result.

We are also seeing many innocent people harassed by the police in an attempt to slot them into the new narrative that grew up around Breivik’s crazy actions. The Hope not Hate blog get it wrong as usual:

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/counter-jihad-splash/

http://britishfreedom.org/paul-weston-speech-london-april-7-2012/

The “far-right” has not morphed into anti-Muslim groups. Most of these CounterJihad groups are Zionists. That is a different movement that accepts multi-racialism and liberal views on gender but opposes Islam. It does that in defence of Israel not our countries.
The hallmarks of this anti-Muslim ideology is that it dismisses race and territory and attacks Islam as an ideology and condemns it and The Koran for being like Nazism. The groups who promote this view? The EDL leaders, The British Freedom Party leaders, Gates of Vienna blog and Geert Wilders. Note in Paul Weston’s otherwise admirable speech he accepts that we are multi-racial which is not a “far-right” view.

Paul had an article published by the Nationalist Unity Forum under their Guests column. I tried to post a comment pointing out that in last Autumns Black Insurrection young Blacks in Birmingham fired live bullits at the police and we can not ignore that unpleasant reality to just attack Islam. The hypocrites on the NUF censored my reasonable comment.

http://www.amerika.org/politics/hunting-innocent-people-to-build-a-narrative/

120

Posted by Gerry Dorrian on Sun, 13 May 2012 19:33 | #

Bill, what’s wrong with weeping for Fabrice Muamba? As a member of British Freedom I subscribe to its notion that it’s about culture, not colour. Subscribing to outdated and sinister notions of race will do nothing but lead patriots down blind alleys they may have difficulty extracting themselves from; in other words, lead them to places federasts would like them to go.

121

Posted by Realistic Artist on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 02:45 | #

I don’t drop many remarks, but i did some searching and wound up here MajorityRights.com: A site for the discussion of issues affecting Western societies. And I actually do have 2 questions for you if you usually do not mind. Is it just me or does it look like some of these remarks look like they are coming from brain dead visitors? And, if you are posting on other places, I would like to keep up with everything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list of every one of all your communal sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments