Posted by PM on Mon, 23 May 2011 02:05 | #

Interesting to watch Louis Theroux in an American prison tonight, and see a liberal mind sailing dangerously close to being forced to confront racial reality. He should stick to watchng Hollywood films about them in future. No redemptive nig-nogs of contrived plotlines to give the right messages here…

If you didn’t see it, it is worth watching on the BBC Iplayer. I’m sure many here will also be able to see the uncomfortable thoughts starting to cloud around the edges of his mind; the obvious questions going unasked yet still being answered.

Posted by Anders on Mon, 23 May 2011 02:26 | #

Very interesting. I’ve been thinking recently about what the effects of a terrorist group dedicated to opposing the European genocide would be. In this speech from the 70s, Enoch Powell seems to eerily anticipate the effects of Mohammedan terrorism. Perhaps pro-European terrorism would produce the same results?

“The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from whom the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow.”

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 May 2011 11:13 | #

I like it! Not much as serious literature, but it reminds me of Dr. Pierce’s Hunter, and not only in similarity of titles. I’m sure there was some inspiration and influence.

You’re not the real author, are you GW? Or is it Bismuth?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 May 2011 11:36 | #

Certainly not me, Leon, though the author does run a website well-known by nationalists in Britain.

Bismuth’s author, btw, is working on making the material into a novel.

Posted by anon on Tue, 24 May 2011 06:04 | #

The hate-filled misadventures of Bismuth are by far more instructive than this sort of thing. Satire sways with laughter, most of mankind’s weak spot.

Posted by tc on Thu, 26 May 2011 00:54 | #

Imagine…

...also..imagine, that discussion of this kind - oh, and not only the novel itself that is NOT yet outlawed…

So I say again - in the literally sense natürlich - IMAGINE!

mabbe, just mabbe…I am not the only one thinking ahead?

Imagine…

Posted by CL on Thu, 26 May 2011 19:25 | #

What a nice picture to have on the front page of your site, GW.

Is it of a man being beheaded?

The day before Belinda Smalls’ head was discovered at Stonehenge, along with those of Michael Cohen, Muhammad Aziz and Annabelle Armour,

You could’ve at least thrown in a Polish head to show you’re a real English nationalist.

Posted by Robert Reis on Sat, 28 May 2011 19:54 | #

http://alcuin-constant.blogspot.com/2011/05/astonishing-blindness.html

Astonishing Blindness
“Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans. And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth. In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam.” So notes an article, A Warning to America, in The Brussels Journal on the anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders (from a speech he recently gave in Nashville).

Like many such publications, it fails to see the internal rot that feminism is, and blames the state of Europe on Islam. It fails to ask the hard questions about how Islam became so powerful so quickly in Europe. Millions of abortions? Harmful and insanely costly feminist-inspired social engineering? Sham divorces and millions of fatherless kids? Pushy entitled women crowding men out of the job market, forcing men into second-classdom? Nah, can’t be any of that.

“Because you are still allowed to tell the truth.” Since when are men allowed to tell the truth about feminism in western countries? Aside from MRA blogs, nowhere. Why doesn’t he mention that in Canada, America, and Europe men are “dragged to court” because of false accusations from their own women? Why the denial, the silence, of what is happening to western men? Why the indifference?

“I am currently standing in court like a common criminal for saying that islam is a dangerous totalitarian ideology rather than a religion,” Wilders claims. He continues: “Last week, my friend Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, was fined because in a private conservation, which was recorded without his knowing, he had criticised the way women are treated in islamic societies.” How many falsely-accused men stand in court “like a common criminal”?

He presents himself as a defender of women, as if that is heroic, as if western women are worth fighting for, as if they are innocent. Western women constitute the gravest danger to men, freedom, the truth, and the west itself, yet they fall under the protection of these men. Go figure.

This is how blind Wilders is to the plight of western men: “The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.” What about the numerous empty crimes that western women, “free women,” are using to send their own men to jail? Ironically, hate speech crimes should be used against feminists, but are used to buttress their movement.

Again, whose fault is it that Europe is in the following situation, Islam, or the xxxxing satanic feminists who pushed abortion and the encagement of men?: “I wish I could take you all on a visit to my country and show you what Europe has become. It has changed beyond recognition as a result of mass immigration. And not just any mass immigration, but mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam.”

Before Europe and the west was changed because of Islam, it had already changed due to feminism. That was a silent, invisible change, because it was so slow and men were so broad-sided by it. Undermining the family and men’s place in society predates Islam’s growth in Europe.

Wilder’s way of thinking makes a hash out of the present realities, and helps no one to understand the current situation in the west. Feminism and Marxism, the twin heads of the devil, have destroyed western civilization. Selfish, perpetually man-hating women have brought this on. Islam has simply been moving into a cultural, spiritual, and moral vacuum - brought on by liberals such as Wilders.

Wilders: “Islam is an ideology of conquest.” Really? What about feminism within western countries, taking over every institution, including the family itself, which makes it impossible for men to seek justice and cover anywhere. Even our closest allies, our families, have turned their backs on us? Can I depend on my 3 feminist sisters? Not xxxxing likely. They would enjoy my demise. And feminism, through the UN and western governments, pushes itself onto the peoples and cultures of Africa, Asia, and everywhere else it can. What about preferential treatment for women in Haiti after the recent disaster there, used as a way to disempower men? Is that not the characteristic of “an ideology of conquest”?

“Only two weeks ago, the British press revealed how the so-called “London Taliban” is threatening to kill women who do not wear veils in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.” Why, thanks for your concern for women. Have you shown any concern for men falsely accused of rape, or driven out of their homes and families by their own (bored, vindictive) wives? We men are literally being pushed out of our own society, and Wilders is calling for us to defend this society. Thanks. Where do I sign up?

Sharia law would be more favorable to men and their family problems than the current feminist-dominated laws. Isn’t that the real reason for Islam’s progress in the west? Yet not a peep from Wilders about vindictive, misandrist feminists, the real destroyers of the west.

“Polls show that the influence of those Muslims who live according to islam’s aggressive requirements is growing, especially among young people. ” What? Young people should be inspired by the empty, consumeristic, anti-family, anti-male, female-chauvinist society? Fuck off.

Wilders continues: “In my own country, the Netherlands, sharia is being applied by the courts in cases relating to divorce, child custody, inheritance, and property ownership. Women are always the victims of this because sharia discriminates women.” This one really takes the xxxxing cake. Men like Wilders are deaf dumb and blind to the curse that western women have created, and that men live under. Islam is not the problem. Feminists are. Entitled western women are the xxxxing problem. What’s the matter with men like Wilders, so unable to see the reality staring him in the face? Why shouldn’t men turn to sharia law? Why would they stick with western family and criminal law that punishes them simply for being men?

“Defenders of freedom” such as Wilders exhibit an astonishing blindness to the real enemy.
Posted by Alcuin at 7:02 AM Email This

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 29 May 2011 05:31 | #

Yes, feminism bears much of the blame for modern Western effeminacy in the face of multiculti treason and alien aggression.

But let us still praise Wilders for at least acknowledging the horrors of Muslim immigration, and for putting himself on the line to do something about it. Anything less would be churlish and childish.

Outside of mud-instigated race war, ours is still a sequentialist struggle. We must divide and conquer the enemy, step by step. We need to recover Occidental consciousness and patriotism. Once we have done so sufficiently, we can face down the muds. Once we have shown the fortitude to do that, watch how quickly our women (and Jewry) will fall back into their appropriate places.

Posted by John on Mon, 30 May 2011 06:02 | #

Leon: “But let us still praise Wilders for at least acknowledging the horrors of Muslim immigration…”

The immigration “horrors” have nothing to do with religion but rather with the temperament of the immigrants and behaviours arising therefrom. If the selfsame Arab and Negro immigrants were Christian, atheist or pagan, it would be no less horrible. Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 May 2011 11:03 | #

The immigration “horrors” have nothing to do with religion but rather with the temperament of the immigrants and behaviours arising therefrom. If the selfsame Arab and Negro immigrants were Christian, atheist or pagan, it would be no less horrible. Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.

“Muslim” in the European context is generally an ethnic not religious designation. The Muslims rioting in France in 2005 were hardly good Muslims by the standards of Islam.

That said, you are totally wrong. Blacks are pretty awful everywhere, whether nominally Christian or not. But that is not so for Arabs. Christian Arabs tend to be both fairer-skinned than Muslim ones, as well as much more intelligent, civilized and commercially successful. Lebanese-Americans, for example, are overwhelmingly Christian, and also wealthier as a group than Anglo-Americans.

Christian Lebanese were always much closer to Mediterranean whites culturally and behaviorally than they were to Muslim Arabs.

Posted by anon on Mon, 30 May 2011 13:39 | #

Christian Lebanese were always much closer to Mediterranean whites culturally and behaviorally than they were to Muslim Arabs.

True. I read the precis of a genetic study years ago where Maronites (Canaanites / Levantines / Phoenicians) were found to have more in common with western Mediterraneans than with peninsular Arabs. The latter were a totally invasive breed. Christian Lebanese are good if unattractive stock; witness Brasil, in whose economic success they have played a leading role.

Posted by Philosopher King on Mon, 30 May 2011 21:07 | #

Seems like an interesting novel, I like that it’s (at least in the excerpt) written from the perspective of the mainstream establishment, this both shows the fear and hypocrisy of the elites, and gives the novel a greater sense of suspense.

In any revolutionary movement I feel that there are four camps:

Optimistic Idealists: These people think that power can be obtained through legitimate political avenues and through mass social and intellectual movements.

Optimistic Pragmatists: These people feel that power will be most easily obtained through underhanded, illegal, manipulative ways, which are nevertheless non-violent.

Pessimistic Idealists: These people think that violence is inevitable, but that the use of violence will either bring people to their side en masse, or result in massive fear and emigration from immigrant communities.

Pessimistic Pragmatists- These people think that the only resolution to the race problem will be an all-out war of attrition.

Like the novel, I consider myself a pessimist (at least with regards to the situation in America); I think that the percentage of whites will dip below 50% before any massive organization/movement explicitly advocating White nationalism is formed. When this happens, whites will have no choice but to seek power undemocratically, or “illegitimately.” I don’t feel however that violence should be viewed negatively, almost all great states in history have been forged by blood and without regard for democratic consensus.

I certainly don’t think that our movement will gain popular support by the majority of Whites; the key to victory is not focusing on attracting whites but opposing immigrants. Most immigrants come here solely to make money, if you make them fear for their lives, and decrease their financial certainty, they will leave. When President Eisenhower ordered Operation Wetback in the 1950’s ten times the number of illegal immigrants that were forcefully deported left on their own accord, the knowledge that forces were gathering against them was just as bad as the forces themselves.

I think that what’s needed right now (in America) more than anything is an organization to network, exchange ideas, and develop strategies in the real world. A3P is too political; we shouldn’t focus on politics until we’re organized. CoCC and The John Birch Society are too ideologically tainted, we need an organization which can appeal to anyone as long as they’re moderately nationalist (Radical Traditionalists, neo-confederates, anarcho-nationalists etc.). National Alliance is far too extreme and has too much dead weight. Creating a viable organization is the most important thing that we can do right now, all this talk about taking over the Republican party, seizing control of the media, developing a political wing, developing a paramilitary, etc. will amount to nothing unless we can at least do this.

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 30 May 2011 21:50 | #

Philosopher King,

You are one of not so many nice chaps @MR capable of coherent thought. But I believe that things will unfold in a much simpler scenario. The jewish abuse and fuck up of the entire global financial system will rich such proportions that it will blow up in their fucking faces in the ways no one can predict in minute details. To put it succinctly: The replay of the Weimar Republic on the global scale.

Posted by Philosopher King on Mon, 30 May 2011 22:48 | #

Ivan,

I’m not so optimistic. Historically financial crises result in an ideological shift to the left (think the October Revolution, Roosevelt, the current administration, etc.). Even National Socialism had many leftist attributes; and its ultra-nationalism was essentially the only thing distinguishing it from the Roosevelt administration.

There are other reasons the Weimar Republic analogy doesn’t work. Germany in the 1920’s was a highly homogenous society which suffered a great cultural/identity crisis from its loss in WWI. America today is “diverse,” has long abandoned any semblance of culture (if it had any to begin with as Oscar Wilde suggested), and has never suffered any significant setback which would lead it to introspection (except Vietnam, which again resulted in a shift to the left).

The Keynesian economic system, despite libertarian claims to the contrary, is historically stable. The system only unravels during times of great speculation. The Great Depression was an idiosyncrasy because speculation was rampant in every industry since the majority of investors didn’t understand how the markets worked. Today speculation is usually, but not always, limited to one sector/industry (oil, securities, etc.), while it’s true that all industries will suffer with speculation in the market (particularly if speculation is confined to an industry which affects all other industries) depression is far less possible. After the safeguards put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, and the fact that the government owns major portions of the banking industry, I don’t think it’s very likely that the market will collapse anytime soon. (Frankly my academic interests are Math and Philosophy, I don’t know much about economics apart from basic micro/macro, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong)

So-called “collapse myths” are the plague of our movement; they support the idea that inaction is a sensible policy. Even if a collapse is inevitable it is our duty to organize swiftly and as early as possible to put us in a better position to obtain power under such a scenario.