Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:03 | #

I know nothing of this case, nor do I care to. I do care about the survival of Britain as a white nation (and someday, a re-Christianized and culturally restored one). The racial nationalist ‘minimum’ is this, I believe, in two parts:

1. Stop nonwhite immigration.
2. Eventually, remove all those with nonwhite blood (past a certain quantum, I suppose) from UK citizenship and finally soil.

Is there more to racial nationalism? Need there be? It seems to me that all metapolitical thinking is geared towards strategic electoral concerns; that is, the purpose of such thinking is to figure out how to defeat ideological liberalism in order convince the greater number of real Britons to support #2. Or is there more, and to what end?

The key error of culturalism is an empirical one, though one impossible to prove scientifically (and difficult even to prove historically). It is that, over time, biological essentialism triumphs. No matter how apparently culturally assimilated a particular nonwhite may be to his host nation, there is always an eventual return to his race’s own cultural traditions, or at least to invented ones which are specifically and ostentatiously nonwhite (eg, Kwanzaa), either with himself or on the part of his descendants. Over time, having large numbers of nonwhites resident in a particular historically white country will change the culture of that country, making it, in its essence, less what it was (less white). The culturalist can offer no dispositive proof to the contrary (ie, examples where large numbers of one racial group adapt perfectly and permanently to the culture of another racial group; there is instead always cultural ‘recidivism’), and thus the Precautionary Principle suggests that racially alien persons be kept away from the nation in question as a matter of course, regardless of what culture the aliens temporarily profess or even exhibit.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:17 | #

The key error of culturalism is an empirical one, though one impossible to prove scientifically (and difficult even to prove historically).

Or to even draw attention to as it’s occurring.

The effect of whites (your kind of white) taking their antiracism seriously is compromise.  Whites compromise their (quite likely partly innate) standards and begin to conform to the (looser) standards of others (“whiggers,” in the worst instance).  In time this feels normal to them, making it difficult to point out.

I’ve witnessed this with my own eyes.  Although I’m ‘technically’ too old to be partying it up, I look much younger, so I often find myself mixing it with the youth of today.  Even in towns largely untouched by any sort of immigration (not even S. European) there’s a marked (at least noticeable) difference in whites’ behavior compared to the early 90s (by which point decline had already set in, of course).  Maybe the differences are more obvious to me because it used to be much more “ya fuckin’ dago!” than “this Silver’s a pretty cool guy” back then than it is today.  (Indeed, the former has pretty much vanished.)  That could certainly be coloring my views.  But I really do believe it’s more than that. 

A lot of the pride seems to have gone out of these people.  There seems to be much less sense of knowing who they are and what they’re a part of than when I was growing up.  That’s true even for many of the ‘racists’ (ie those who don’t mind admitting to having racial feelings).  I’ve talked to quite a few of these (young) people.  There’s much more racial awareness than you might think (although a lot less than a WN would wish for). (It just requires directing, imo.)  I suspect they open up to me because I’m obviously a cultural familiar (I sound as though I’m “from around here” and “know the ways”) and, these days, racially it’s become a ballpark thing (“at least he’s not a [...]” sort of logic, I suppose), and “Italians” (I’m not one, but commonly assumed to be) are seen as “acceptable” (though not necessarily “accepted as white”), so there’s a feeling that, at least in some way, we’re “on the same side.” (Remember, these kids haven’t fully thought things through; if they had they’d know that, in a strict sense, we’re not.)

My conclusion from all these conversations is that race, by itself, is rather impotent.  Race needs a cultural glue to hold to it together.  These kids can tell that other races often resent them and give them a hard time, and that it’s hard to form (meaningful) friendships with people so utterly unlike oneself.  But it’s an isolated sentiment.  It’s not connected to anything more—to a vision, say; to an appreciation of what life might be like in a culture that celebrated their existence (rather than demanded they apologize for it). 

To me this means one would be remiss to pooh-pooh the culturalists.  Racialists need the culturalists.  But, as Haller says, the culturalists also need the racialists.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:44 | #

My conclusion from all these conversations is that race, by itself, is rather impotent.

That is rather easy to think so long as individuals have the opportunity to avoid the Other in self-selected cloisters of the racially/ethnically same.  These opportunities will grow increasingly scarce as the years and race-replacement creep on.  Almost certainly, race will become more salient in the minds of (many) more people as it does. 

And for all your blasting of “nordick nutzis”, you yourself, and by your own admission, prefer the company of Southern Europeans.  What a shameful Medicist you are, Silver.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:41 | #

Barnes is infatuated with the chimera of achieving political power within the confines of the existing political spectrum.  The beginning of wisdom for Barnes, two words one hesitates to use in the same sentence, is the realization that anything but election to marginal positions will elude the English so long as a mode of discourse inherently hostile to the existence of the English remains hegemonic.  Most probably, Barnes is too dumb to contribute to the development of, or even understand, the overthrow of this anti-White genocidalist superstructure by a counter intellectualism.  His energy would be properly applied to voicing the talking points given to him by those smart enough to develop them, which is clearly what GW had hoped he would do.  But Barnesy’s dimwittedness and stubbornness may well prove an insuperable obstacle to his being GW’s willing water carrier.  Knowing that, GW is now angling back towards Nick Griffin in the understanding that at least Griffin has the native intelligence to understand what the fuck he is saying, but with less than an optimistic belief that Griffin has the character to use his ideas.  Griffin, apparently, only ultimately cares about what is “good for Griffo” and not what is “good for the English”.

Does Griffo, living testament to what happens when a man gives up boxing and takes up scarfing donuts, even read this blog?

Posted by Good for Griffo on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:15 | #

In the interest of painting a more balanced portrait, and to avoid having Griffin’s pride overly wounded to the effect he will not consider the merits of “ontological nationalism” (assuming he even reads this blog), I hasten to point out that so far Griffin has made a real, and in the most fundamental way, contribution to English EGI.  He fathered and raised four English children, as opposed to only one or none.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:31 | #

He fathered and raised four English children, as opposed to only one or none.

Some people are prevented by circumstances beyond their control.

Posted by Bad for Griffo? on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:37 | #

The argument for English survival will fall to new players.  It won’t take long, believe me.

An implicit appeal to Griffo the opportunist, and he is if nothing an opportunist.  Very sly.  Is this how Griffin can avoid his own marginali[s]ation and consequent eventual irrelevance?  One does wonder though, just what “opportunity” would be in it for the Griffster to find his head stuck on the end of Trevor Phillips’s pike.

Posted by Griffo the First: King of England on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:59 | #

Part of the Master Plan needs to be to find a way for Griffo to advocate for “ontological nationalism” and yet continue to afford him the *opportunity* to keep in fresh stock of tailored suits suitable to his eminence and corpulence.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:16 | #

You may mock, CC, but NG’s focussing of the general election campaign on “bringing our boys home” did not lose the mainstream parties too much sleep.  If one of them had made such a gargantuan error, and experienced the wipe-out that the BNP did in its Barking and Stoke “strongholds”, heads would roll.

They did, of course, roll in the BNP.  But they were the heads of Griffin’s critics.

The party has been turned into personal feifdom.  The future of our people is everything, and it’s quite clear now that Griffin is not the man to take reponsibility for delivering that future.

Posted by Griffo the Great: Half-assed Political Gangster on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:48 | #

GW, I’m not so sure Griffo’s 130 IQ (?) is sufficient to the task.  I think it was as relates to his former Holocaust denial when asked about it on Question Time that he replied, “I don’t know why I said what I said.”  LOL!  What a dumbass.  He could have just said, “I did indeed used to doubt the traditional Holocaust narrative.  But upon having looked more closely at the evidence, I no longer do.”  Assuming he wanted to be all English and sneaky about it.  So again, perhaps Griffo isn’t a capable vessel for the message then anyway - although obviously more capable than Barnesy.

I’m no expert in British law, so I can’t propose any tricky ways around Phillips’s Inquisition to give voice to onto-nationalism in the context of a political party.  Dare is something approaching that, ain’t he?  Perhaps he should put his big brain to work on ironing out this wrinkle in the Master Plan.

Posted by Captainkraut on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:17 | #

give voice to onto-nationalism in the context of a political party.

That latter bit is the key, GG.  A mere advocacy group would be consigned to the wilderness of Brit-media blackout.  The political process is necessary as a soapbox.  Some sneaky legal manoeuvring will be needed to avoid being run through Phillips’s cheese grater.  Barnesy, “lawyer” though he may be, will be of no use, as he is a dumbass.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:45 | #

I doubt whether Phillips’ IQ is very far north of 115.  There were rumours floating around London Weekend Television when he worked there that he could do the talk but was none too bright at walking.  I wonder if he would be the head man at the equalities quango if his skin was white.  I think not.  He is not a lawyer or academic.  He read chemistry at university - did not excel - and seems to have had no other career but the broadcast media and the race industry.  At the EHRC he controls a budget of over £70 million and a staff of four hundred.  It really is a joke.

As for Griffin, he has amply demonstrated the extent of his capability.  He isn’t the man for the job.  He is a perfectably competent MEP and could make a sturdy back-bench MP.  But the task of leading the British people to a sense of themselves and to their senses is well beyond him.

It isn’t difficult to deal with the Holocaust Question, either.  You don’t have to lie.  You just have to say something like:  “I realise now that it’s a matter for historians, and it’s a mistake for uninformed members of the public, even politically active ones, to involve themselves in it.  That said, it is very concerning that free speech is absent in this matter, and that’s largely true even in countries like Britain where you’re not actually locked up for questioning the official history.  In France, for example, and Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Canada and, of course, in Germany many, many people have been imprisoned without what we, in this country, would understand as a fair trial.  I think that is very wrong.”

If the interviewer persists you just close it off with:

“I have said what I want to say on this matter.  I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to submit to trial by media.  Now let us move on.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 01:16 | #

Griffin, apparently, only ultimately cares about what is “good for Griffo” and not what is “good for the English”.

Self-interest, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. It is worthwhile heeding Adam Smith’s message. The butcher, the baker and the brewer look out for themselves but it does not mean they are selfish. They are also concerned for their customers, sympathetic to their feelings, not to how they might feel in a similar situation. It may be that he is not “called by Destiny” as some might say, but it does not mean he is not sympathetic to the plight of the English.

...the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity.

And this is the point that Mr. Haller misses in his belief in China’s ascension. Europe, and more particularly the Anglo-Saxon did not rise because of it’s mean IQ, sense of race/nationalism and or it’s enormous demographic. It rose because of the intelligence and effort of the individual. It was not the race that conquered the wilderness or encircled the globe. It was individuals.

Posted by Savrola on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 02:14 | #

Bowden, (and?) Southgate having bailed, speaks volumes.

Posted by English Moralism on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:25 | #

It may be that he is not “called by Destiny” as some might say, but it does not mean he is not sympathetic to the plight of the English.

But does Griffo really need to be such a douche about it?  I mean, does Socrates really need to “fuck young boys up the ass” in order to educate them, so to speak?  My guess would be…no.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:38 | #

The following comment can get me in trouble, but being who I am I can’t resist making it.

Guessedworker opined: It isn’t difficult to deal with the Holocaust Question, either.  You don’t have to lie.  You just have to say something like:  “I realise now that it’s a matter for historians, and it’s a mistake for uninformed members of the public, even politically active ones, to involve themselves in it. ...”

This is so shallow, so sneaky, so useless, and ... so stupid, in a word - so British.

Being British, GW naturally speaks British English. Translation for those who speak American English: It isn’t difficult to avoid dealing with the Holocaust Question, either.  You don’t have to tell the truth. You just have to say something like: ...

My dear Gassed Worker,

1. Not telling the truth is a form of lie.
2. Lie has short legs - it won’t take you far.
3. You cannot beat the jews in lying, and you cannot beat them by lying.
4. You should not try to oversmart people who are much smarter than you are by lying.
5. You should treat British people like adults not like children.

The truth is simple: There was no plans - secret or otherwise - for mass physical extermination of jews in Hitler’s Germany. Gassing and all that is pure baloney - it never happened. What’s more - it couldn’t happen the way they say it happened.

Would you pay $100 at e-Bay for a most urgently needed item the delivery of which, if ever delivered, would take two weeks if you could easily buy that same item for $1 at your local shop store down the street?

Why would Germans, or anybody else for that matter, build expensive, awkward, inefficient gas chambers while waging a war on two fronts, hoard stinking jews in concentration camps, tattoo them, feed them for weeks or even months, shower them before they shove them into these ovens, while all it takes to get rid of a human parasite is one minute and one bullet in the back of the head. And, by the way, that’s exactly what Germans were doing to the Jewish commissars in the occupied territories. Taking into account what Jews did to Germany, could you blame them for doing so?

Do you know how many human bodies per day you would have to burn to account for 6 million people? Over 4000 every fucking day for 4 years! That’s about the population of a small town, GW. Could that be done without leaving heavy footprints all over the place? This Holocaust narrative makes absolutely no sense, no matter how you look at it.

You don’t need a degree in chemistry and endless academic debates to see the absurdity of the Holocaust myth - all one needs is elementary common sense.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 07:54 | #

Welcome to the Lake of Fire, GW. I’m a liar too. And I hold little hope of Leon prayin’ me out of this joint.

Be thankful yer not a foot soldier, to boot. 

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:19 | #

Jimmy,

If you give a cursory glance at my comments, you won’t fail to notice that my grasp of English language is quite poor. For example, I say ‘oversmart’ when I should have said ‘outsmart’, I say ‘There was no plans’ instead of the correct ‘There was no plan’ or ‘There were no plans’ etc. I am sure high I.Q. Mr Søren Renner could easily find many such examples of poor English grammar, both British and American, in my comments, if he was (were?) inclined to do so that is.

So forgive me for asking: When you say ‘to boot’ do you mean ‘to boot out’ aka ‘to kick out’?

Will Williams - a sharp guy who worked closely with Dr Pierce - pointed out to me in a private communication: I’ve never heard of Majorityrights, but see some of the same posters there from “Hunter’s” blog.  These blogs are incestuously interconnected, and Covingtonistas seem to target them all. Jimmy Marr is to Majorityrights as jack ryan is to Occidental Dissent.

Now I have better understanding of what Will Williams was talking about.

Posted by Andrew Neather on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:20 | #

GW,
    Do you think Andrew Brons would make a good interim leader?
- I’m pretty sure that Brons would have performed much better on ‘Question Time’ than Griffin, possibly to the extent of wiping the floor with Dimbleby and the other loud-mouthed low-browed bullies.
Strangely enough, ‘Brons’ is of German extraction.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:58 | #

Making predictions is always a tricky business because there is a good chance that the predictor will make fool of himself. Anyway I’ll take my chances.

There is no honor in the desire to play sure games only. People like Nick Griffin and his key adviser Arthur Kemp are trying to play sure game, they are trying to outsmart the Jews and outsmart circumstances. You cannot do that, you cannot outsmart the Jew, you cannot outtalk the Jew. The desire to play smart, safe, and sure games is a sure way to guarantee that you will lose.

What needs to be done is break the discourse wide open, the discourse where the terms and subjects are absolutely independent of what the Jews and the public are willing or ready to accept. That’s the strategy that has an enormous chance of success - not now, maybe not in the near future, but that’s the right direction. Nothing will happen until the real crisis breaks out, but when it does people will start craving for a leader, a genuine leader, a natural leader.

My prediction is: When the hell breaks lose, some revolutionary will emerge on the scale of Hitler or Stalin, utterly ruthless, who will shove aside all smart-ass intellectuals and declare them not the brain of the nation but the shit of the nation.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:59 | #

Ivan,

If want to speak to me or anybody else here, please extend the same basic courtesies that are extended to you.  Now ...

A lesson in politics for Ivan

A number of years ago Nick Griffin made the mistake, for a putative politician, of venturing into history-teaching, and telling the world that the Holocaust was a lie.  He has regretted it ever since.  Politicians must remain within the political.  Therefore, under the present dictat the most a politician can safely say in the course of a live media interview is along the lines that the judgement of history is never final, and historians, by definition, must always be free to revise prior findings.

If he wanted to risk being more proactive, our politician could remark that the present almost religious certainty ascribed to that passage in history is intellectually unhealthy.  Ordinary citizens who cannot be conversant with the precise meanings and strengths and weaknesses of the source material are heavily propagandised through the media, and it is from this, not from weighty history volumes, that they take their opinions.  Propaganda is unavoidable, perhaps, but it is not designed to give the public a balanced representation of events.

That might be going too far, and complicating things for oneself.  But it could be reinforced by then saying that this imbalance extends into the laws on the Holocaust in many European countries.  Imprisoning anyone for dissenting from the official narrative of the Holocaust is completely immoral and, again, does not represent the kind of balance to which justice in Western liberal democracies normally aspires.  It is the kind of justice associated with totalitarian regimes.

You see that our politician has remained firmly in the political.  He has not made an ass of himself by pretending to be a historian.

That was what I was writing about.  Politics, not history.  Got that?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:08 | #

It isn’t difficult to deal with the Holocaust Question, either.  You don’t have to lie.  You just have to say something like:  “I realise now that it’s a matter for historians, and it’s a mistake for uninformed members of the public, even politically active ones, to involve themselves in it.  That said, it is very concerning that free speech is absent in this matter, and that’s largely true even in countries like Britain where you’re not actually locked up for questioning the official history.  In France, for example, and Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Canada and, of course, in Germany many, many people have been imprisoned without what we, in this country, would understand as a fair trial.  I think that is very wrong.” (GW)

Brilliant response! Of course, race patriots are utter idiots even to involve themselves in this issue (do some googling re “Jimmy Marr” and you’ll see what I mean). We are being invaded, colonized and conquered at a tremendous clip by legions from the Third World in league with self-hating whites, but some nationalist morons want to obsess over the facticity of the Holocaust. Who cares about the Holocaust?! Disproving some element of the conventional narrative does absolutely nothing towards building up white consciousness, or preventing white extinction. Twenty years after the redoubtable Jared Taylor started American Renaissance precisely to separate out what was valuable about racial nationalism from the moronic accretions of the neo-Nazis and we still have nationalists obsessing over this stuff.

Get over it! You lost WW2; stop fighting that war and start fighting the one we are actually in.

...the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity.( )

And this is the point that Mr. Haller misses in his belief in China’s ascension. Europe, and more particularly the Anglo-Saxon did not rise because of it’s mean IQ, sense of race/nationalism and or it’s enormous demographic. It rose because of the intelligence and effort of the individual. It was not the race that conquered the wilderness or encircled the globe. It was individuals. (Desmond Jones)

Sorry, but I understand this point (that civilization is created out of the efforts of superior men, who carry along the masses) perfectly and am an apostle of it. I think I’ve even said something like this here at one time or another. But each of your further assertions is incorrect.

The former superiority of the West, which reached its apogee in the summer of 1914, or of 1939, depending on your perspective, and which has been leaching away, at an ever accelerating rate, ever since, was based on the confluence of many factors, cognitive, cultural, religious, geographic, political, nearly too numerous to investigate within the confines of a single academic volume. The superior man is obviously vital, but without a sufficiently capable mass behind him, his contributions cannot be made useful. Europe’s mean IQ being higher than most of the rest of the world’s was a huge factor in its rise to global hegemony.

Had Europeans been in thrall to multiculti ideology over the past 500 hundred years (instead of only the past 50), would there have been a Western hegemony at all? Au contraire, Mr. Jones, a sense of group superiority is virtually a prerequisite to civilizational expansion and dynamism. 

WRT the role of sheer numbers, it is not only within democratic polities that “demography is destiny”. Too many white supremacists seem to believe that the global hegemony of the West was due to racial superiority, which can then be expected automatically to reassert itself if we can merely debunk the racially suicidal ideology of liberalism (understood, incidentally, as radical individualism as often as multiculturalism and/or welfare socialism).

I’m much less sure of this. I believe the white race is superior, but only in three ways: morally (we are the most ethical race, which in past times served us well as a race, but at the present time, is, ironically, a major source of our declension); aesthetically (the most attractive whites are the most attractive persons on the planet); and creatively (our race has produced by far the greatest works of the creative intellect, from art and music, to literature, law, philosophy, science, etc) - though whether we always will be the most creative race, especially outside of the fine arts, including literature, where I really do think whites as a race are collectively unbeatable, is very much an open question.

Respecting the numbers, however, it probably won’t thrill you to know that in 1900, a convenient date to mark the apex of global white power, approximately 1 out of 3 humans was white. I think Western dominance had a lot of “right time and place” behind it, and that the notion that there is some “latent genius” in Western Man waiting inevitably to burst forth, if only certain ideological preconditions could be achieved, is perhaps more wishful than empirically accurate. Certainly, the notion that the white bozos I routinely encounter out and about are somehow innately racially superior to, say, the industrious Japanese (who admittedly have their own strange congeries of postmodernist national problems), brings a rueful smile to my face.

It just ain’t that easy. We are going to have to be smart, tough and resourceful if we are to shepherd our indoctrinated kinsmen through the contemporary racial bottleneck. There are no “inevitabilities” in history.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:28 | #

GW: If want to speak to me or anybody else here, please extend the same basic courtesies that are extended to you.

Fair enough. But sometimes you have to hit people in deep coma with a kitchen table leg to wake them up.

GW: A lesson in politics for Ivan

Have you read my comment about playing sure games before you posted your A lesson in politics for Ivan ?

The whole point is, GW, playing politics right now is shear waste of time. Until such time arrives when playing politics starts paying off, the right thing to do is to work on gaining credibility as a real leader. And the only way to do that is being completely open, completely honest, and truly revolutionary.

When the time comes, ‘leaders’ like Nick Griffin, whose game plan was playing politics, will be forgotten.

Is that hard to understand?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:19 | #

Ivan,

The whole point is, GW, playing politics right now is shear waste of time. Until such time arrives when playing politics starts paying off, the right thing to do is to work on gaining credibility as a real leader. And the only way to do that is being completely open, completely honest, and truly revolutionary.

It is illegal in most of Europe (and conceivably, with the European Arrest Warrant, in all of Europe) to deny or trivialise the Holocaust.  You get bled dry financially plus you get jailed if you keep on with it.  There are no exceptions for putative “great nationalist leaders”, for whom, if they existed, the only option would be to steer clear of the rocks.

I do think the Holocaust Industry can be challenged by a nationalist leader on its political impact, which is not actually abstracted from the claimed history.  For example, the British fought against Germany.  Why are British schoolchildren forced to internalise the narrative?  Has it been re-engineered as a narrative of implicit “white guilt”?  And so on.  This might be possible, though obviously dangerous.  If I was Griffin, I would do it.  But I am not Griffin, and I don’t feel that one should criticise him or any nationalist politician too heavily for steering clear of the proverbial own-goal.  We are not the ones upon whose shoulders the reputation of nationalism rests.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:23 | #

Everyone probably heard of this little nugget of anti-Nazi propaganda jews are so good at:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

But have you heard the rebuttal of it:

When the Jews first came for the holocaust deniers,
I remained silent; For I did not ask questions and accepted the myth.

When they came for me, I cried out in anguish and despair,
But there was no one left to help me.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:07 | #

GW: It is illegal in most of Europe (and conceivably, with the European Arrest Warrant, in all of Europe) to deny or trivialise the Holocaust.  You get bled dry financially plus you get jailed if you keep on with it.  There are no exceptions for putative “great nationalist leaders”, for whom, if they existed, the only option would be to steer clear of the rocks.

Is this the best you can come up with?

The gist of my argument is not about the Holocaust or 9/11, and you know it. Btw, when a listener of Radio Free Mississippi challenged Mr Kemp on 9/11, he replied: 9/11 sceptics are crackpots.

Please don’t try to water down my point by replying with such a weak counter-argument.

My point is: Playing politics, being politically correct, and steadfastly refusing openly challenge jewish power is ultimately a losing proposition for British nationalists, just like for all other White nationalists of Europe and America.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:58 | #

Ivan,

The revolutionary nature of nationalism in our Judaised liberal system disbars its faithful political expression.  That is a fact.  The ideas may remain revolutionary but the politics, in order to subsist, must adapt.  The main post is about this dichotomy, whereby a precedent in law has been set and it is now illegal for racial nationalism to be espoused politically in Britain.  It can be espoused through other means, but not through a political party.

It’s no good saying, “break the law anyway”.  That does not lead where we want to go.  That leads to defeat and impotence.

What is possible is to explicate racial nationalism - which does not include anti-Holocaustism as a primary interest, of course - through organs that are not constituted as political parties.  Formally at least, the BNP will be unable to do so.  They have to let it go.  And no amount of declarations of ideological purity will change that.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:41 | #

Guessedworker,

I appreciate your willingness to listen and discuss issues of great importance without employing the argument of final resort of scum bags like Hunter Wallace and Alex Linder. I am referring to the practice of shutting up the opponents by banning them.

That’s a sign of strength on your part - not weakness.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:21 | #

GW,

I strongly agree with Ivan. I don’t know much about other sites, and I suspect there may be times when agitators need to be tossed, but I have been very impressed by your willingness to endure the various punishments dished out here.

More than once I’ve been skeptical of your words, but inasmuch as your actions remain congruent with them, I generally always mostly resist the urge to consistently cause trouble. 

I may yet become a politician. Ivan has noted my potential in this capacity.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:29 | #

Oh, Søren, Søren, Søren. Can’t you be just once a gentleman like GW is?

I’m sorry, man, if I have offended you. My grudge against you is that you are doing dishonest things when you know perfectly well that doing them indeed is not honorable. I guess, that’s something you can’t help.

But try dammit, maybe you can be a good man, you just don’t know about it.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:42 | #

Jimmy, maybe you are not as bad as I thought you are. If you have changed your mind to be a foot soldier in jihad for Islam, you have my blessing of your new aspiration to become a lying politician, but please don’t lie to me - I hate that.

Not to mention: lying to me is useless - I can see through the lies especially when they are so transparent as in your case.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:54 | #

When you say ‘to boot’ do you mean ‘to boot out’ aka ‘to kick out’?

No, Ivan. I did not mean “to kick out”.

By “to boot” I meant “in addition to”, which refers to my condemnation not merely to Hell, but to the lowest ranks thereof, (i.e. foot soldier).

Is it possible to be kicked out of Hell?

Posted by Jupiter7 on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:30 | #

Guessedworker

Who is repsonsible for the catastrophe in Barking? NG or the Native English? Why didn’t they vote overwhelmingly for BNP?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:33 | #

GW,

What is possible is to explicate racial nationalism [...] through organs that are not constituted as political parties.

MSM coverage of the message is critical, otherwise the lemmings, er, the “suggestible” won’t believe or bother to listen.  Griffin broke through to MSM coverage because he is involved in the political process.  The proposition that an advocacy group or think tank could do likewise seems dubious (Jonathan Bowden doesn’t get much BBC face time, does he?).  That leads back to refining a discourse of racial nationalism that conveys the needed substance yet avoids legal entanglement for those who use politics, for now, as a soapbox.  There will be no real progress in achieving political power for racialists until the zeitgeist is changed anyway.  The above described is therefore an investment needed to realize future political gains.  What, shitheads like Barnesy and Griffo are not interested in further electoral success?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:37 | #

Why didn’t they vote overwhelmingly for BNP?

You want the truth or some English bullshit?  Well, I’m not English so I’ll give you the truth: it is because they are lemmings.  Fooling one’s self into thinking they are not is simply counterproductive.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:32 | #

Who is repsonsible for the catastrophe in Barking? NG or the Native English? Why didn’t they vote overwhelmingly for BNP?

I dislike this question. It makes me think, which is painful, because it reveals the internal hypocrisy of my racialism. Not that I know anything about Barking, except what I’ve heard in the background of Radio Free Mississippi.

Challenging the Myth of the Six Million is not illegal in America. As Leon points out, I have done this repeatedly in a state university venue, and while the administration eventually squelched me, that was not the primary obstacle. The same holds true for 911, and the truth about the ongoing genocide of the White race. White people don’t want to hear it. This, I imagine holds true for Barking as well.

Acknowledging this, how can I honestly continue to imagine myself primarily as a racialist? At best, I am a Nazi. At worst, I am a proponent of Islamic jihad. The one thing I hate, more than anything on this earth, is the thing that masquerades as Jewish victimhood. The wolf in sheep’s clothing.

And, what I am coming to suspect is that the one thing this wolf fears and hates more than any racially awakened White man, is a servant of Allah.

The Third Reich resisted Mammon for a dozen years. Lowly Palestine has exceeded that by 5 times and continues to fight to this day. Why?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:32 | #

Jupiter 7,

Who is reponsible for the catastrophe in Barking? NG or the Native English? Why didn’t they vote overwhelmingly for BNP?

As the head man, the buck stops with Griffin anyway.  But the Barking disaster was a combination of bad political management on Griffin’s part (the party has been weakened and divided) and the very cunning and costly campaign mounted by Margaret Hodge.

As for the native English, they need the BNP to enunciate their interests.  The degree to which that is done determines the party’s political fortunes.  Simple as that.

CC,

MSM coverage of the message is critical, otherwise the lemmings, er, the “suggestible” won’t believe or bother to listen.

I agree.  The form of presentation should be digestible beyond nationalism.  The question is how far beyond before it is sicked up!

Griffin broke through to MSM coverage because he is involved in the political process.

Because he was successfully involved in the political process.

The proposition that an advocacy group or think tank could do likewise seems dubious

I agree.

Jonathan Bowden doesn’t get much BBC face time, does he?

Well, I was asked on to Press TV earlier this year!!!!

That leads back to refining a discourse of racial nationalism that conveys the needed substance yet avoids legal entanglement for those who use politics, for now, as a soapbox.  There will be no real progress in achieving political power for racialists until the zeitgeist is changed anyway.

OK, I can perceive four levels at which it is or may become possible to work in Britain at this moment.  These are political party, think-tank, pressure group, national folk movement.

The battle for Option 1 is now over and the incumbent has won.  For better or for ill that is a reality. 

Option 2, the think-tank, is in train.  But, clearly, it will experience difficulty in penetrating the MSM.  Its target market, however, will extend to the traditional right and the anti-EU right and left.  Its principal function is to intellectualise the political movement.  Its secondary function is to condition the ground for other movements to arise.

Option 3, the pressure group, would require development of the concepts of English ethnicity and English rights before it could get a hearing.  Laying the foundation for an engaged pressure group will be among the objectives of the think tank.

Option 4, the national folk movement, also could not come into being without a good deal more reinforcement of the concept of English ethnicity.  It would be non-political.  It would do charitable work.  It would sponsor/raise funds through cultural events and concerts.  It would send people into schools to talk positively about the English, our history, impact on the world, and so forth.  In all this, it would serve to steer the people towards political nationalism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:45 | #

Soren: Maybe he thinks you are not an opponent.

I don’t know enough about him to call him an opponent.  He would become one, obviously, if he opposes the repatriation/relocation of non-English Moslems out of England.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:04 | #

Thursday 6th. May 2010.

The buck stops here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:42 | #

GW: I don’t know enough about him to call him an opponent. He would become one, obviously, if he opposes the repatriation/relocation of non-English Moslems out of England.

GW,

Let me state for the record with absolute clarity that I have no problem whatsoever with the repatriation/relocation of non-English Moslems out of England.

However I can’t help but notice:

1. Discussing repatriation/relocation issue or having disagreement over it doesn’t make much sense until all non-White immigration to England, legal and illegal, is stopped cold turkey. And I have no problem with that either.

2. Are you sure you have thought out carefully the statement quoted above? It implies that you would have Russian Moslems, German Moslems, Caucasian Moslems, and all other White non-English Moslems repatriated/relocated out of England. In other words, your emphasis is on religion and not on race or ethnicity.

I guess it was just a hasty and sloppy statement.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:46 | #

I mean, does Socrates really need to “fuck young boys up the ass” in order to educate them, so to speak?  My guess would be…no.

Wrong answer. Pederasty was fundamental for initiation into the inner circle of gnosticism. It was the very essence of what differentiated civilized Hellenism from the barbarian. The question that goes unanswered is how such perversity arises through faith?  What a sick, debased and disturbing set of affairs. There is no moral balance here.

Of course how Socrates sexual urges relates to Griffin and the BNP is unclear.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:13 | #

Are you sure you have thought out carefully the statement quoted above? It implies that you would have Russian Moslems, German Moslems, Caucasian Moslems, and all other White non-English Moslems repatriated/relocated out of England. In other words, your emphasis is on religion and not on race or ethnicity.

Übersmart!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:29 | #

The YouGov poll taken after the Euro election is interesting.  It shows a deeper disaffection from the BNP, certainly by those that voted Conservative, than just Holocaust denial. There is a fundamental disconnect over the issue of race. Also of interest is that the British voting public, including the BNP voters, as Matra suggested, have no affinity for government takeover of the banks.

Non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white
citizens born in this country

Agree strongly 35 29 43 46 53 25 13

Tend to agree 36 40 34 35 34 39 22

TOTAL AGREE 71 69 78 81 86 64 35

Neither agree nor disagree 14 16 12 11 7 17 20

Tend to disagree 9 9 6 5 6 13 22

Disagree strongly 4 3 2 1 1 5 21

TOTAL DISAGREE 12 13 8 7 6 18 44

Don’t know 3 2 3 2 1 1 2

Second column is Conservatives and the last column is BNP. For instance, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Greens and Ukip believe in the Britishness of non-whites at a percentage, on average, of 75.6% which is a vast chasm vis-a-vis BNP supporters.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:59 | #

Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of BNP supporters wanted all immigration stopped – 94% agreed with the statement. However, this doesn’t strongly differentiate them from the rest of the public, 61% of whom agreed with the statement. Only amongst Green party supporters were a plurality opposed to the statement. BNP supporters were also most likely to put immigration as the top issue facing the country. 87% picked it as a major issue, though again, amongst the public as a whole it was already the second most mentioned issue, chosen by 49% of people. (As an aside, it’s worth noting that UKIP supporters also named immigration as the most important issue. Only 39% of people who voted for UKIP put the issue of Europe as one of the top four facing the UK)

Looking at other statements on race or immigration however, BNP supporters tend to contrast far more strongly with supporters of other parties. The majority of every other party’s voters agreed with the statement that “Non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”, only 35% of BNP voters did, with 44% disagreeing. Large majorities of every party’s supporters agreed that there was no difference in intelligence between black and white people…except for BNP supporters, where only 41% agreed. Almost half (49%) of BNP supporters thought employers should discriminate on grounds of race in favour of white people (compared to 11% in the general population), and 58% thought most crime was committed by immigrants (22% in the general population). 72% of BNP supporters wanted the government to encourage voluntary repatriation, compared to 27% of the country as a whole.

At the extremes of conspiracy theory, BNP voters are more likely to believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, or that the Holocaust didn’t happen, but not to a great extent – the overwhelming majority reject them. 3% of British people apparently believe it completely true that “there is a major international conspiracy led by Jews and Communists to
undermine traditional Christian values in Britain”, compared to 9% of BNP supporters. 9% of British people think the Holocaust is exaggerated, with 1% denying it entirely – the figures amongst BNP supporters are 18% and 2%.

A final interesting point was the question of where people got their political news from. The vast majority of people get their news, as one would expect, from the TV, followed by newspapers, the radio and news websites. There was no great contrast between supporters of one political party or another on any of these. Where there was a contrast was the proportion of people who got their news from “political parties websites” – only 3% of people ticked this, but 12% of BNP voters did, suggesting the BNP have managed to communicate directly with their potential voters across the web.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2172

It appears the BNP platform (or some other Nationalist platform) will resonate with the British voting populace if it embraces the economy, jobs and immigration reform. However, it must eschew all issues of racial/group differences if they are to electorally successful, at least in the short term. For the British voting public it will (always?) be Negros over Nazis.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 03:02 | #

Of course how Socrates sexual urges relates to Griffin and the BNP is unclear.

Both instances of self-interest run amok.

Posted by Mohammed Ghoffuq Youssef on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 04:02 | #

Sure, Ivan, every Brit would love to host so many White Muslims that UK would end up with potentially Islamist Kosovos or Bosnia Herzegovina’s in what was formerly their ancient, non - Arabised homeland.

Posted by Philip on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:37 | #

You want the truth or some English bullshit?  Well, I’m not English so I’ll give you the truth: it is because they are lemmings.  Fooling one’s self into thinking they are not is simply counterproductive. - Captainchaos

Captain,

What do you feel in your opinion was the primary reason(s) the English followed this lemming route throughout the 20th century when the other continental Northern Europeans, particularly the Germans that many English claim a great racial affinity with, did not?

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:58 | #

Second column is Conservatives and the last column is BNP. For instance, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Greens and Ukip believe in the Britishness of non-whites at a percentage, on average, of 75.6% which is a vast chasm vis-a-vis BNP supporters.

The majority believe in the cultural hegemony. That’s why it’s the hegemony. Weaken the hegemony and those percentages will change.

The BNP shouldn’t try and triangulate they should engage in electoral metapolitics i.e they use electoral politics to wage cultural warfare through attacking the double standards and moral inconsistency of the multicult. What this does is ratchet up the cognitive dissonance. All a dominant culture is is a cult that the majority believe in (or pay lip service too). The way to break people out of cult conditioning is dissonance.

It’s why the thing that first woke me up was the Israelis building their wall. The people i was politically involved with who’d screech and bully the most over any expressed anti-immigration or anti-multicult sentiment were exactly the same people who would screech and bully the most if anyone made the exact same points about Israel.

Double standards = cognitive dissonance = cult deprogramming.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:04 | #

What do you feel in your opinion was the primary reason(s) the English followed this lemming route throughout the 20th century when the other continental Northern Europeans, particularly the Germans that many English claim a great racial affinity with, did not?

What nations do you include in “continental Northern Europeans?” The validity or otherwise of your comment hinges on that doesn’t it?

I assume at the minimum you include Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:13 | #

GW,

clue for dealing with unowho

In your opinion I’m .....

Oversmart is a codeword for ....

No one is flooding Mecca ....

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:45 | #

The stats quoted by Desmond Jones merely confirm what I have long stated here at MR: 1) most whites are brain dead and simply will not ‘wake up’ until there is either mass butchery of whites in the streets, or, absent that, foundational cultural/intellectual change - which, however, takes too long vis a vis the “physical problem” of ultimate removal (ie, by the time the intellectual work developing ethical nationalism (my work) is completed, Britain, Europe, America, etc, will have nonwhite immigrant + descendant majorities, at which point repatriation will mean war, which will strike most whites as economically/personally unfeasible - and so the multicult will win by default); and thus, 2) the only hope for the survival of genetically pure whites for centuries hence is for substantial numbers of awakened white “pioneers” to emigrate to a ‘conquerable’ foreign polity, and to eventually demographically conquer and ‘racialize’ that country, which would in effect become a kind of international ‘reservation’ (if not ‘zoo’) for whites. I have proposed this option of foreign demographic cum political conquest many times, here at MR, and elsewhere.

In this sense, the white separatist or “frontier” work of Jimmy Marr is actually the correct path for us (minus the stupid and pathologically counterproductive Nazi advocacy, of course), along with anti-immigration activism, of course, just to hold out hope that one day we might possess the desire and still physical power to drive the invaders out of our traditional homelands. Pragmatically, I don’t think the world’s potentially coming lone white homeland will ever actually be carved out of the US, but an area of the US disproportionately filled with WNs could at least be a livable alternative to the foreign racial homeland (if emigrating should not be feasible for some white Americans), on the one hand, and the ever-more Californicated America, on the other. 

“Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle”. Never forget that is our situation.

Posted by Ted Denny Aylmer on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:19 | #

Continuing descent of Occidental Dissent:

Watching the show on TLC right now.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/12/19/the-hard-right/comment-page-1/#comment-142009

Cuckold Wallace has become a Sarah Palin fan! 

1.) Sarah Palin mated with an Eskimo!  Her children are mongrels!

2.) This nights episode featured reality tv star Kate Goeslin, who birthed EIGHT Eurasian mongrels!

Cuckold Wallace appears to be an avid fan of racial miscegenation! 

Posted by tc on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:57 | #

I am sorry to say - and please, brother, do not consider this comment a personal insult on Yourself, My Brittish fella White Man - but the transformation foreseen by the architects of cultural marxism in the West is now complete.

There are no easy ways to weasel out of this fight - but to show our might.

Posted by Philip on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:04 | #

Captain,

What do you feel in your opinion was the primary reason(s) the English followed this lemming route throughout the 20th century when the other continental Northern Europeans, particularly the Germans that many English claim a great racial affinity with, did not?

What nations do you include in “continental Northern Europeans?” The validity or otherwise of your comment hinges on that doesn’t it?

I assume at the minimum you include Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch?

Wandrin,

Yes, absolutely to your question that I would include the five nations you mentioned as part of continental Northern Europe.

Since you remarked on my question, let me ask you that prior to WW2 do you think the continental N. Euros were more like Britain - or more like Germany in their socio-political leanings?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:40 | #

“frontier” work of Jimmy Marr is actually the correct path for us

Thank you Leon. I’m proud to have brought you into the fold. Unfortunately, in looking at the time stamp on your post I can see that you did not make the pre-Islamic deadline. We now require that all California refugees convert to Islam before entering the NW Holy Land.

It’s not as difficult as it seems, Leon. If Snoop Dog can do it, I know you can too.

Cause if you don’t, I might have to bust a cap in yo honky ass.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:02 | #

do you think the continental N. Euros were more like Britain - or more like Germany in their socio-political leanings?

I think they would all be roughly similar under normal conditions. I think the abnormal conditions were:

1. Germany not becoming a single united nation until 1870.
2. Germany losing WWI.
3. The looting of Germany by the banking system in the 1920s - an event which is currently repeating itself but throughout the entire west and not just Germany this time.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:07 | #

I wonder what English “ontological nationalists” have to say to this:

Race Gestapo Lose Bid to Kill British National Party
Fri, 17/12/2010 - 12:08 |  BNP News
The state-funded race Gestapo, known by its official name as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR), has been defeated in its bid to kill the British National Party.

A ruling in the Royal Courts of Justice this morning found against the ECHR which had launched a new action to have party leader Nick Griffin MEP declared in contempt of court.

The British National Party had already complied with an earlier court order to change its membership rules and the ECHR then brought another application claiming that Mr Griffin had not followed the court’s ruling and was therefore in contempt.

The ECHR initially sought to imprison Mr Griffin and seize party assets. This morning’s ruling squashed all of that and found that the party leader was not in contempt of court either.

“This is a great day for the British National Party,” Mr Griffin said.

“We have won a spectacular David and Goliath victory for freedom. This is the fourth time that the politically correct state has tried to jail me, and it is the fourth time that it has blown up in their anti-British faces.

“While the political elite get paid for telling lies, they try to bankrupt and imprison us for telling the truth. Against all the odds, we won again,” Mr Griffin said.

“The High Court has confirmed that the British National Party has acted within the law.

“We are a legal and legitimate political party which is entitled to organise and campaign for the fair treatment and equality of the British people,” he continued.

“We welcome good people of all races who are willing to help us win fair play and freedom for the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.

“Most important of all, this case forced the ECHR to acknowledge the existence of the native people of our islands as a distinct ethnic group, with the result that all members of that group are at last entitled to the full protection of anti discrimination laws.

“The English people especially are now no longer a non-people in their own country,” Mr Griffin said.

“It was worth going into debt and risking prison to secure this principle.

“But we are not going to prison. We have won.

“So we are going home to celebrate giving the British people an early Christmas present: freedom, equality and the right to be ourselves.”

* The British National Party will be seeking a full costs order against the ECHR for this vexatious action, Mr Griffin added.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/race-gestapo-lose-bid-kill-british-national-party

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:41 | #

Phil,

I speculate that the English are more individualistic and bourgeois moralistic per their genetic baseline than are Germans.  As a result of their higher on average individualism they are less constrained by extended kinship networks in pursuing their self-interest, and this may be ethnically injurious.  Their greater bourgeois moralism allows them to rationalize the getting of shekels at the expense of their lower class kinsmen as some great moral triumph because arguable they are helping out some muds in the process.  The narrative of the Brit-empire being a civilizing influence and not merely an exercise in shekel-getting by a superior race would be one such example.

But how did the English get that way?

Economic historian Gregory Clark provides a provocative answer:

Clark is most well known for his theory of economic history related to the change in behaviors that enabled the Industrial Revolution, discussed in his book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World.

A Farewell to Alms (the book’s title is a non-rhotic pun on Ernest Hemingway’s novel, A Farewell to Arms) discusses the divide between rich and poor nations that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of the evolution of particular behaviors originating in Britain. Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy, who were less violent, more literate, and more productive. This process of “downward social mobility” eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Clark_(economist)

Notice Clark’s book is not entitled A Farewell to Shekels.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:45 | #

Most important of all, this case forced the ECHR to acknowledge the existence of the native people of our islands as a distinct ethnic group, with the result that all members of that group are at last entitled to the full protection of anti discrimination laws.

Pretty excellent imo.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:09 | #

Oh, and Phil, there is the annoying English tendency to blame shit on the Krauts. 

Such as:

For example, the British fought against Germany.  Why are British schoolchildren forced to internalise the narrative?

Notice too, that when you asked about the English, Wandrin decided to instead talk about Krauts.  Hmm, why would that be?  My guess is that because he is English.  Not that I suggest he delights in blaming Krauts, only that he thinks better them than the English.

For all the high-flown moral rhetoric I’ve encountered here when debating WWII with the English I’ve not been able to discern any real motive for England staying in the war other than an overweening desire to “beat the Krauts” out of a spirit of “fuck you, mate”.  So basically just myopic Brit-chauvinism, then, with their characteristic moralism acting as rationalization.

Posted by Philip on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:13 | #

...Their greater bourgeois moralism allows them to rationalize the getting of shekels at the expense of their lower class kinsmen as some great moral triumph because arguable they are helping out some muds in the process.  The narrative of the Brit-empire being a civilizing influence and not merely an exercise in shekel-getting by a superior race would be one such example.

Brilliant analysis Captain, and thanks very much for your answer.

*If I may further ask your opinion: why did the English/British, who were so hostile to Germany throughout the twentieth century, nonetheless wnat to claim and appropriate for themselves a Germanic identity, when in fact they were often so hostile to ‘Germaninity’ in practice?

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:35 | #

Well, their royal family is German.  In fact the royal surname was changed to “Windsor” during WWI to avoid the appearance of being too, um, Krauty, for want of a better term.

appropriate for themselves a Germanic identity,

No one does regal/militaristic pomp like the Krauts.

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:14 | #

Jimmy is getting upset: Cause if you don’t, I might have to bust a cap in yo honky ass.

Bravo, Jimmy, bravo! This Leon character was begging for some butt thrashing but, as a Muslim, I am not allowed that kind of activity, you know. Thanks for your help.

And you, rascal, pretended you didn’t know what to do. That’s what I call the spirit of strategic partnership.

You are almost ready now for a suicide mission, Jimmy, that would make you eligible for 72 virgins in the kingdom of Allah, provided I solicit for you, of course, because you are not a Muslim ... yet.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:23 | #

When I linked to that Snoop Dogg conversion video, I was mostly just trying to be funny, and give Leon a hard time, but hidden there is something of great value.

When Islam is endorsed by American Blacks, can also provide the perfect catalyst for their nationalization.

What else could possibly hold such amazing potential as a moral alternative to “amoral race war”. No fighting whatsoever: Blacks convert to Islam and form their own ethnostate. Bingo! It’s a win-win for everybody but the parasitic Satan, who will whither and vanish when no longer able to suck the blood its christian host.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:37 | #

Jimmy is getting upset: Cause if you don’t, I might have to bust a cap in yo honky ass.

You are almost ready now for a suicide mission, Jimmy, that would make you eligible for 72 virgins in the kingdom of Allah, provided I solicit for you, of course, because you are not a Muslim ... yet. (ivan)

————————————————————————————-

Who is this Islamic idiot “Ivan”, what he is doing here, and why is he tolerated?

You are not part of the West, Ivan, you never will be, the little of your ramblings that I have read are clearly the product of a poorly formed mind, and it is far more likely that if you were to meet me in person, it would be you who would greatly be in fear of an ass-kicking, not me (same goes for you, Marr, so watch your language).

Islam is the eternal enemy of Western Civilization, and the chief contemporary battering ram and global ideology embraced by all haters of the white man. Read French nationalist Guillaume Faye on this. Others here should note the bizarre conjunction of Jimmy Marr’s Nazism with a tentative embrace of or interest in Islam. This is a typical ‘journey’ of the type of marginal character from whom we serious and effective racialists need to disassociate ourselves if we or our ideas are ever to enter the mainstream (which we/they must, fantasies of racial revolution notwithstanding, if we are going to stop the racial demographic immigration tsunami - which must be stopped if racial recovery is ever to be possible!).

Racialists really need to be much tougher with the bums, ne’r-do-wells and mental cases who so often flock to our righteous and necessary cause. We need to develop and settle on a ‘nationalist minimum’ agenda, one which is strategically and politically wise, and then, the better men among us need to form national or pan-national organization(s) which rigorously exclude men of low character or delusional psyches. The damage to the cause of white survival which has been done over the postwar decades by neo-Nazis, skinheads, and assorted other ideological and social extremists is incalculable.

Who here at MR is serious, and who is merely a loser with nothing better to do in life?

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:13 | #

This Leon Haller character strongly reminds me of a well-known in MR circles person who was suffering from multiple personality syndrome - FB aka Friedrich Braun aka Stephen Elliott.

Have Friedrich Braun chame-Leon-ed or what?

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:26 | #

Jimmy Marr: What else could possibly hold such amazing potential as a moral alternative to “amoral race war”. No fighting whatsoever: Blacks convert to Islam and form their own ethnostate. Bingo! It’s a win-win for everybody but the parasitic Satan, who will whither and vanish when no longer able to suck the blood its christian host.

Jimmy,

Talk to me, man! That’s why commander George Rockwell supported Malcolm X, that’s why Glenn Miller has great respect for Louis Farrakhan and the teaching of Islam in general.

Posted by Kapitandurcheinander on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:37 | #

who is merely a loser with nothing better to do in life?

Everyone but you, Leon.  The rest of us must look to the nearest dumbster for life’s sustenance.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 03:01 | #

There are a certain number of people using this site to engage in serious discussions of white racial plight. Then there are the trolls, jokers, idiots, and time-wasters.

It is clear to real intellectuals who is the wheat, and who the chaff.

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 03:11 | #

Ted Denny Aylmer: Continuing descent of Occidental Dissent: ... Cuckold Wallace has become a Sarah Palin fan! 

Shame on you, Ted. How can you take this guy seriously after seeing this:

http://www.realcourage.org/2010/06/love-will-win/

Maaaan, I’ll tell you, when I saw that fat short guy in yellow T-short in the video on that page, the turn-off was sudden, complete, and irreversible.

As Jim Giles is fond to say: The visage is very important to me.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:39 | #

Jimmy, it seems likely that Islam’s Third World adherents are too racially diverse (Arabs, Iranians, Indo - Pakis, and the largest group, Malay-Indons,) to fit one “phenotype of a genotype”

Yeah. You’re right. But what about the e x t e n d e d phenotype of Islam itself?

I’m out of my depth. Any thoughts on the matter, James Bowery?

Posted by Bill on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:27 | #

Labour’s good society.  Jonathan Rutherford.

In a nutshell.

Across Europe the decline of social democracy has been accompanied by the rise of cultural movements of the racist right. In Britain, the British National Party is imploding after suffering electoral defeat, but the English Defence League is a new symptom of our cultural dislocations and economic crises. It is powered by a visceral hatred for a metropolitan elite who it believes has heaped humiliation upon people and robbed them of their English identity and culture. Its wildcat network, patriotic support for the military and single-minded attack on Islam and British Muslims have made it a formidable street political force. ‘Tommy Robinson’, a former BNP member and one of the self styled leaders of the EDL, has described it as a ‘community’, and has framed its politics not around race but around democracy – ‘While our troops are fighting for democracy in foreign fields, we’re losing it here’.

The EDL is a small element of much larger politically disenfranchised forces that have been unleashed by the transformations in capitalism. Their language is not so much about class injustice as cultural dispossession; in this regard they are a ‘nativist’ even ‘civilisational’ politics similar to Islamism. None of the mainstream political parties have shown that they understand this new politics of dispossession. Camped outside the political centre ground is a large element of the electorate, waiting for an English kingmaker to appear. Labour is held in contempt partly because of its its failure to defend people against the destructive force of globalisation and the cultural losses caused by cosmopolitan modernity. It is at risk of being seen as part of the liberal middle classes and a defender of the sectional interests of the public sector; a fate that threatens other European Social Democratic Parties.

http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/articles/s46rutherford.pdf

Posted by Philip on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:35 | #

Well, their royal family is German.  In fact the royal surname was changed to “Windsor” during WWI to avoid the appearance of being too, um, Krauty, for want of a better term. - Captainchaos

Too bad Captain they couldn’t step in and at least mitigate the genocidal behavior Britain treated Germany to in the two world wars.

Here is an excellent example:

BRITISH INHUMAN GERMANY’S CRY; Press Charges Blockade Is About to be Tightened Beyond All Law and Justice. BUT INSISTS IT WILL FAIL U-Boats Relied Upon for Sharper Reprisal—Cecil Scouts Berlin’s Humanity Talk. BRITISH INHUMAN, GERMANY’S CRY

From a Staff Correspondent.Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES. 
April 12, 1916, , Section , Page 1, Column , words

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

BERLIN, April 11.—Since England’s suspension of Article XIX, of the Declaration of London, the conviction is prevalent in German minds that England plans to inaugurate on April 18 the sharpest form of blockade in violation not only of international law, but of the principles of justice and humanity as well. England’s “starvation war on German women and children” is the phrase of the hour. ...[Abstract]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9407E3DE113FE233A25751C1A9629C946796D6CF

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:25 | #

Bill,

That was very interesting. Thanks for calling it to our attention.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:07 | #

Oh, and Phil, there is the annoying English tendency to blame shit on the Krauts.

Blaming other people for stuff is not a uniquely English thing.

There is a lot of blaming stuff on Krauts specifically as that is the inevitable result of an anti-white culture which relentlessly attacks Anglos *except* when they’re fighting Krauts-Nazis.

Notice too, that when you asked about the English, Wandrin decided to instead talk about Krauts.

Your little chum asked about northern europeans while only comparing England and Germany because if you include the Swedes, Norwegians, Danes and Dutch it doesn’t fit the conclusion he wants.

If you include all the others then England isn’t the odd one out. The odd one out is Germany. Germany is the odd one out because Germany had a complete economic collapse and the others didn’t.

The reason the *current* economic collapse is centred on Wall St and London is because the grand-children of the people responsible for the economic collapse in Germany in the 1920s got kicked out of Germany and now dominate Wall St and London.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:24 | #

1) The BNP did not win anything - the whole contempt case was flawed from the start as the Redwing dicta in the case reveals it could not be won. Therefore the issue is why was it bought in the first place. It was bought to make Griffin appear a persecuted leader to bolster his position in the party prior to the full costs order being imposed in a few weeks time. The last thing the EHRC wants is a competent leader, they need Griffin to remain in charge of the BNP to keep it hobbled and under performing.

2) The EHRC case means that Racial Nationalism and Ethno-nationalism as political movements are now unlawful. Thats Griffins legacy. The cultural political struggle is the only legitimate movement left.

3) The BNP is not a cultural movement, it is a schizophrenic party incapable of any ideological or intellectual cohesion.

4) The key error of culturalism is an empirical one, though one impossible to prove scientifically (and difficult even to prove historically). It is that, over time, biological essentialism triumphs. No matter how apparently culturally assimilated a particular nonwhite may be to his host nation, there is always an eventual return to his race’s own cultural traditions, or at least to invented ones which are specifically and ostentatiously nonwhite (eg, Kwanzaa), either with himself or on the part of his descendants. Over time, having large numbers of nonwhites resident in a particular historically white country will change the culture of that country, making it, in its essence, less what it was (less white). The culturalist can offer no dispositive proof to the contrary (ie, examples where large numbers of one racial group adapt perfectly and permanently to the culture of another racial group; there is instead always cultural ‘recidivism’), and thus the Precautionary Principle suggests that racially alien persons be kept away from the nation in question as a matter of course, regardless of what culture the aliens temporarily profess or even exhibit.

The example you note relates to a nation that no longer promotes its own culture, eg America in the grip of liberalism and political correctness and cultural relativism which created the conditions for the rise of a fake ‘racial culture’ eg Kwanzaa. A nation that demands cultural integration or deportation does not witness such cultural degredation or cultural recidivism. The indigenous majority must remain the indigenous majority in order to integrate racial minorities. That is reflected in the British Freedom Party manifesto.

5)  Barnes is infatuated with the chimera of achieving political power within the confines of the existing political spectrum.  The beginning of wisdom for Barnes, two words one hesitates to use in the same sentence, is the realization that anything but election to marginal positions will elude the English so long as a mode of discourse inherently hostile to the existence of the English remains hegemonic.  Most probably, Barnes is too dumb to contribute to the development of, or even understand, the overthrow of this anti-White genocidalist superstructure by a counter intellectualism.  His energy would be properly applied to voicing the talking points given to him by those smart enough to develop them, which is clearly what GW had hoped he would do.  But Barnesy’s dimwittedness and stubbornness may well prove an insuperable obstacle to his being GW’s willing water carrier.  Knowing that, GW is now angling back towards Nick Griffin in the understanding that at least Griffin has the native intelligence to understand what the fuck he is saying, but with less than an optimistic belief that Griffin has the character to use his ideas.  Griffin, apparently, only ultimately cares about what is “good for Griffo” and not what is “good for the English”.

Errr captain, have you been on the moon or something. The whole EHRC case was about the BNP operating in the existing political spectrum. Its called REALITY. You seek to evade it, as did Griffin, and look what happens.  I am a BRITISH NATIONALIST not an English Nationalist, therefore questions of Englishness are for English Nationalists. The idea I am ‘hostile’ to the English is about the most idiotic statement you have ever made, and you have made a few mate.

As for Griffin, the idea Griffin understands anything is hilarious. The man is an empty vessel, devoid of ideas. He steals from others and then peddles them as his own, hence the party is run on the lines of obedience to Griffin not merit or results.

The fact that you think Griffin has ‘ideas’ in light of the fact that his taking this case to court (which he could not ever win) shows you have no clue. This case destroyed the entire racial and ethn nationalist political struggle, as now the EHRC runs those parties like the NF. If you disobey the EHRC then the party assets can be seized and your leaders imprisoned for contempt.

Thats Griffins legacy.

If GW is working back to the BNP, then he is delusional.

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:38 | #

The thrashing, or shall we say trashing, of BNP and its chairman Nick Griffin by distinguished Lee John Barnes almost makes me want to think: Maybe BNP and Mr Griffin are not as bad as I thought after all.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:02 | #

Thats because like most of the Nazis on this site such as captain chaos, you Ivan are a dick.

Reality doesnt matter to Nazis, just their own delusions.

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:11 | #

Distinguished scholar Lee John Barnes opined: That’s because like most of the Nazis on this site such as captain chaos, you Ivan are a dick.

Perhaps you’re right. But can you blame me for being a dick when there are so many pussies around begging for thrashing such as yourself.

Posted by jimmy Marr on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:43 | #

As can be seen from this photo, National Socialism is a smoldering problem here in Northwest Homeland

But social order is easily maintained by our uniquely qualified public officials.

Posted by Esteban on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:21 | #

If Nick Grffin had defied the original ruling that it was illegal to ban non-whites from BNP membership and had instead gone to prison under the banner of freedom of association and speech I think the long term prospects of the UK and the real British people would have been brighter.  At some point someone has to just peacefully say “no” to the judges and suffer the consequences to prove to the masses just how evil their government leaders are.