|
|
|
The perennial question of the demise of the BNP ... discussed at the British Democracy Forum in a post titled somewhat more speculatively than it would seem, “Message to Nick Griffin’s Special Branch handlers”. Bear in mind the that German government court papers of a year or two back indicated that out of 200 leading NPD functionaries, 30 were working as undercover agents. The interesting part of the conversation begins with a response to another BDF member who had observed that, “There is a great willingness - indeed, an enthusiasm - to believe that Griffin is “state” or an “agent”. To do so allows one to exculpate the mind. It is a nonsense. Griffin is nothing more nor less than a failed would-be businessman with a penchant for dubious practice, like most pyramid salesmen.”
Comments:2
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 06:47 | # Wandrin, True enough. BNP support should have gone up after all those negroes rioted in 2011 but apparently it hasn’t. Britain will become more and more non-white as time goes by. When are the whites there going to lift a finger to save their own asses? When the UK is 5, 10, 25, 50 percent non-white? The longer they wait and the more non-white Britain gets the less likely anything will be done to stop it. That’s why WZ is the way to go for Britain. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:33 | # Wandrin, Mike’s observations are interesting because they tell us that state agents stand out pretty clearly, actually - once you know they are there. An internal intelligence department could identify and call them to account. At the very least, MI5 and Special Branch could be inconvenienced. Now, if you cast your mind back to the Decembrists Affair, that involved the South African character running Griffin’s personal protection, along with some heavies, raiding the home of two ex-members looking for evidence of “party treason”. So when Griffin wants to protect himself he gets on and does it. But he has never moved against the state presence (all) around him. Which is odd. CS, Europe is the ancient hearth of the European race. We will never give her up, never. Btw, please don’t use the n-word around here. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:49 | # GW, CS raises a fair point. What is the level of foreign colonization at which point you would concede that England has been lost? Does it have to comprise 51% of the total territorial population? What if England’s alien population hits 25%, but another 25% consists of wigger/chavs, and yet another 25% of multiculti liberals, so that only 25% of the people can even be loosely called patriots (with only a fraction of them actually being WN militants)? Even if England is still (vaguely) England, is not the direction of society by then irreversible? Are English ethnonats still going to “fight on the beaches and landing strips, fight in the hills and cities”, etc? Should Boer patriots do so, or call it a day, move somewhere else that’s safer, and try to keep alive nationalist memories as Jews did successfully for two millennia? These questions aren’t flippant. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:51 | # CS, Classiest reference I have seen is “the people formerly known as negroes”. Hits two targets at once: the word-thieves and the ... erm, ... ah ... 8
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:07 | # Good point Haller. How exactly does anyone see us prevailing when Britain becomes more than 50% non-white? 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:23 | # The greatest danger is always integration, acceptance of diversity/multiculturalism, and miscegenation. If Brits were being butchered en masse in the streets by Muslim jihadists, then just maybe there would be a space for a UK Golden Dawn, or a revivified BNP, etc (maybe ... I still think most modern whites are irredeemable losers). But without imminent racial violence to his person, John Bull will always find it personally easier to tolerate his own dispossession than to muster the will to fight back. So UK doesn’t have to be 51% alien to be lost. The equation of national suicide is: aliens + ‘native aliens’ (wiggers) + active race traitors + passive don’t-rock-the-boaters > patriots If this equation prevails, then it will be national suicide by miscegenation over time. I think many Western nations (incl UK) are almost at this point. WZ is a realistic response to the white propensity to allow for national suicide. 10
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:26 | # GW as Leon said welcome back - hopefully now we might have less barmy front page items on the “occult” etc. Just returned from a wonderful trip to Italy - Florence and Venice this time (after previously going to Rome) - which real European could ever give up our collective home? Prior to my trip I did get to met Michael Sandel in Edinburgh - he was in town for the literary festive. Very impressive chap indeed. Anyway good to see you back GW. I now have a reason to try a finish up an essay or two! And I still think it might be a useful exercise for the more intellectual mature British members here to have a cyber ‘round-table’ on the political dynamics of a post-Union British Isles at some point. Or if one prefers how and why a specifically English ‘cultural politics’ might be formed in the near future. 11
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:37 | # I wouldn’t be too hard on “modern whites”. If Japan and South Korea were being flooded with racial aliens they’d probably start race mixing as well. Of course Japans and South Korea don’t have pols who want to flood their country with racial aliens so this isn’t a problem for them yet. What we need our people who at a bare minimum are willing to vote BNP at the ballot box even when economic times are good. Well good luck with that. That applies to Australia as well. So unless you’re talking about colonizing Tasmania are eventually separating from Australia what would be the point? 12
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:40 | # CS It’s not a good idea to use BNP suport as a barometer of English/UK nationalist - thoughts and feelings. Nor the EDL or any other current group that exists (the Judean Peoples Front/the Peoples Front of Judea etc etc). None of them are ‘the one’ and their levels of support reflect this. For some positive news from over here maybe look at the rise of UKIP. However our Golden Dawn has yet to surface and may be some time off yet. Anti EU/Immigrant sentiment exploded after last years riots, with the revelations about Muslim paedophile rape/sex slave trafficking gangs being the latest delight for us to digest. There is nowhere for this attention and rage to be filtered or directed though. This link goes a long way to explain why (a UK Golden Dawn is a legal impossibility). 13
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:53 | # Leo, You’re right, but I checked UKIP support in 2010 and it was miniscule as well. The vast majority of white people in Britain and elsewhere are probably going to continue to do fuck all about the massive non-white immigration coming into their countries. We need to separate from these “white liberals” as much as we do from non-whites. 14
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:38 | # Number Six (the sin of envy), progressives, and the intellectuals of Britain post 1960. http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2012/10/number-six.html 15
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:04 | #
16
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:28 | # GW, Yes, all points. Although in theory the ideal would be where having lots of state agents was a good thing i.e. your activity wasn’t sabotageable so they were effectively state-subsidized activists. That’s easier said than done of course. CS, My bones will lie in my heimat. 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:35 | # ukn-leo, The problem, as CS and I see it, is that whites seem to be uniquely susceptible to (race) liberalism. I defer to geneticists on this, but I really think there must be a genetic flaw in whites, which was always latent until the right external conditions came about, as now. How can even non-colonialist European countries be afflicted with the same race liberalism as the UK or USA, unless there is a common genetic component? I used to wonder about this in the 80s, but would dismiss it, thinking it just a function of white dominance (and nonwhite minority status). I was wrong. Nonwhite racism doesn’t dissipate with greater wealth or majority status. Only whites are ever true race liberals - and many will cling to their racial universalism even at their own expense (though it’s true that white liberals demonstrate a lot of sense when to comes to deciding where to live, what schools to send their kids to, etc - but they cannot seem to bring that sense to larger national concerns). White majorities are not going to do anything to save themselves until it’s too late in straight physical power terms to save themselves even if the will is there - and they’ll drag racially healthy whites into their collective impotence and doom. WZ is about organizing the Remnant, whites who are racially normal (the “norm” being the world, not the West) and don’t wish to be dragged into the mud(s), so to speak. We must acquire sovereign power, but I don’t see how this can be done apart from separation and the acquisition of majoritarian status in a less populated polity. Has any WN ever pondered what to do if, say, only 20% of whites (I think the real number, under the right conditions, might rise to a third) actually want the race to live (“want” in the sense of willing to make sacrifices to secure that objective)? 18
Posted by Bill on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:40 | # I’ve been tapping the keys for a couple of weeks or more trying to get some perspective of where we are today in Britain, (thinking all the time why do I bother,) then GW’s post popped up so I thought might as well use it. If deemed off topic trash bin it. This is an attempt (meandering as it may be) to present a casual perspective of what is happening in present Britain, trouble is, it is not possible to contain the subject within the bounds of a single comment. But here goes anyway. What are the people’s reactions to living in a multicultural Marxist, politically correct Britain? It struck me, funny thing is, most folk haven’t a clue that they are living in a one party Marxist Global multicultural state, such is the power of the media’s onslaught red team-blue team paradigm. The age of neo-liberal (capitalist) globalism has been with us a few years now but has, in more recent times, been joined by its twin sister social liberalism. Some have characterised this joint venture as simply political correctness or cultural Marxism or just plain liberalism. If asked when this alchemy occurred (in Britain) I would venture it was around the oncoming of the new century when Blair’s New labour project heralded into view, (via way of Clinton in the USA) The rise and rise of a newly morphed socially correct left has been meteoric. It is the effects of this liberal conjuncture on the British people that I wish to address here. What is happening here in Britain? How are the people of Britain responding to such questions as immigration, increased lawlessness, homelessness, and general feeling of despair and nothing works any more. These questions and more I have found are not easily answered. Where to begin? I’ll begin by saying an old term or expression has been resurrected and entered the present conversation lexicon and that is, the ‘Genie has been let out of the bottle.’ What is meant by the use of this term in its present context? Good question! I suspect there are as many answers as there are questions. Myself, I would venture it means life as we have known it has gone and it’s not coming back. There is a mood in the air of this nation, a growing (always growing) feeling of unease at what is going on around them, but no-one is publicly commenting, there is a whole herd of elephants out there silent and brooding. It is almost science fiction. To those not watching ‘Strictly’s’ come dancing TV’s super extravaganza, it is not too difficult to identify fairly accurately what the perceived unease is. There are presently many spinning plates of domestic crises out there and they are fairly easily triaged in terms of public concern. They are for most people, (1) The economy (parrot deficit - previously credit crunch) (2) Unemployment, (3) Housing and (4) Immigration, roughly in that order. Though any one of these concerns of themselves would merit a sufficient mood of growing angst, I would suggest even weightier matters of a greater menace is afflicting our peoples minds, and that is the spectra of mass immigration and portents for the future. Immigration concern by British people has for years been a fairly low key affair, but as we all know, media bullying of cries of racism aimed at all those who speak negatively of immigration has ensured no meaningful public debate has ever taken place. The BBC (MSM) reign supreme, they are winning this politically correct war of dispossession at a canter, the mass of the British people are being led by the nose over every central issue from engineering election results (I agree with Nick 2010) to choosing party leaders (Cameron for leader in 2005,) as to the latest war to support (Libya-Syria 2012.) Despite all this media success (Olympics just gone) the media establishment must sense their tenure is very fragile and must not relax its grip for a moment, they are baling flat out to keep the whole system afloat. Just take a look at the acres of column inches being devoted to manufacturing phoney red team/blue team tag match choerogophy in the press. Similarly Television, the the same old talking heads are wheeled out at every opportunity in an effort to contain the herd grazing contentedly. Myself, I think as long as the system continues to deliver a full belly and endless bread and circus reality television, then the media will continue to lead the herd wherever it wishes. There’s no doubt the omnipresent liberal media is more influential by far than any government can be. contd. 19
Posted by Bill on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:45 | # Contd from above. What do the British People see and sense as they look around today’s Britain? Toto, we’re not in Kansas any more. No matter what age they sense they no longer live in a country that reflects their historically innate traditional conservative values and way of life. This feeling is mirrored in the party political system being perceived as indifferent or even hostile to the interests of the British people. In the short span of a single lifetime the pace of change has been a shock to their system, The pace of scientific and technical change alone has been, and continues to be, bewildering. It is strange how social decline has progressed in lock-step with scientific advancement. To what do the ordinary people of this country attribute to the chaos surrounding their everyday lives? What is it that ordinary men and women see with their own eyes but cannot fully understand, Even though it is the party political conference season here in Britain, one could be forgiven for thinking that they are already jockeying for position for the 2015 election, (presuming the present coalition survive that is.) Thanks to incessant media brainwashing, the left/right paradigm is still very much alive and well in the eyes of the British people, with this in mind, it will be interesting to see where the media will lead the gullible voter. Maybe another coalition or even suspension of the electoral system altogether in the name of national cohesion. Despite the fact that most folk have never heard of the New World Order (but they have Globalism) they sense something is terribly amiss, a growing sense of feeling that our political system and way of life is broke and bankrupt of ideas, one has only to the scroll down a Telegraph comment section thread to see this is true. It is evident for all to see. The shadow cast by the European Union only reinforces the obvious that the British people no longer have a say in their future. They’re all same the mantra goes, no matter what team you vote for, you always get liberalism. More immigration and political correctness. A simple enough dot joining exercise for the aware perhaps, but seemingly beyond the average voter watching Strictly. When I first started out, I opined that when things became much worse, (even if the people couldn’t fathom exactly what was going on) a general uprising of concern would trigger a response from our politicians. Even this state of affairs has been surpassed and still there is no public outcry. The established pattern for whites (who have the means) is to flee from the enriched cities, to those left behind have being sacrificed by the politicians. I see no reason at present why this trend will not continue, fleeing whites will eventually run out of road with their backs to the sea. What will it take to shake the masses out of their lethargy? If there is no change of direction soon life as we have known it in this country will be gone forever. For me this has already happened, the Britain of today bears no resemblance to the life of my youth. It is clear, most people of Britain haven’t a clue of what’s being discussed here among us and other websites of similar ilk? So how do they explain to themselves the reasons for the insane events they see unfolding around them? From an overview I suspect that one might say it is the Pied Piper of the faux liberal world view that is leading its prancing adherents a merry dance to the New World Order. Liberal doctrine is fooling the plebs into believing that over the hill they will be free from personal truths and constraints, trouble is, the high priests of liberalism fail to inform their flock that their nirvana is ring-fenced with razor wire from which there is no escape. It is the results of the global omnipresence of Liberalism in all its guises that is visiting problems on Western society, liberalism and the occult is none other than the rumblings of the approaching new order where the white man is not invited. But again, I doubt if one in a hundred of our people know this. The Genie’s escape has atomised freedom and is running amok, it is proving ungovernable by the existing system and it is this chaos we see all around us. Nothing is free from its rampage, murder, corruption, single mother explosion, rape, assaults, immigration, affirmative action, joblessness, homelessness, dumbed down education, problems of race, problems of culture, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, all must have prizes, and on and on it goes. The Genie cannot be put back into the bottle. All they can do is watch and wait. For those interested, here is a more sophisticated effort by the thinking New Labour politician Jon Cruddas. May I quickly add (my above) was WIP long before the appearance of this article in the New Statesman. .http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2012/09/building-new-jerusalem
20
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:40 | # I can’t see nowt but the usual lies, bullshit and spin in that Cruddas article Bill, not that I was expecting anything less. An admission that their hands will be tied financially (no mention why of course), followed by a list of expensive vote buying proposals that we just cannot afford. An SME investment bank should already be up and running, seperation of investment and retail banking ditto - even just this tinkering at the edges won’t ever happen, it’s just lies. Halt and roll back immigration - nope Say whatever you think you have to to get back into government then once there continue your fellows’ mission to destroy England in particular before leading us into a European superstate then One World Governance controlled by power crazed lunatics from which there will be no hope of escape ever - yes I will hold out for the fightback and long for the day we regain control of our country, all our countries from, ‘them’. If it doesn’t happen then WZ as a desperate last resort, maybe - but - GW says we’re staying so i’m staying. Even if my new Prime Minister is to be a Marxist Jew (gulp).
21
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:22 | #
That list would be exactly my agenda if I were an Englishman. Excellent (I would throw in cleansing of the heretics ensconced in the CofE, but that’s me- though I don’t think England will really be England again without religious return and reform, including social/moral reform). Do you think most Tories at the grassroots would support this agenda? Why can’t they get leaders who fight for it?
22
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:15 | # Leon is correct that whites have a fundamental flaw in their lack of “racism”. They aren’t going to do anything about becoming a racial minority in their own countries, not even the simple action of voting for whatever BNP candidate is running in their area. BTW, I hope I am 100% wrong about this but unfortunately I am probably not. We need to take all the functional white people in the whole world and move them to one small country so we have the numbers to take over. The smaller the population, the less people we need. That’s why I like Belize. 300 000 is a lot easier to do than 20 million. 23
Posted by Bill on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:17 | # After posting here I visited Auster’s VFR, He has an item up entitled, We Live Under a Media Coup d’État. I had earlier, (see @ 18) posted a line which contained the following,
Auster’s piece contains
No mention was made of who dominates the media. Don’t shoot the messenger http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023429.html
24
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:27 | # Bill, You mentioned the DT threads. How do you rate them at present? Do you think there is a glimmer of hope in there somewhere? 25
Posted by martin_uk on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:02 | # You all need to try harder to get inside the head of the average white citizen Consider this. The other day a white youth, part of a larger gang of young whites, aged between 14 and 17, kicked off the wing mirror of my car, causing probably about £150 of damage, at a rough guess. They achieved nothing useful by this crime, they did not attempt to steal the car, or take anything from it. Just a snivelling bunch of useless, worthless scum, all of them better off dead, or minced up and fed to pigs (along with their parents). The Eastern European young men who now live in my local area are quiet and serious, they seemingly respect themselves and others, and get on with their lives without managing to intrude into mine. There aren’t that many blacks where I live but any interaction I have had with them has not been negative. On the other hand I know all about the statistics, blacks murder whites at 17 times the rate that whites murder blacks, and so on. I have read “The Color of Crime”. I know all about Phillippe Rushton and the IQ data. I am by no means a “clueless white”. But, because I live in a majority white area, therefore my bad experiences with other people are almost certainly going to be through interactions with whites. But it is precisely such personal experience that has the really visceral impact on us. The maggots that damaged my car were white and English. Am I supposed to on the side of people like that, to take their part in a dispute across ethnic or racial lines. Am I supposed to prefer to live next door to them rather than an Asian? Am I supposed to hope that they have white families so that their verminous genes and lifestyle can be perpetuated? One’s personal experience (of crime especially) is what makes a visceral impact, and most whites have bad experiences with other whites. 26
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:51 | #
Yes, but this is not the agenda of our liberal ‘elite’ so the Conservative party will jettison their supporters instead. The Tories ‘hang out’ at the Daily Telegraph Leon, go see for yourself. They are incensed at the direction of their party and are merciless in their condemnation of its leadership. There are no genuine Tories to replace David ‘Magna Carta’ Cameron either. Just some useless fat Turkish tosspot called Boris Defeffel Johnson and an assortment of chinless wonders bereft of principles, morals or backbone to a man. It doesn’t matter which party is elected, we get the same bullshit rammed down our throats, along with the same politicians eagerly destroying this country and profiting hugely in the process. It’s the New World Order baby!!!
You are man-marked there GW, brutally too, as i’m sure you’re aware. I notice that your comments always get massive support vs your detractors getting hardly any which is a very positive sign. I would suggest that your efforts on those threads are having more of an impact than you may realise.
27
Posted by daniel on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:55 | # Posted by martin_uk on October 02, 2012, 06:02 PM | # You all need to try harder to get inside the head of the average white citizen Martin, it is a serious point worth considering. Betrayal is relevant to the thread. Betrayal by our own is something that I struggle with as do most all of us. I’m not trying to be dismissive when I say that and that I’ve suffered set-backs much worse than having my rear view mirror knocked off (had that too). On the contrary, I’d like to discuss it and potential remedies.
28
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:02 | # CS, In majority white nations there is less of an issue of “what to do about the local wogs?”, plus there are always whites in other places right now who agree with us, but just can’t muster democratic majorities. Even France has at least 20% of its total population (and maybe as high as a third of its white population) which is basically with us on what I like to call the nationalist minimum: that diversity is undesirable, and thus white nations should be kept as numerically (and of course culturally) white as possible. Isn’t it better to build on an existing structure, than to have to create a new white country out of nothing? Also, we are racial nationalists. That means that we are not opposed to all white leftists, only that we want to be the ones calling the political shots, at least as regards racial issues. WN is about Euromen governing ourselves, which, if racial sovereignty is restored to us, is nevertheless unlikely to result in ideological mass-conformity. We will never do away with the white Left, nor need we to. What we want to neutralize is the white Left’s ability to augment itself electorally in the short term by means of mass immigration, thereby destroying the West’s racial future. I don’t mind living among white liberals geographically. It has been my lot for most of my life wherever I have lived. What I don’t like is diversity, especially when allied to white liberalism (as Larry Auster puts it: liberalism + blacks = barbarism; I would go further: liberalism + nonwhites = death of the West). I don’t think it would be that hard to transform Australia into WZ precisely because there is already present there a minority who supports us (and if we define our first goal simply as ending nonwhite immigration, that may be a very large minority even without future WZ/WN pioneers). Moreover, as I mentioned to uh, what we want is the genetic future. A determined WN minority, reinforcing existing conservatives, could gradually take control over education, and ultimately the broader culture (of course, this is the work of generations, but we can expect nothing else in a project like this). There is no reason that future generations need to be as liberal as the present one. Put out a bunch of WNs in a Third World environment, and, without super-strict racialism along the lines of the apartheid regime in SA (and even there look what happened), they will gradually blend into the local population. I encourage uh to try it- and then we’ll see in a few decades where things stand. 29
Posted by uh on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:04 | # I encourage you to have current health insurance. It’s coming, fat boy. 30
Posted by CS on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:44 | # Martin UK, IF you think living with whites is bad, go live with blacks for a while. 31
Posted by CS on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:48 | # Leon, I don’t want to live with white liberals. I despise them almost as much as the wogs. Besides, wherever there are white liberals, non-whites are bound to eventually show up. And France is going to do fuck all about the non-white invasion just like most other white countries. They just elected some white liberal faggot who loves blacks as president. 32
Posted by Bill on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:17 | # GW @ 24
I’ve spent a great deal of time scrolling down the Telegraph threads lately. I find the whole ‘Telegraph Thread’ subject fascinating. Once started, I guess it could easily blosom into another such voluminous post as one above. (Despite reducing by a good third) I find the DT’s modus operandi and strategy a consuming topic in itself. Not that I know much about such things. I’ll give my thoughts later and post them here rather than in the Telegraph Tread post elsewhere. 33
Posted by Trainspotter on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:35 | # Martin: “One’s personal experience (of crime especially) is what makes a visceral impact, and most whites have bad experiences with other whites.” This is an interesting point that I’ve considered before. On the other hand, I think it is safe to assume that, in our more racially conscious past, whites would similarly have had most of their bad experiences with other whites, and yet retained their racial feeling. In racially segregated America, for example, large numbers of whites would have had little or nothing to do with blacks in their daily lives. If there was a bully in an all white, racially segregated school, then that bully was by definition white. No doubt such a bully would create some rather unpleasant memories for any number of other whites. And yet those whites maintained a strong, pro-white stance (especially in the South, but other places as well). Similarly, nationalism is a potent force, though no doubt the average Finn has most of his problems with other Finns, and so on. So what gives? There are a lot of possible answers, but I’ll limit myself to just one. I think we don’t respect one another anymore. I think we don’t trust one another anymore. Social and cultural norms have declined to such an extent that there is little reason to have much respect for our fellow citizens, including whites. This was not always the case. I’m not trying to paint an overly rosy picture of a fictitious Golden Age, but in the not so distant past the simple fact is that manners and public decency were upheld. Those that violated standards were punished, either through simple social sanction or by other means. Point is, standards were upheld. Whites, generally, trusted and respected their neighbors. They didn’t lock their doors. I met one old guy who lived in a now crime ridden city, who said he didn’t even own a key to his front door for over thirty years (until about 1980). He had never locked it. What does that say about us, now as compared to then? We know, of course, that white crime rates are far lower than black crime rates, and white schools are far better than black schools. This knowledge is reflected in housing choices, for example. So I’m not saying that whites view their fellow whites as somehow “the same” as blacks. Clearly, they don’t. But at the end of the day, trust and respect has declined a great deal across the board, including amongst whites. (see Putnam’s research on diversity and trust). I think this is one of the reasons that whites seem so incapable of united action (not being unmindful of the major cause - Jewish media and legal assault). We’ve reached a level of cultural paralysis, at least in part, because of our cultural and social decline. Nobody can be counted upon, and therefore nobody is worth sacrificing for, or even teaming up with. Let’s just watch TV or play around on Facebook. That’s why I think the future is going to be determined by a relatively small segment of whites, and why concepts like fourth generation warfare and community resilience will likely be game changers. The mass of whites are now trapped in their own degeneracy and stupidity…and recognize the same state of affairs in others. Fortunately, history has been moved by small minorities, as will the future. The main difference next time is that the inert, flabby masses will have somewhat more sophisticated electronics to entertain them as the future of the planet is decided. Wake them when it’s over. 34
Posted by British Race Realist. on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:39 | # The BNP are dead meat. Finished. Kaput. Dfunct. Ceased to be. A waste of space. Don’t even waste your time thinking or even voting for them - they’ve fucked up big-time and will perpetually continue to fuck up big-time right u to the time of their extinction and demise. The rising power on the British ‘right’ are UKIP. Although they might not be perfect - and I believe they are concealing what they really think about race and immigration, for electaility purposes -,at this 11th hour, they are England’s last, best hope. In Nigel Farage, UKIP have a popular and gifted leader - which is half the battle. ‘Nick Griffin’ - need I say more. 35
Posted by CS on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:55 | # BRR, I think you’re right. Fuck the BNP and vote for UKIP. 36
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:03 | # UKIP - their activists are all over the UK mainstream media threads. They are highly vocal and committed to the cause it would seem. They are definitely, definitely playing it cool/clever and are much more knowledgable than they let on, for obvious reasons. The UK establishment does not like them at all so they must be doing something right. It’s only the geographical spread of their membership that has stopped them picking up MP’s (and MSM blackout).The potential is there to hit 20% and beyond in elections. Farage rips Barroso and Von Rompuy to shreds in the European Hall of the Damned on a regular basis. Leave the EU - good Halt immigration, even if just temporarily - good (better than what we have now anyway) Their general manifesto is on the weak side and includes some fairly odd ideas. But. If we wait for the perfect party to come along we are going to be waiting for a long time it would seem. Personally, I am sorely tempted to get involved with my local UKIP but have yet to take the plunge. 37
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:28 | # On the subject of infiltration and subversion. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/infiltration-subversion-and-sabotage.html 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:51 | # uknleo, I wish the US had something like UKIP to join. Smaller the party, the greater the chance that WN infiltrators (which should be distinguished from government infiltraitors) can eventually ‘turn’ it to our purposes. USA is always going to be a duopoly, and turning the Republicans in a good direction is nearly impossible. Too big. The key to nationalist successes is to transform political parties into social networks as well. Can never really do that in a huge country with only two real parties (except locally, in small towns). 39
Posted by Bill on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:23 | # A response to GW. @ 18 Blogging and Bloggers. Are we making a difference? Some Thoughts. There’s a vast interconnected spiders web facilitating the global agenda and the world’s media is a major player, It is a certainty London’s Telegraph is an integral part of this agenda, and if it is, where in the pecking order are they? There is no doubt a global agenda exists and the media is a vital component in this agenda. If in the absence of the media in these affairs, the project could not function. How much autonomy does the Telegraph have? Do the instructions beam down from above or is it esoteric, the unspoken word of understanding minds. What is the routine at the Telegraph each morning when deciding who will and what will be blogged that day? Judging by the number of journalists engaged to write blog articles it seems the Telegraph have invested heavily in the Internet comment section endeavour. To what end I’m not privy, which prompts me to ask what’s in it for them? I can only guess the feedback and reaction and interest of the blogger is not only important to the Telegraph head honchos but also to other equally interested parties. When scanning the Telegraph comment section (or any other blogosphere threads) I have to constantly remind myself this is not reality. I must never lose sight of the fact this conversation is not representative of what is happening out there in the real world. Most folk out there are simply getting on with with their lives, the problems afflicting the nation do not figure much in their calculations. I must also remind myself that I am reading and engaging in something that is by its own niche nature is obscure and only of concern to a minority interest. This is not because the public at large do not have access to such a facility of discourse but mainly (I would suggest) because they are not interested in the subject matter per se. Even if they were interested, they maybe not be sufficiently confident in their abilities to contribute and engage in the proceedings. In short, the majority masses are isolated from the affairs of the Internet conversation taking place here and elsewhere. I’m not up to speed on Twitter or Facebook or similar, simply because I’m not involved. It would be interesting to speculate if these networks whose numbers are vast, could be of any significant use in the information war of silence. The Telegraph blogger is not your average British citizen, I would say he is a cut above above the average. Generally speaking I guess he is a member of the 2% club (what do you think?) ok then, let’s be generous and say 10%. The Telegraph blogger’s perception spans a wide spectrum and has a reservoir of well informed opinion. What I do find disappointing is their unflagging belief our political system will solve the problem. Finally the message has sunk in that Cameron is not of the Conservative persuasion and the disenchanted are wailing and stomping off in the direction of the UKIP camp. It never seems to cross the mind of the new UKIP supporter what would happen if UKIP swept into power at the next election. Do you think the forces of the the new order would stand idly by spectating. In your dreams. I don’t know whether I’m being overly harsh but it comes across to me the general level of awareness and savvy among the commenters is not all that high, which in a way part answers the question as to what difference are we making? This question of making a difference has been a constant theme with me since the beginning, to which in the end I came to the conclusion I was wasting my time. (Sorry, always been a half empty man.) Evidence suggests what I have always suspected, the message of the Internet threads is not filtering through to the world outside. The media PTB must be well pleased with this state of affairs. A lively response to a blog featuring immigration can quickly conjure up a count of several thousand comments, 5000 is the most I’ve seen so far, no other subject comes even close to that number, which must indicate to the Telegraph PTB how prickly the subject of immigration is. What they do with such information, if anything at all, is anybody’s guess. No comment thread is without its resident trolls, and the Telegraph is no exception, I’m sure you all recognise the type. How many trolls make a troll? Some troll posters appear to be, prolific. If these people rally are individuals then they must have a great constitution, for they seem to be blogging 24/7. I’m sceptical of these trolls as I suspect some are multiple commenters using the same handle. It could be people in government departments posting in their tea-break, or they could be anyone, any organisation, anywhere in the world. The typical troll has little say other than to sneer and belittle his opponent, he is not worth bothering with in my eyes. It is with great frustration I see countless comments being wasted on such trolls, the opponent of the troll is like a pit bull straining at the leash, funny really. Surely they could be making better use of their keystrokes. Finally, there’s the intellectual duellist seeking a worthy opponent, the battle lasts many comments until there’s a wounded pride withdrawal and honour is satisfied. Can a comment change the course of a thread? Very rarely in my view. There’s a character who posts in the name of Dan O’Connor (sp?) and is a prolific poster and knows his stuff, he contributes lengthy posts which must take up much of his time. His posts are lucid and expressed in non intellectual terms readily understood by the not so discerning, and yet rarely do his posts influence others (or at least do not appear to do so.) Maybe the comment following responds with a one liner agreeing with the comment, but rarely does it go any further. There are a relatively few others of a similar calibre to Dan O’Connor who suffer the same fate. I take my hat of to all of them for they are indefatigable and are not for surrender. Several times lately my fingers have hovered over the ‘log in now’ window but like an ex smoker, I back away without conviction. What stops me from rejoining the fight is the unknown unknown (moderation) as Rumsfeld might say. The candidness of comments being published are a million miles from yesteryear. In the beginning it was hard going and very frustrating. The name of the game then (maybe not so much now) was to push the envelope no matter how little the gain, it was a cat and mouse game of which the Telegraph were well aware. Overtime, almost imperceptible change took place and cracks began to appear. The reasons for this change I know not and nobody has ever explained. In a way, it mirrors the implosion of the USSR when the wall came down. It was a gradual affect and cracks appeared and eventually the whole edifice crumbled, people poured through. Maybe the Telegraph thread cracks are an omen. Who knows? Invariably, everything but everything the Telegraph blogger rails about, is incensed about, goes ballistic about, foams at the mouth about, is the consequential results of liberalism. No matter what enrages him you can bet your boots it is liberalism that is the cause of his ire. All of these things also applies to the big name journalist blogger. His/her blog could be (and invariably is) one big dump on the effects liberalism (Janet Daily comes to mind) but she will never ever utter the dreaded word. It’s almost like mentioning immigration in a negative context they’re afraid of. A big No No. The hapless blogger railing against the consequences of liberalism usually cannot connect the dots. I feel like screaming ‘Behind You’ like a pantomime audience when the villain is about to strike. The ignorance surrounding the innocent sounding name of liberalism is almost total among ordinary folk, and what’s more, the Internet is not filling the information gap. This is my hobby horse, here we have the perfect instrument for education and information and yet our people are so ill informed. And to a huge extent herein lies our problem. And yet, you will have to search very diligently to find the word liberalism anywhere among the whole Telegraph newspaper. Why is that? Not one journalist blogger will come anywhere near the word liberalism if he can avoid it Tens of thousand of words are blogged each day but never a hint of the ‘L’ word. Try it and see for yourself. GW. I follow your predations when you are on the prowl, I try to get into your head to fathom what makes you take a certain line of attack. There’s many a time I’ve asked myself why did he choose that route? I’d have gone this way or that way. I must admire your style and pluck, you take no prisoners and make many enemies. I saw your recent comment addressed to Charles Moore (way off topic) berating him over the grooming of young girls. Well done! These elite really are untouchable. I’ve tried to answer the question, is the Internet (blogger) making a difference and I come up with conflicting evidence. Common sense tells me it must be making a positive difference, information is everything in this psychological war, trouble is, it’s not happening fast enough or in sufficient quantity. Just imagine if Griffin had been the genuine article what could have been achieved. It sticks in my craw to think I voted for him. I think his name should be linked with Blair, Brown and Cameron. 40
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:25 | # I don’t doubt it Leon, UKIP would be made for you. They could possibly do with your assistance in the economics dept too, the professional, ‘Ivy League’ touch. They want a flat rate tax of 31% which kicks in after £11.5k earnings per annum. 31% tax take on a salary so low is one mighty big hit. They have several policies, like that one, which seem slightly odd and must be causing them to lose a lot of potential support. They need a major policy overhaul that brings them firmly into the 21st century, and a complete marketing rebranding. Then they could be in business. This seems unlikely though because of the kind of supporters they attract. Scooping up the votes of disaffected Tories (a touch old fashioned/set in their ways) is great, but they could be doing so much more to attract other demographics as well. Brit Conservatives aren’t necessarily the sort that would get their hands dirty in local community activism/assistance either (they are a bit snobby). The US duopoly, yep, you’re screwed in that regard. Maybe Britain could be your WZ Leon. We could certainly use your help. I have often thought that one potential solution for US Europeans losing N America would be for each to return to his/her original European homeland, even if just as a temporary tactical move. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:40 | # Leo, The first comment in that GoV thread reads:
... which should interest supporters of the view that Breivik was controlled. 42
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:57 | # @Bill Twitter. There is a nationalist presence on Twitter where all factions/stripes are represented from across Europe and the US. Recently HW asked Occy Dissent readers to join Twitter and help boost the numbers - it is very much a numbers game - the more you can get your ‘tweets’ spread around the more they will, um, spread around if that makes sense. The problem sems to be that you are sending your tweets to the already converted, for example my list of contacts is made up largely of Occ Dissent regulars. We are effectively just sending tweets to each other which is questionable in terms of effectiveness. Twitter updates you on what is ‘trending’ at any given moment. What ‘trends’ is the latest celebrity gossip, the latest news stories that the mainstream media are pushing etc. Compared to the nationalists output, these trending subjects are vast behemoths that generate millions of tweets and retweets. As such the authorities will rest easy. Agree 100% with your comment above re the Telegraph. What’s happening there is being replicated across the mainstream media. If it wasn’t for the moderation everywhere then who knows where we would be now. Nevertheless MSM comments threads are currently unrecognisable compared to what they were even, say, two years ago, which must give us hope. Remember, for every commentor there must be thousands of readers so GW for example is reaching a very large audience with his shenanigans. I have seen Telegraph commentors openly talking of revolution and hanging ministers from lampposts - and survive moderation. Unless we are all having our IP’s logged in order for easy future round up and extermination, I believe these are very positive signs. 43
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:01 | # @GW Aye GW. Set MR to JRichards alert level Defcon 5. 44
Posted by Dude on Telegraph on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:25 | # Has Mr Piggot’s presence on the Telegraph thread increased the numbers of people making similar arguments? Yes. Has the quality of the argumentation gone up? Yes. Have the numbers of people making similar arguments become such that they are overly noticeable > unavoidable to visitors? No. Who writes on message boards? Those who wish to opinionate. Are they very persuadable? The more intelligent, sure. Most, not so much. They wish to opinionate. Perhaps Mr Piggot has some idea of any worthwhile converts or deepening of the discourse more generally across the threads. On a daily basis many well visited threads have over two thousand replies so it is hard to gauge the usefulness of such activity, when more advanced arguments can be worked on away from there , compiled, published (online and off) and seeded that way. It’s useful activity, but useful for whom. IMO. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:00 | # Leo, Bill, and the dude, Thank you for your comments on the DT effort. You mention Dan O’Conner, Bill. He is on a road of discovery as you have been, and only a few months ago, at my bidding, finally discovered the JQ, having felt unable to broach the issue. I will come back to the JQ. Dan posted a comment a couple of weeks back talking about the great change wrought at the DT in what can be said. He finished by asking whether the Establishment would crack down Soviet-style on such dissidence. I posted a reply as follows, and this also answers your question about what is happening at the DT as far as we are concerned:
So, some forms of the War of Discourse, as it is being fought: 1. It is an act of expansion of the sayable. It operates on the Hegelian principle (ie, the Linderian principle of speech maximisation), allied to the brute justice and articulacy of the antithetical argument. Without the antithesis being both just and well-articulated no space would open up behind for other dissidents to occupy (which is where Linder’s linguistic approach is wrong, imho). 2. It operates on the assumption that discourse is created by, and is the possession of, the intelligent. It is important to understand that “public discourse” is not the same as “public opinion”. In this, we are at odds with the repetition method of Bob’s Mantra - we do not seek to directly expand the numbers of our people who are race-aware, but to imbue the world of thought and speech with our thoughts and our speech. Our assumption is that the less intelligent will abstract the necessary and contribute after their own fashion where they may. 3. It is not a contest of ideas with liberals of right or left, indeed not a contest at all. Our opponents, whether they are trolls or men and women of conviction, do not exist for us in any gladiatorial sense, but as tools. They are there to use. We do not have to wait for them to come to us. If they do, that’s fine. Otherwise, we hunt them and force them to defend themselves. Is it having any real-world impact? Well, it is awfully early to judge that. This is an effort measured in years. But, yes, Dan O’Connor is right that there has been some expansion of the discourse at the DT, particularly with regard to commentary about Jewry, for example:
... and, of course, race-replacement. It is clear that the management now anticipate a more frank-speaking thread, but that is causing them to shut down and, increasingly, never open the comment facility. (I would not necessarily view this response always as a bad thing - it annoys people a lot and that is also good). To end on a high note, philwicks, a close relative of the Piggott family, has been attacked by no less than Norman Tebbit, one-time Thatcher polecat, Conservative Party chairman, and nowadays a DT blogger: ... for crimes committed on this thread: So someone sure notices something is going on. 46
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:05 | # GW
It is looking that way.
Can’t say i’m looking forward to that bit but oh well.
We’re living through an attempted genocide conducted on a salami slicing basis. Segments of the population are sealed off by a media wall of silence one slice at a time and behind that wall they are slowly exterminated, culturally and physically. The people inside the media-gulag can be a tad bitter about it. 47
Posted by Bill on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:27 | # GW Your reply to Dan Oconnor. Very interesting
The Genie is out of the bottle. GW you are a businessman, how can the DT be making a profit with their online comment section? Revenue from advertisements I know, but really, all those journalists on their books - must cost a fortune. Hardly seems likely. On a paranoid note, when it come to the elites and their world view project I don’t think money is a problem, they are determined to succeed at any cost.
Yes I’ve noticed that, unbelievable! Maybe they can’t staunch the bleeding, or they’re encouraging it for some nefarious reason. Your prognosis for the future course of events is grim, but likely. Resistance will be met with more resistance. Any thoughts on time scale?
Perhaps I didn’t explain sufficiently. We need big numbers that are angry! Liberalism is the ruling hegemony which affects every damned thing in people’s lives, but they don’t know what it is or where it comes from. If we can somehow get it over to them it’s not like the weather or some random freak of nature, but is man made and deliberate, then it might lead them to ask questions. Anything we can suggest is better than nothing. Having said that, it is far more likely that coming events will shake them out of their lethargy such as no food on the supermarket shelves, or ‘sorry no petrol’ notices pinned at deserted filling stations, or even maybe, ‘what no electricity again’. Or is that wishful thinking? The JQ requires specialist lifting tackle, horses for courses and all that. That’s where you come in. Closing DT threads. Surely this would be a major blow, where then? Here at MR and the like for ever? Tebbit. (couldn’t activate the links for some reason - I’ll try again.) I despise Tebbit and his ilk, he’s been part of the furniture for decades, just sat on his hands and pocketed the money. It’s people like him who have been/are the problem. How he’s got the nerve beats me. I wouldn’t give him the time of day. (Tell me I’m wrong) Lastly, I forgot raise the question in my post as how do we measure any progress other otherwise? What criteria do we use? You don’t seem to think numbers are important just quality. Have I read you right? I feel sure there is lots more that I could discuss on this topic but I’ve gotta get on. Give my regards and good hunting to PW, he sounds like a chip of the old block.
48
Posted by Bill on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 17:46 | # Ukn Leo @ 42 Thanks Leo. What type of format is it? Sounds like it’s similar to the BDF? (That’s if you’re familiar with BDF) I only came on the Internet to search for answers as to why my life had been turned upside down. I’m getting on a bit now and I’m not really up to speed with these things. Like I say to GW (above) how do we measure any success we might have? What yardstick do we have that could give us an indication of how we’re doing? I suppose the comment count should tell us something. As I type, I can see out of my window and all looks perfectly normal, (not very enriched around here up to now.) People are going about their business, tidying the garden, washing down the car, setting off to work, you know, just normal everyday things. But if by chance I casually approached any one of my neighbours and began this conversation (we’re having here) they, would think I was seriously mad. I bet I could ask everyone last one of them if they were aware of what was happening in the world (in the context of the discussion here) and they would blank me and beat a hasty retreat indoors. I reckon it’s the same everywhere. Talk about the invasion of the body snatchers, it’s pure science fiction. 49
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:26 | # If we can somehow get it over to them it’s not like the weather or some random freak of nature, but is man made and deliberate, then it might lead them to ask questions. The answer to this question is one of the many reasons why the social constructionist approach is taken (if a tree falls in the woods and there are no people left to to hear it, may as well not make a noise). The problem is that the notion has been abused largely by Jewish academics beyond its meaning and purpose, to where it is typically flouted by right wing White Nationalists as if it is the position of our liberal arch enemies. They typically begin their arguments with, a “ho ho ho, they think race is just a social construct.” Race is not a mere social construct, it is not an illusion, it is a real social construct. The notion of social constructionism is a good one*, meant exactly to undo the Cartesian notion that “its all in our head” or “out there” and that we have no part in it. Instead it has been perverted and obfuscated so that it has been taken to mean that race is not real, it is some sort of optical illusion. Social constructionism properly understood is realist, not idealist. Race is very real. But as a social construct it is within our power to deal with the realities we confront thereupon afford, shape and constrain what it means to be a people - at a minimum, what counts as British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, North Irish, French, European etc. As previously discussed, none of this precludes operational verifiability and measurability. Let me provide a salient example of the preferability of a social constructionist approach vs a scientistic approach: A sheerly scientistic approach might talk about patterns of migration as if they were forces of nature, “flows” which take their course irrespective of our human wishes. Whereas a social constructionist approach would look upon these phenomenon as socially created and agreed upon or not - therefore subject to change.
50
Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:41 | # @Bill Rest easy Bill. There is a new generation ready to take up the baton. Forget your neighbours. Ok, decades of brainwashing and propaganda have taken there toll, but with access to the internet there is no excuse for ignorance to the true state of affairs. At current rate our demise is a demographic certainty, and a widely reported one too. It is wrong, an injustice, let alone in the way it has come about. These are facts. Non-disputable, non-controversial. My patience for the ostriches long since ran out. We resist, we fight, or we die out as a people. Our overlords and colonisers care not for our neatly trimmed lawns and sparkling clean cars. Twitter. You aren’t missing much. You join, you send ‘tweets’ which are short messages, to your list of ‘followers’. These messages usually consist of links to webpages of interest or comments of your own. Eg: when Hunter writes a new article, he tweets a link to it to all his followers who then forward that tweet to all their followers - and on and on and on. In theory a good way of spreading relevant news and info to like-minded folk. The ostriches send each other countless messages about banal celebrity culture nonsense and mainstream ‘news’ articles. Nationalists send each other info relevant to them and ne’er the twain do meet which is a problem (tactically, as far as I am concerned). In short, it is dominated by idiots. I don’t use Facebook but I imagine it has similar flaws in terms of spreading our message. BDF and forums like it (and MSM comment threads because of the volume of readers) are far superior, because that is where the more aware, open minded and curious are to be found. I agree with all you say and cannot think of much to add. I’m sure GW has the correct strategy and I am in training to join him. Early days in this form of warfare, but I have seen things move on drastically even in just the short time I have been commenting online myself (since the turn of the year). We will win Bill, with or without the assistance of your neighbours or mine. We need the brave on board. The cowardly are no use to us. When the time comes for them to follow us, that is what they will do. One last thing. On almost all threads where the truth is mentioned, where the ‘elites’ narrative is threatened, where folk are freely speaking their mind - it is a guarantee that a mocking or controlling character will pop up (hey Hymie in Afula!!! hope you are well), often more than one - to steer the conversation back towards what is ‘acceptable’. There is just no way that such a massive effort is happening purely by chance. Our enemies clearly recognise both the importance of free speech on the internet, and the danger it poses to them and their agenda and are determined to impose their will upon it. They are losing. When we enter the next phase they will lose there as well. Better for them to concede defeat now, show some humanity and compassion, and compromise before it is too late. 51
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:43 | # - therefore subject to change. I should have said Therefore subject to corrective agency. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:04 | # Bill, Standard pay for journalism is not high. I would guess that bloggers are paid from about £400 per piece and website-only opinion pieces probably double that. The journalism bill for the DT website would certainly not be excessive. The commentariat has a commercial value, and the larger, more loyal and active it is, the higher that value runs. This is why the DT can’t just shut off race-aware opinion. Indeed, as we have all seen, it is precisely the immigration threads that pull the big numbers. If, however, our work is unpopular, and the numbers fall, they’ll have to find some way to edit us out. You could say that our commercial worth is being put to the test. 53
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 01:02 | # Wandrin, why don’t you stop being such a pussy and challenge Nick Griffin to single deadly combat? 54
Posted by Dude on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:41 | # Frank Salter in Quadrant this month: The War Against Human Nature III: Race and the Nation in the Media Frank Salter For the intellectual Left that came to power in the 1960s and 1970s, no front of the culture wars is more important than the national question—what constitutes a nation, the benefits and costs of nationhood, the connections between national identity and interests, ethnic and racial differences, and the proper relations between nation, state, immigration, domestic ethnic groups and other countries. Four of the five taboos in the social sciences are related directly or indirectly to these issues: race differences; blaming the victim; stereotype accuracy; and nativism. (contd) 55
Posted by Bill on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:16 | # uKn Leo @ 52. I get the picture, thanks a lot for your lucid explanation. It’s all grist to the mill and flowing in one direction. Like constant rain coming down from the hills, where confluences add to the surge into an unstoppable flood. We will win Bill, with or without the assistance of your neighbours or mine. We mustn’t lose sight. Since the end of the war our people have been de-constructed as assuredly as our values and by the sample people. My neighbours are the descendants of Agincourt, Waterloo and Normandy, they’re good people, they’ve just been made to forget who they are, we mustn’t be too harsh on them. They will be at our side come the day. Rest easy Bill. There is a new generation ready to take up the baton. It is reassuring to know we’re in such safe hands. 56
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:09 | # Lots of good stuff from everyone. I confess that my favorite conversations here at MR are those which convey ‘facts on the ground’ from our European kinsmen still in the Old Countries. Official news is just never as good.
Alas, Leo, I don’t know what my future holds. I do regret never having been a part of a real ‘national’ community, even if only a subset of a country’s larger population. Being a white man, especially a traditionalist, in Southern California is a tremendously self-alienating experience. It’s very hard even finding a woman who shares your values. My current GF is fine as a GF, and all things considered, I’m lucky to have her. But I have to avoid my entire WN identity and interests around her (she’s only half-white, but worse, in a way, is that she’s neither political nor traditionalist ... of course, I suppose her apolitical outlook is preferable to her being a typical PC liberal). I really, really do think that a key to nationalist success everywhere is the development of intra-movement networks and friendships. Whites everywhere need to be re-tribalized as whites, and that starts with the most motivated persons meeting each other, and developing personal bonds. How do you even do something like that in LA (esp when you might find out you’re meeting up with someone who turns out to be psychotic)? There need to be WN social clubs and professional organizations, even if they’re not called “WN”, and aren’t too racially preachy. What do you think of the EDL? Is there a social element to them, in addition to the political? Why don’t you and others post on local UK aspects of the broader WN struggle? For example, is anti-immigrant sentiment stronger in the rural areas, or the cities?
57
Posted by CS on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:32 | # Leon, We can’t meet in real life because that would put our jobs, businesses and careers in jeopardy. That’s why WZ is one way to go. Because in WZ you can be open about your beliefs and not live your life like a spy in enemy territory. If we set up in Belize or Uruguay we probably don’t have to worry about hate speech and freedom of association laws so we’re already better off in that regard from the start. In ZOG countries, you’re free to do business with other WN individuals who are in the same boat as yourself. Oh, one question for everybody. If Belize and Uruguay are easy to immigrate to, why don’t we get some WN South Africans to go there? 58
Posted by daniel on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:59 | # Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943–October 2, 2012) carries himself with dignity, integrity and aplomb - As Political Correctness reaches its heights, Shabbos goy Phil Donohue administers an obscene PC bludgeoning and the audience follows in nightmarish lockstep. American free speech, a sick joke, particularly in those times just prior to the advent of the Internet. Rushton on Donohue 1990:
59
Posted by Bill on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:15 | # This started out as a brief append to uKn Leo @ 57 above, but it soon outgrew it’s intentions and took off with a life of its own. I just went with the flow. Hand me that empty chair. Why Me? Question, always more questions. I ask myself, why me? Why do I feel the way I do?. Why do I sense the world is going mad? Does my neighbour feel the same as me? Why is it I suddenly woke up one morning and felt that something was terribly wrong, it was in the air, on the streets, in the news, on TV. it was everywhere. It was in my nostrils, in my country, and was affecting everything around me, what was it that was making me feel this way. Why me and not my neighbour? Why doesn’t he get these vibes? What’s so special about him? Why doesn’t he feel my pain? Even my other half, doesn’t share my pain, despite my daily rants at the BBC news? (Alf Garnett style.) Why do I feel this way? Because you’re a nationalist. Oh dear, am I? What does a nationalist do? He loves his country. Is that good? No not really. Why not? Because you want to kill people. I don’t want kill people, why should I want to kill people? Because the man says so. What man? Mr Liberal. Who’s he? He’s a man who knows everything, he says your wicked. Why doe he say that? Because you’re a nationalist. He says that to all nationalists. Why does he get angry? Because he say you’re not being tolerant and you’re disagreeing with him. But why does he say I’m being intolerant when I say I don’t want to kill anybody? He doesn’t believe you. But that’s not nice. He does it to all white people. But I’ve never harmed anybody in my life. Your Dad did. My Dad never killed anybody. He says your Granddad did. My Granddad? He says he kept slaves and took people’s countries off them, he says your Granddad did lots of nasty things. My Granddad was a nice man, he was a village blacksmith. Doesn’t matter. He still says you want to kill people. But that’s crazy, it’s insane, why does he keep saying that? Dunno, he just does. GQ @ 54 Higher comments totals, win-win all round then. 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:06 | #
Because you are the best of men.
As the late, great but MIA, Fred Scrooby, would have had it,“Women can only see testosterone, not race.”
Because, for very complex reasons to do with Christianity, self-estrangement and suggestibility, modernity and postmodernity ... for these reasons he wants to kill his own people. But that is such an unnatural and terrible thing to want to do, he has to find somebody, some innocent upon whom he can project all the toxins that are pumping around his own heart. This is the tragedy of European Man at his end-times, that the creature who obediently kills him has his face, his nature, his DNA. Two thousand years of conflict with the self have produced this. But it is not a hopeless situation. Our executioner has proved by his weakness and suggestibility that he can be turned. We have only to find a cause, a narrative, a philosophy as strong as the one that motivates him now to take control of the future. It is possible. But it is a very great undertaking, be in no doubt of that. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:22 | # Bill: “win-win all round then.” Exactly. And what is true of the DT will be more true of the others as the discourse begins to shift. We are setting off an avalanche. We don’t have to shift thousands of tonnes of snow. We just have to create an impact for the fault line to appear, and gravity (aka human nature) will do the rest. 62
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:38 | #
Here today, gone tomorrow. They ensure the brand remains toxic for most. Pro-Israel, Pro-Zionist. 100% anti-Islam only. Not good enough.
Much the same as the US as far as I can tell. In the cities our cosmopolitan liberal elite preach the benefits of multiculturalism, but from the safety of wealthy areas that aren’t adversely affected. In the ‘enriched’ areas some have embraced wiggerism or Islam etc. Others hang on whilst their neighbourhoods are consumed around them. Some opt for white flight, if they can. Different parts of the UK attract different immigrants (remember, we are experiencing a huge influx of Eastern Europeans. Not just Africans and Asians). Opposition to the colonisation is widespread but heavily controlled by legal restraints on what can be done or said and media obfuscation and deception. The full force of the state is ranged against any protest. Many have fled to rural areas taking their experiences and grievances with them. Country folk aren’t necessarily more or less in opposition to what is happening. But they are to a large extent less affected by it on a day to day basis. Many Eastern Europeans work in the agricultural sector and several small (rural) towns have been all but taken over by them. It is certain that traditional, country types will be horrified by what is going on. But like everybody else criticism must be kept behind closed doors for private conversations with those they trust. Blacks and Asians are notoriously infrequent visitors to the countryside. They claim to feel unwelcome there. They are not welcome there. The above description applies to England only. Mass immigration applies to England only. Scotland and Wales have somehow mysteriously dodged the pleasures of genocidal race replacement. For now.
63
Posted by anon on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:47 | #
What if you did find that elusive philosophy? What would happen next? You post it on MR, a handful of people read it and then…? It just stays on MR and doesn’t go anywhere.
The human brain works by association. Jews have been careful to associate racism/nationalism with mass murder. Take a look at the quote below and notice the German word highlighted. The Jews put this German word in there to associate critisism of Jews with Nazism and therefore mass-murder. When people see that German word, it pulls up a giant red flag saying “Nazi detected, avoid like the plague!”.
Also notice in that quote how they associate Jews with perfection and non-Jews with imperfection. If the WN community made more of an effort to create positive associations with racism/nationalism then things might be different. eg a floppy haired WN boyband singing a catchy tune aimed at teenage girls with the lyrical chorus “racism is love, baby”. Then the teenage girls would learn to associate racism with love and sexy boybands after being exposed to repeat listenings of the WN boyband songs. The Jews are well aware of this phenomenon and hence their emphasis on promoting black rap music to white girls etc. 64
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 22:26 | #
The Department of Homeland Security, led by Janet “Chaz” Napolitano declared white supremacy is the US’s biggest threat for domestic terror. Where did Chaz get such a notion? None other than a report cobbled together and provided to her by the notoriously anti-white SPLC. I assume everyone at MR is well aware of the illogic of leftist/liberals. But we all should regularly remind ourselves how most liberals “think”. The following article accurately reflects on liberals’ illogical worldview. It is a VERY good explanation of why we, as logical and objective thinkers, will NEVER find enough common ground so as to become, in any meaningful sence, allies. We cannot persuade them with reason and facts. They view the world through an emotional lens. Their emotions trump any logical thinking.
65
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:26 | # Captain
I think cultural warfare is more effective for now. I used to think you could easily combine that with electoral politics but now i think it’s hard to not get sucked into the *process* of elections and fund raising etc. Plus guerrilla cultural warfare is more fun. 66
Posted by Anon on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:00 | # Wandrin
A successful white advocate boyband would fulfil the requirements of both fund raising and cultural warfare. As Thorn said in #67, people don’t want to listen to logical arguments made by boring politicians. People want to listen to exiting emotional arguments made by boybands/popstars. 67
Posted by Dude on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:05 | # Anon, being aware of how boybands come into being and how they are pushed into the view of teenage females, how might we find, create, write for and promote them to create sufficient interest? Would we mostly focus on testosterone emitting he-men or some other qualities too? 68
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:00 | # I think Bill, Leon_Haller, Graham_Lister and GW would make a great boyband. Cracking idea!!! 69
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:08 | # Maybe look to Christian attempts at mimicking pop music for their youth. Has the potential to go hideously wrong though. Meanwhile, sick of anti-white violence at street level, this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8SLNMIBlM http://www.generation-identitaire.com/ Our young people need physical protection more than they need a new boyband. Declaration de guerre. Sacre bleu!!! 70
Posted by CS on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:11 | # Thorn @ 67, That essay was good and just more evidence that WZ may be the only way to go since too many people are impervoius to facts and logic. 71
Posted by Silver on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:43 | # anon,
I think that was GW’s own post, not the work of “the Jews.” You might want to think about the associations in your own mind that would cause you to so egregiously misread what was written that you’d attribute its authorship to a Jew. Weltanschauung is a German word, yes, but it’s also part of the general lexicon. The effect you’re talking about is created by the substitution of scary German words like Sonderaktion for their plain language English counterparts. 72
Posted by daniel on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:24 | # Generation identitaire -cool stuff! http://www.generation-identitaire.com/ http://www.generation-identitaire.com/
73
Posted by Anon on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:44 | # Dude
So many youngsters want to be famous these days, finding recruits should be no problem. No shortage of males in the WN community. The first boyband would have to be cryptic and not openly WN, just to learn the ropes etc. With lyrics that are cryptically WN. Once the crypto boyband has acquired a little fanbase, the members can do interviews to reveal the true meaning of the songs and let slip naughty opinions with regards to race. The teen girls will hang on their every word because they will be in love with the boyband. They will say, “racism must be OK because my favorite boyband says so!”. After the first boyband has opened the gateway, more explicit boybands can follow. The most difficult part would be finding a talented songwriter who can combine a catchy tune with political lyrics. This problem could be overcome by pirating the tunes from MSM bands and changing the lyrics. With regards to promoting them, they would never be accepted by the Jews for MTV or MSM. The WN boyband will always be niche, but that’s OK because it’s main objective would be political rather than commercial. As long as the money spent v females recruited ratio works out alright. uKn_Leo
Christian mimics are limited by “morality”. A WN boyband wouldn’t be hindered by morals and wouldn’t hesitate to use sex to promote racial solidarity. In fact, associating racism with sex would be the whole point of the boyband.
WN boybands will protect their minds. Mind over matter etc. @Silver 74
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 21:18 | #
People won’t listen to anything until they’ve been carpet-bombed out of their programming by cognitive dissonance. After that yes, music is good. 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:50 | # How desperate are the patriotic forces ... boybands ... (no one with the talent actually to constitute a bestselling boyband is going to throw it - fame, fortune, females - all away on nationalism) ... moving right along ... I would like to hear from some stolid Englishmen. In the wake of the BNP disaster (and coming dissolution?), what does it look like nationalists will replace it with? I forget the various permutations: BNP, UKIP, EDL, Britain First, British Freedom Party, others? What looks most promising to the troops on the ground? Educate a friend across the ‘pond’ ... 76
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:05 | # uknleo@65 Thank you for the response. How do you feel personally about the East European influx? I’m a pan-European genetic (racial) nationalist myself, so I would actually like to see more overseas whites moving the the US (though if they’re all social democratic types, please stay home! We have enough freeloaders and ideological supporters of freeloaderism here to deal with already). I can understand ethnonationalists not liking even white immigrant influxes, however. They certainly don’t help with the recovery of proper patriotic national spirit and identification. But I cannot help thinking that borderless Europe would not be such a problem without the nonwhite problem. Anyway, I think, sadly, to some extent, that the white racial future is less likely to see a restoration of a “Europe of the fatherlands” than a broadly Americanized (ethnically undifferentiated) white superstate. I suspect that any future WZ will probably be basically American in attitude and behavioral patterns. For a society to function it must cohere around some lowest cultural denominator. Given the ubiquity of English as a ‘lingua franca’, which is likely to continue for quite a while (and possibly forever - Mandarin is just not that easy to learn), as well as a general trend towards cultural homogeneity amongst the increasingly globalized proletariat, I really think that Europe will become ever more “American” over time: that is, ethnically mixed, and culturally homogenized (even if the backwaters maintain various quaint customs for some time still). 77
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 03:01 | # Leon, Yes the boy-band nonsense is pretty desperate stuff. As for the politics of the UK – well it’s quite a complex and dynamic situation. All of the formulations you mentioned are more or less terrible, extremely unsophisticated (culturally and politically) dead-ends. I’ve lived and worked in different parts of the UK and in my judgement the best thing that could happen for English ethno-communitarians (that’s what they are even if they don’t actually have an adequate political lexicon or imagination to describe themselves as such) is the formal break-up of the UK. All of these groups which you mention are, in terms of the semiotics of their general image, terribly anachronistic and/or not attractive to anyone but a tiny minority of the population (add to the fact that those in charge of such parties/tendencies are of such staggeringly low-quality on any metric one cares to employ). Of course the brand they are promoting is radioactively toxic but they willfully still embrace its worse aspects (thus dramatically raising the ‘psychological costs’ for ordinary people to even give themselves ‘permission’ to listen to such people - let alone find any form of agreement!). Specifically, one important reason for the lack of traction is they are wrapped in the wrong flag – we live in an informally post-British era. The Celtic ‘periphery’ is basically quasi-independent (to a large extent) at least in terms of their own autonomous cultural politics. Generally people in those Celtic parts of Britain do not feel strongly British with a capital B any more (as they might have done up to say the 1950s). The feeling is more akin to that of the inter-relations between the Scandinavian nations – yes we are all British but in a looser, more attenuated way. A much more passive way. I think this is true of the English too. In that, in my experience, most English people have a, more or less, neutral outlook on the prospect of Scottish independence etc., and know next to nothing about what might or might not be going on in the Welsh Assembly etc. Yet the London-based ‘British’ media and political class have yet to really acknowledge, let alone accept, these new ‘post-British’ realities. Returning to my point – if Scottish independence were to occur then it would a watershed moment which would crystallise the reality of the post-British era, in way that could not be ignored at the level of ‘official’ discourse. In turn what England was and is (the cultural politics of the place) would have to be re-imagined, to some extent, given the ‘shock’ to the system – perhaps even to quite large extent. I really don’t see anyone on the English political scene that looks culturally astute nor intellectually adroit enough to even understand these rather subtle issues, let alone exploit the ‘potential space’ they might open up in the ideological sphere. What would a return to ‘Little England’ eventually look and feel like? It’s an open, and for some, very frightening prospect that’s best ignored under it cannot be ignored any longer. Even if Scottish independence doesn’t formally happen the cultural landscape is a now a distinctly post-British one – the centrifugal forces that have facilitated these developments are unlikely to be reversed. Sadly in England, all I observe in regard to these matters, are very crude idiots occasionally ‘demanding’ an English parliament (what’s Westminster other than the de facto English Parliament with a few Celts tacked on?) or droning on about the ‘West-Lothian question’ which is of interest, let alone importance, to what probably 0.1% of the English general public I would guess. There is very little in the way of genuinely intelligent political operators. Going big on the old-style ‘British’ theme is anachronistic, particularly in the whole WWII ‘our finest hour’; we all love the Queen etc., mode (semiotically this really only appeals to quite old people in the main). But the alternative English theme is radically underdeveloped or when is attempted is either too crude or unsubtle to be creditable. Anyway it is a subject that perhaps requires a front-page item to fully get to grips with. But out in cyber-space somewhere there should be an exchange between Tom Nairn – a prominent intellectual whose area of study concerns nationalism as a political phenomenon - whom is a keen supporter of Scottish nationalism/independence and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown – a quite ghastly creature that is the arch-defender of all things British – well a multinational, multicultural, ‘non-tribal’ version of Britishness. Their exchange of views gives a favour of the debate and underlying ‘cultural’ issues. 78
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 05:41 | #
Leon_Haller In comparison to how I feel about the influx of South Asians and Africans, intensely relaxed. However there are issues in terms of sheer numbers, criminality, social costs (schooling/healthcare/housing etc), assimilation and access to benefits/welfare. Britain is already one of the most densely populated nations on Earth. How we are supposed to cope with a projected future population of 80/90/100 million+ with finite resources is unclear, and a subject unaddressed by our political class. The overwhelming majority of Eastern Europeans live quietly, and well here. Often more devoutly religious (Polish = Catholics
Leon_Haller Imagine living right next door then Leon. French finesse, Italian style, the history, the architecture and art. So many unique cultures to learn from and experience. European union has bought us several decades during which we have desisted from mercilessly blowing the crap out of each other in the relentless quest for regional dominance. But we are still a union of individual states all vying to pursue national self-interest within the framework of the EU. An EU led by avowed communists and worse, and an EU that has been instrumental in allowing porous borders and genocidal immigration rates. My first concern is for my people. The English. And for England which has no parliament, currency, army, embassies, no voice of it’s own. My people have been subsumed within the political construct that is Great Britain from whence we have lost control over our own destiny. Our historical enemies, whom quite literally surround us on all sides, have taken full advantage of this and have bought us to the brink of utter ruin, a shell of what we could have and should have been.
Alec Salmond in disguise Au contraire Mr Lister. Polls indicate that a clear majority of the English now support independence for Scotland (a far, far higher % than support Scottish independence in Scotland). More to the point they want independence from Scotland for England. This is a live issue now bought to the fore because of all the attention garnered by the Scottish independence debacle. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind!
Nichola Sturgeon Herein lies the problem you see Leon. Mr Lister feels that it is entirely appropriate to label anyone defending English interests as “crude”, “idiots”, “little Englanders”. I cannot name one single patriotic, let alone nationalistic, English member of Parliament in the House of Commons. Not one. Because there are none. The House of Commons is far from a place where the best interests of England are looked after. Would my country be in such a diabolical mess if it were? Culpability for the grievances, injustices, divisions and disputes that are currently tearing the people of these isles apart lay firmly at the door of our treacherous, treasonous political ‘elite’. The unholy mess they have created is vast, and the fringe parties you mention such as the British Freedom Party, UKIP, The Scottish National Party et al almost certainly do not have what it takes to adequately pull us back from the brink. The English want self determination, to make our own way in the world, sink or swim. The English want an end to mass immigration. We do not want a population of 80 million or more. We do not want to be flooded and replaced by Mohammedans nor the dregs of the third world. The English want to leave the EU, or at the very least be allowed an in/out referendum. We want a successful, mutually beneficial trading relationship with our European brothers - we do not want to be part of an increasingly authoritarian European Super (police) state. We want our own parliament, we want to actually exist as an independent sovereign state and be recognised as such by the rest of the world. We refuse to be led by the nose by our “Celtic” (lol) neighbours or anybody else, let alone be abused and robbed blind by them, then spat on and cursed by them for our troubles. And yet our establishment will not allow any of this to happen. I am a proud European. I love Western culture (not the Jewy bits) and all our people. But most of all I love England, and want what is best for her. As such I have absolutely no voice and no realistic political options, whatsoever. 79
Posted by Mr Piggot on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:11 | # Has Mr Piggott taken extended shore leave or have the Telegraph mods made him walk the plank? 80
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:37 | # Leon, The response from uKn_Leo is typically what I meant by the rather crude cultural politics of English nationalism. The tone is rather resentful etc., and very ‘chippy’ as the say in England (or touchy if one prefers). Look I think some of the points I made have been woefully misunderstood here. Let’s examine a couple. (1) Westminster pre-dates the formation of the UK. It’s fundamentally an English institution. What occurred with the formal emergence of the British state is that the Celts had a few MP’s very much ‘tacked on’ to it. That some Scots, Welsh etc., people have been, in their own terms, been extremely successful within that institutional framework doesn’t change the historical roots of Westminster in English history – which is not precisely the same as British history. Read the excellent “The Isles: A History” by Norman Davies – a wonderful non-Anglocentric history of Britain that no ‘true-believer’ in the Union could ever sign up to. The fact that the political elite of Britain are almost to a man treacherous self-serving scum is hardly news to anyone, from any part of the UK, (well for those members of the population with an IQ above room temperature at least). They (the elite) don’t serve ordinary people’s interests and have no interest in doing so – at the very best they might toss a few crumbs our way for electoral reasons, but that about it. (2) What is wrong with ‘Little England’? Why is this term an insult? I mean to the likes of Tony Blair, ‘Dave’ Cameron and the clownish Boris Johnson, that all want Britain to be a ‘global player’ in world affairs it might seem like a truly terrible term of abuse, but why need it be to the ordinary person? After all I’d prefer a little England that concerned itself with tending its own gardens, so to speak, than a Great Britain (sic) following the USA into every morally dubious military campaign that some scummy Zionist neo-con has dreamt up that morning – all in a pathetic bid to prove that Britain is a ‘world power’ even if it’s not THE world power anymore. In fact ‘little England’ insofar if it signalled a gestalt switch for the English – at every level of society and culture - that in fact the Empire and the Anglo-Celtic project of ‘Britain’ is over, it would be a good thing. We had a good run and a slice of historical fortune but our position as ‘top dog’ on the world stage was always going to be a temporary state of affairs. It is not some deep ‘ontological’ slight or evil in the world that Britain, or more accurately Greater Englandshire, is no longer in that position. A deep and serious acknowledgement of the reality of being such another ordinary European nation, like the dull Swiss, Dutch or Danes, whom overwhelmingly concern themselves with internal quality of life issues etc., instead of illusions of ‘power projection’ such as the pathetic fiction that we are an independent nuclear power etc., would be a most welcomed change in the atmosphere – allowing some fresh air into the decrepit mausoleum of ideological ‘Britishness’. However, as Tom Nairn suggests because the psychological, political and even linguistic differentiation between England and Britain has been so slight, in a way England has to be re-invented almost posthumously. What it might eventually look like - ideologically, culturally and so on - in post-British mode is anyone’s guess, but on balance I think ‘little England’ might well be a much happier and less toxic place to live, in the long term, than what we have now which is ‘parody Britain’ – so long as the idea of ‘little England’ is embraced in the right way. Just on the nukes front it’s risible the hard-on the British politic elite have for this delusion of grandeur. Yes of course they are American nukes and yes they would NOT let us fire them in a million years, but for our political elite it’s quite unthinkable to without them. It would be one step too far on the road to ‘ordinary’ status and what could be worse than being ordinary little England instead of mighty Great Britain? I recall Blair was interviewed before his first victory in 1997 about his and Labour’s changing position on the nuclear question (in this context in the early 80s Blair had been a member of the anti-nuclear CND group). Blair was in his ‘acting tough’ mode and said he could and would press the nuclear button if it was in the national interest. This shoddy piece of political posturing was designed to demonstrate how ‘grown-up’ and ‘mature’ he now was compared to his CND self. But if he been really honest and tough-minded his answer would more have been alone the lines of: “well we only have about four of the things, effectively on loan from the Americans, and I would never be given permission by them to press the nuclear button so it’s not an issue. CND were wrong because they made a fuss about something that’s simply a non-issue in the British context”. But no ‘British’ political figure with hopes of high office can actually tell the basic truth on this issue. Britain doesn’t have nuclear weapons for any military purpose or practical effect. They are for show only. And finally to uKn_Leo – would you actually entrust your nation to the likes of Griffin, Farage et al., let alone a football thug like the awful ‘Tommy Robinson’ of the EDL? The public face of ‘nationalism’ in England is a collection of low-quality, low-level thugs and oddballs; often rather financially corrupt and on the make (given half a chance with a Euro MEPs expenses budget). No-one on the English scene even starts to reach the fairly basic level of minimal rhetorical ability or ideological adroitness to be taken semi-seriously by the wider public, of say for example a Pim Fortuyn. Do you seriously disagree on this point? 81
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:16 | # Mr Piggot - Disqus IDs are very quick to set up. When one is shot down, you just start another and come straight back. Its a bit like being an Agent in The Matrix. Im on my 3rd Disqus ID already. You might want to check joepiggott, georgepiggot, johnpiggott, nicknightingale and philwicks. Though none of those have been active in the last few days. 82
Posted by Dude - Re Lurker on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:36 | # Thanks Lurker. Yes, aware of that, though thanks. I find ‘Mr P’s’ comments more interesting than most and when one identity disappears, it is usually too time consuming to investigate to find the new vessel into which he has poured himself. Thousands of comments quickly appear on the most likely threads as you know. 83
Posted by Bill on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:26 | # Back in 2005, according to this morning’s Telegraph, David Cameron wooed the party’s blue rinse members with an electrifying speech which clinched his bid for party leadership. Not reported in this morning’s Telegraph is the fact that soon afterwards, David Cameron received a visit from one Rupert Murdoch. Cameron went on to become prime minister in in May 2010. If interested see. I see David Cameron as the latest appointed destroyer of our nation, he is the latest in a long line of bought and paid for destroyers of our country. Over the years, as each successive government was voted out of office, the graph depicted the nation’s inexorable decline, both in economic and cultural terms. Has this decline been an incidental random act of circumstance or has it been deliberate decline management by people like David Cameron? A question that lends credence is why hasn’t any succeeding government ever or barely ever rescinded legislation from previous governments? Whatever became of those thousands of pieces of legislation that Cameron, on a whim, promised to get rid of. The man’s a joke, a total disgrace. The patient Britain is lying on a trolley in A&E, the end is near and Cameron is drip feeding the patient with morphine. Since the beginning of this present century, each prime minister has pursued a strategy of what can only be described as scorched earth policy. In other words treason, selling out the British people to the globalist new order, by way of the EU. It all started with a vengeance when Blair swept to power promising to destroy Britain’s forces of conservatism. He went on almost single handedly to destroy Britain, slashing and burning as he went. When his eventual departure came, it was not because of his nation destroying talents but for his lust for war which was not in the interests of the British people. Blair went on to seek his fortune, last I heard he was worth 14 million. The elites reward their people well. Blair was succeeded by Brown as planned. Brown was universally unpopular being tainted by the now toxic New Labour brand, Brown knew what the game was all about and sensed he was on borrowed time, he got a shift on in continuing Blair’s agenda. A general feeling of nothing worked or made sense any more, a battered electorate took its revenge and consoled itself in pursuit of pleasure. Cameron, was the new kid on the block and of a different hue, He proclaimed himself the heir to Blair (which turned out to be remarkably accurate.) Blair was Britain’s first thoroughly post-modern prime minister and a clone of former guru and mentor William Jefferson Clinton, former president of the United States. Cameron started his reign in the manner of Blair and to those whose radar was attuned soon saw another shoe in prime minister by those behind the curtain. Even his liberal sidekick the snivelling Clegg (where do the find them) avowed he would change Britain for ever. I actually heard and saw him say it on TV, I was gobsmacked, for here was a man, at the heart of government, openly swearing he would change Britain for ever. His statement went unchallenged. Meanwhile Cameron soon took heart in his assigned task, he is shameless in his treachery to the people of Britain. We’re up to date now and our country is reeling, past caring. Cameron’s presence is untenable but carries on with ‘in your face’ contempt, even calling dissenters fruitcakes for good measure. He must have known from the outset his task was a poisoned chalice and history would condemn him as a despised one term prime minister. I only hope he thinks it worth it. And yet, Cameron has, ostensibly, a further two years of tenure, history has all to play for, and as I keep saying, we’ve never been here before. Cameron the destroyer continues his raison d’etre, paying no heed to those who handed him the levers of power. His multitude of followers did not see this coming and are shell shocked, they are decamping to the hills in droves heading for UKIP. How much more can our people take? It seems the British people have an infinite capacity to endure and our elites know this and exploit it. I tend to forget in all of this is it’s the consequences of liberalism which is causing so much pain to our people, liberalism is sneaky, underhand, it’s not British, it’s not playing the white man. This is not the liberalism of party politics, (at least not in Britain,) but is an overarching ruling hegemonic idealism, like capitalism, which nobody actually votes for but is an elite clique construct, run by them and accountable to no-one. DT threads has always had a constant theme. Get Blair! Get Brown! Get Cameron! Get ?... Mr Ed Miliband to see you sir, Thank you show him in. Ah, Mr Miliband, do take a seat, we’ll be with you in just one moment…. Finally there’s this. The above story is being replicated in every detail across the pond. Intelligent people are posting here who still seem to cling to the idea that voting will somehow change things. Romney-Obama, Obama Romney, what’s the difference? How much autonomy does a president (or prime minister have?) Yes we can Obama has proved to be a sock puppet every much as Bush. Romney is also an elite shoe in, the the only difference being is the hand inside the glove. No matter who wins in November, it’s, steady as she goes number one. Aye Aye sir. Yet ten upon tens of millions are in thrall at this political Super Bowl charade. PS It’s worth noting that below the link line content(above) had been in the can for several days alongside several others awaiting to air or not to air. In view of uKn Leo @ 81 and the DT piece appearing, I thought why not? BTW, I didn’t finish reading the DT piece, same old get Cameron invitation to the baying mob. 84
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:36 | # G_L: I am the least amongst you here by a country mile. I can only write what I think, and do my best, until the day GW says “piss off, not good enough”. No I don’t think Griffin, Tommy Robinson et al are, nor ever will become, the leadership we need. I stated that quite clearly. Patriotic Englishmen aware of the JQ have no adequate representation anywhere. Do you think Alec (Jewish) Salmond is truly the saviour of future rumpScotland? I want, ‘little England’, as your fellows so delight in calling it (no offensive intent meant, i’m sure!), too. The Scottish reaction to any Englishman defending England’s interest’s is always the same. Sneering insults and derision. Never any acknowledgement whatsoever that England has received an extremely raw deal under Scotsmen Blair, Brown and Camerons leadership backed by their heavily Scots/Welsh influenced, and 100% anti-English cabinets (and media - particularly the BBC). Yes I am biased on these issues, bloody angry too (in a - don’t piss down my back then tell me it’s raining - sense). Are the Scots not biased towards their own needs and interests (the addiction to the English financial teat!!!) too? Why is Scottish nationalism to be encouraged and lauded, yet any English moves or calls for self determination are met with a wall of opposition? In fact why are Wales and Scotland effectively the only ‘white’ nations on Earth where nationalist sentiment is allowed and indeed actively encouraged? G_L, you are my better in every way, you are my elder, and you are my superior - I have nothing but admiration and respect for you. Yet nothing you say will deter me from beating the drum for England whilst there is still a breath in my body. I’m sure you expect nothing less. 85
Posted by wat tyler on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:46 | # Now the spanish wogs will be flooding the UK. It never ends: 86
Posted by Bill on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:17 | # uKn Leo @ 65
Assuming this to be true, Hmm? I think it’s all to do with the liberal victim thingy. Scotland , Wales, Ireland too, are indigenous white populations = historically racist oppressor. (By liberal default) Scotland, Wales, Ireland, are (also) historical victims of the (nasty) English oppressor = victim. Scotland, Wales, Ireland are both victim and oppressor. What to do? Group huddle. Somewhere in the office must be filed away league tables of victim-hood and oppressor. Don’t ask me how they do it. Perhaps this will help.
87
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:45 | # Thanks Bill.
(hehe, i’m running away now before Dr Lister comes back). 88
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:02 | # Ethnic minorities in UK feel most British, research finds. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/ethnic-minorities-uk-british-research English, Scottish, Welsh identities are ever so slightly more ‘tribal’ than the ‘catch-all’ British one. Recall an idiotic regime once declared ‘everyone’ in the Empire was also British too. On the distribution of ethnic minorities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/may/19/ethnic-breakdown-england-wales Most of Scotland (not shown on the graphic) is in the 95%+ white category. Note that the overwhelming majority of ethnic minorities are concentrated in London (not a shock as the UN has stated London is the most ethnically and linguistically diverse city in the world). The greater the distance from London the lower the average % of ethnic minority types present in the population. Obviously there are some clusters in the north of England etc., but the broad pattern holds. Personally I don’t think the geographical distribution of ‘new Britons’ is due to policies makers deliberately giving to Wales or Scotland or large parts of the north of England exemption due to ‘victim status’. Rather the attractiveness of London for immigrants is overwhelming for various rather obvious factors (mostly economic and cultural) as opposed to say Hexham, Aberystwyth or Dundee. London really does ‘feel’ very different in character to most other parts of the UK – including our other major cities. 89
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:18 | # Just on the Scottish/Welsh nature of the last Labour government. The disproportionate number of Scots etc., in that government was not a function of some deliberate clandestine ‘nationalist’ movement at work within the Labour party. Rather the explanation is much more prosaic. In 1983 the Labour party suffered one of it worst electoral defeats. Due to the precise way our odd electoral system works (called ‘First past the post’) both major parties have geographical ‘heartlands’ that they will tend to hold even under a very low general level of national support – and Labour in 1983 was almost pushed into 3rd place behind the then liberal ‘Alliance’ in the share of the popular vote. However, Labour held on to a decent number of their parliamentary seats in their geographical heartlands. In essence Labour was non-existent in the South of England (Essex man had gone Tory in a big way), and barely holding on in the Midlands and had ‘retreated’ to its core areas. Scotland, Wales and the north of England. Post the 1983 general election the parliamentary Labour party was at it’s lowest ebb. It desperately needed fresh thinking, fresh faces and ‘modernisation’. 1983 was of course the election in which both Brown and Blair entered parliament. Given that Labour MPs at that historic low point were disproportionately from Scottish and Northern English consistancies is it terribly shocking that particular cohort formed a large number of leading figures by the time 1997 came around? Obviously in 1997 Labour recaptured the south of England in grand style and enjoyed a massive landslide victory. Again it’s not that shocking that the people who had been doing the hard slog from the depths of 1983 would not automatically give up their positions for any of the new people brought in the 1997 intake. Finally don’t forgot that outside of the Northern Ireland unionist parties the most fanatically pro-Union political group is that of the Scottish Labour party and their Westminster MPs. The attitude is one of more or less open contempt for Scotland – of being a far too small and parochial backwater for them to ever consider abandoning the excitement of London for. They also tend to argue that Scots are such half-witted morons that we could ‘never’ manage to collective govern ourselves without our English cousins help - as if we are collectively a would-be entrant for the Special Olympics. As for the BBC being specifically anti-English and dominated by the Celtic fringe I’m rather nonplussed – which alternative reality version of the BBC have you been watching? Sure the BBC is fully on board with the exciting multicultural future of the UK but they hardly fly the Saltire every night. Due to the wonders digital TV it is now possible to watch any of the ‘regional’ variations of the BBC. The main (that is London based) ‘national news’ doesn’t seem to think anything or anyone exists north of the Watford gap. I recall Alex Salmond’s latest interview on the main (i.e. London based) Newsnight show. Jeremy Paxman (a very English character indeed) compared Salmond to Adolf Hitler and proceeded to lecture Salmond on the dangerous and evil nature of nationalism. Another example of the pro-Scottish BBC perhaps? As for the Barnet formula it gives Scotland a couple of billion in ‘extra funding’ but remember providing public services in vast but sparsely populated areas such as the Highlands is inherently more expensive than say the densely populated south of England (on a per capita basis). Don’t be so petty - the ‘extra’ amount is peanuts in an overall annual UK government budget that comes in at over 700 billion pounds. And if one wanted to be really pedantic perhaps the UK government could repay to the Edinburgh government 30+ years of North Sea oil revenues? Look I know Cameron is a Scottish name but honestly Dave ‘I love the Eton wall-game’ Cameron is about as Scottish as Desmond Tutu. I can imagine in a parallel universe ‘Dave’ turning up at Hampden in order to support Scotland and being lynched by the crowd in what five to ten seconds – that’s if they didn’t all piss themselves with laughter first. And let’s not forget the half-wits half-wit George ‘Gideon’ Osborne - the double-dip recession specialist (he’s a giant of economic thought armed with his piss-poor degree in history informing his every ‘insight’ - even Cameron managed to scrape a 1st class degree and Ed Balls at least has a PhD from Harvard in the subject). Idiot boy Gideon really is 100% English. George Gideon Oliver Osborne, heir to a baronetcy, member of the exclusive Bullingdon Club, chum to David Cameron and Nat Rothschild, MP for Tatton, Chancellor of the Exchequer, with an estimated personal fortune of £4 million (not earned but from a trust fund paid for by his father) has never had a proper job in the real world. According to the Daily Mail: During his time in the Bullingdon Club Osborne was reportedly nicknamed ‘Oik’ because he had gone to St Paul’s public school instead of Eton or Harrow. A popular lark among his fellow Bullingdon Club men was to hold him upside-down by the ankles and scream: ‘Who are you?’ After several ‘wrong’ answers, each followed by Mr Osborne being dropped on his head, he was finally released after squealing: ‘I am a despicable ****.’ (Personally I think word must have been ‘cunt’ rather than oik). Current fees for Eton are £28,851 per annum. St Paul’s charge a mere £25,773 p.a. Oh and Alex Salmond is not Jewish. He’s a bog standard member of the Kirk (the Church of Scotland): Salmond was born at Linlithgow, West Lothian, Scotland on 31 December, (Hogmanay) 1954.[2] He is the second of four children born to Robert Fyfe Findlay Salmond and Mary Stewart Salmond (née Milne), both of whom were Civil Servants.[3] His father’s family had been previously resident at Waterfoot, near Keswick.[4][5] His middle names come from his family’s tradition of naming their children after the local Church of Scotland minister, in this case the Reverend G. Elliot Anderson of St Ninian’s Craigmailen Parish Church in Linlinthgow.[6][7] Salmond attended the local Linlithgow Academy before studying at the University of St Andrews, where he lived in St Salvator’s Hall and graduated with a Joint Honours MA in Economics and History. I don’t really detect the trace of Zion in that biography. And no he is not the ‘savior’ of Scotland but he’s a lot better than anything else on offer in the mainstream UK political elite – at least for Scots that is. But on that topic I did read that in some parts of the north of England the SNP is polling higher than the Liberal Democrats. Finally on the term ‘little England’ – it isn’t actually used in Scotland that often. The Scots have their own far more biting slang for the English. Rather the terminology of the ‘little Englander’ is an expression that has its origins within English culture as a put-down aimed towards parochial Englishmen. Personally I don’t think it should be an insult at all! I’m not offended by intelligent and thoughtful English nationalism, but I am offended by ignorance, stupidity and a lack of moral character. Hence my loathing of Griffin etc. 90
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:43 | # On David Cameron: ‘His father was born at Blairmore House, a country house near Huntly, Aberdeenshire…Blairmore was built by his great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes, who had made a fortune in the grain trade in Chicago, and returned to Scotland in the 1880s…David Cameron’s great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish financier (and descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita) who obtained British citizenship in 1871, was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969. His wife, Cameron’s great-great grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father’s side.’ Source (only Wiki i’m afraid, my apologies): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron In itself nothing particularly concerning, sure. England has thus far proved to be in safe hands under David Camerons glorious thoroughbred English stewardship. I take on board your points regarding legitimate extra expense related to Scotlands size and remote communities. Luckily for those communities a seperate, individual Parliament has been created in order to cater for their every whim. ‘Overall, this table indicates that the totality of government expenditure in or on behalf of Scotland consistently exceeds the estimates of all government receipts…That is to say, there appears to be a structural fiscal deficit in Scotland.’ eg: Estimated Scottish receipts UK Taxes 2007-2008 £38,692billions http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Time Series Analysis of Government Expenditures and Revenues in Scotland.pdf Petty? Maybe. Depending on which figures are used, it could be argued that Scotland benefits to the tune of more than just a couple of billions per annum. A lot more. They repay us with warm gratitude and friendship though so they are welcome to the money. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/15171937/8 One third of Scottish workers in the public sector: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/one-third-of-scots-work-in-public-sector-1.1003448 Information here on Scotlands vast public sector employment. Distorts the figures immensely and allows Scots to boast relentlessly about the strong performance of their economy. Many tens of thousands of these jobs would have to be repatriated to England/UK post Scottish independence. It is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a Scotsman to acknowledge this. Scottish dependency culture: Again, I accept your points regarding the Labour Party and its recovery pre-1997. There is however a more disturbing side for those of a non-kilt based ethny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989 So we have what were known as ‘The Scottish Raj’, signed up to a document where they swear they will put Scotlands interests foremost in all undertakings at a time when Scotland gained devolved status which it has profited quite handsomely from ever since. I understand absolutely that G_L is of the non conspiratorial type so I am being extremely careful how I word this. But I can assure you G_L, eyebrows have been raised south of the border. Not least because of Englands decline which just so happens accelerated under the same cabal. It is not pleasant losing ones capital city to foreign colonisation. Whatever the circumstances. We will have to disagree on the BBC. I am aware of the Scottish point of view. There is a similar view in England, bearing in mind that we all get now a slightly different variant. Nobody seems happy with the BBC. Time for a major restructuring, if not complete ending of this hideous, bloated propaganda and bullshit spewing machine. I am running out of steam here. Alec Salmond - i’ll try and dig out a link but I can remember reading from a mainstream source that he does have prominent Jewish ancestry like Cameron. But, I am now pushing my luck with G_L in a big way and I want to end this post this year if possible. There are two sides to every story and I am just trying to bat for England here. The fault lines of division within the UK are numerous and increasingly ill-tempered. We are all being played by external forces too which doesn’t help. If the English were asked if they wanted a Scotsman or a Pakistani Muslim as a neighbour the answer would be entirely unanimous. Circumstances are likely to force us back together whether we like it or not. If England falls, Scotland will surely fall too. 91
Posted by commonwealth contrarian on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:11 | # White Britain (and indeed Britain as a first world nation) can only survive if it makes direct use of the skills and wealth of the white British diaspora on a big scale. The BNP’s desperate appeals to the shrinking white working class rump aren’t working. These people are too fearful and demoralised, and with so many smart, talented Britons leaving the country the UK actually is becoming reliant on Asian and Slavic immigrants. Here’s some suggestions for a pro-white party policy: Leave the EU ASAP. Provide tax free bank accounts to anyone of British ancestry living outside Britain. Provide 2 year works visas to anyone of British ancestry under 60 who doesn’t have a criminal record. Note: British ancestry means anyone with at least two grandparents who were born in Britain (which should exclude the vast majority of non-whites). The size and wealth of the white British diaspora is huge, greatly underestimated, and strong enough to keep a nationalist Briton kicking along in a hostile liberal world. It doesn’t just include obvious places like Australia and Canada but also includes places like Argentina and Chile, where Britain has significant mining wealth. As it’s currently being conceived by the BNP, Britain would collapse economically if it took a radical nationalist turn.
92
Posted by Bill on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:51 | # Re my @ 89 There’s a whole bunch of stuff (Obama-ism) by a Jon Fonte (see) Transnational progressivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_progressivism Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological Civil War Within the West http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/transnational_progressivism.pdf I came across above several years ago and found Fonte very informative. It’s old hat stuff now but then pointed the way ahead. America is light years in front of Europe in the global multicultural stakes, although we’re catching up fast. Pretty much from my beginnings I realised what was happening to Britain was coming from America via the UN and EU. Fonte’s stuff was the confirmation I needed. Theres lots of material availabe, some more up to date. Trouble is, time to to digest it all. Here’s a taster. TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM
93
Posted by Dude on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:34 | # Commonwealth Contrarian Similar to your later suggestion, this article shows how India has drawn back to itself talent from its diaspora, (while leaving the less able and dynamic in place here). http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editorial/op-ed/why-uk-indians-are-moving-back-869 “Seven years ago, seeking skilled young people to help it grow faster, India introduced its “overseas citizen scheme”, which grants a lifelong visa not just to emigrés but to anyone with a parent or grandparent born in India. As of last April, it had drawn in 1.1 million workers from around the world” Economically those measures makes good sense in the medium-longer term for us. Politically in the shorter, I would hope in a country of many millions of Britons that we could find the required talent here that with the right persuasion would come to see the writing on the wall. Anyone from the Brit diaspora who wanted to contribute would of course also be very welcome. 94
Posted by Off Topic - Peter Myers on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:37 | # This man’s e-newsletters are well worth subscribing to, here is a taste of some more recent ones 95
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:10 | # At the risk of seeming presumptuous ...
This seems much too liberal. A lot of very unEnglish Americans were present in England on Jan 1, 1948. And what about your gypsies, who occasionally figure in 19th century English literature, as well as, appropriately, early 20th century crime fiction? The English are those European persons who are recognizably racially Nordic or Celtic; religiously Christian or ancestrally so; possess a conventionally recognized English surname; speak the English language with any of several distinct accents conventionally associated with England; can (or who believe they could) find at least one direct ancestor permanently residing in England at the time of the Glorious Revolution; above all, who look like Englishmen, sound like Englishmen, and are ready to fight for England!! (LH) Races are ‘hard’ biological facts (except at the margins, in areas with a lot of historical overlap as well as admixture). But ethnicities have a lot of sentiment, nostalgia, romance and subjective identification in them.
96
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 11:47 | # Dr. Lister, uknleo, Bill: Great responses, gentlemen - respectively droll, heartfelt and colourful, and informative all! I’d love to weigh in a bit here, but I’m actually falling asleep after a brutal yesterday, and I have another one today. One issue (among several) I’d like to see addressed at greater length is this issue of specifically English ethnonationalist consciousness - how widespread is it, and to what extent can English nationalism be reasonably disentangled from British nationalism? I understand that Britain today (and is ‘Britain’ coterminous with ‘United Kingdom’?) is essentially a globalist entity, an overclass + Third World immigrant underclass alliance colluding in the mutually beneficial exploitation of ‘John Bull’ aka ‘Middle Britain’. I understand that, complicating matters, the ‘Celtic fringe’ also exploits England, at least financially. But it seems to me, looking from afar, that most WNs in Britain are basically racists (I mean that analytically, not critically); that is, the motor of their ideology is racial resentment of the alien physical colonization of Britain, as well as the parallel Jewish mental/ideational colonization of the British psyche through the media and educational system. But how would they line up where the choices are English ethnocommunitarianism vs British WN? And is the ethnocommunitarian angle a better one to play than the racial nationalist one? Rhetorically, the answer might seem to be obviously affirmative. But if the ultimate goals are the same (nonwhite repatriation + end of Jewish finance [nb: “Jewish finance” does not = “capitalism, per se” - LH]), mightn’t playing up ethnic differentiation only create needless division (see exchange above) where unity among the (true) UK peoples against the treasonous elite / nonwhite alliance is desperately needed? I’d like to hear more (and from others, too) on why English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster ethnocommunitarianism is better for saving the white peoples of The Isles than British (white) nationalism. Britain has a glorious heritage, after all, whereas to what extent can we even discuss the heritage of England as something apart from Britain? What would constitute non-British England - Domesday Book? 97
Posted by daniel on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:11 | # commonwealth contrarian and dude, Your wish to draw upon diaspora for help in the homeland - a good idea - is in line with the Euro-DNA Nation - selecting the particular homeland category, of course. 98
Posted by daniel on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:18 | # And yes, GW, as a rule, I agree that tighter definitions of just what would constitute native extraction would be preferable. However, I imagine that an agreed upon minor percentage of European mixed might be allowed for in the native category. Others would flow over to mixed categories specifically 99
Posted by Leicester Piggy on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:15 | # At this eleventh hour (and I really do mean 11th hour), an unlikely white charger in the form of UKIP looms into the horizon. The only question is will the fair maiden, Brittania, take to UKIP. 100
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:17 | # I’m pretty busy but for now honestly I can’t see why the end of the Union would be some terrible event. And if Scots are indeed subsidy junkies then standing on our own two feet is precisely what we need, yes? Look the three Scandinavian kingdoms have been part of various unions with each at different times and had periods of monetary union etc., now they are sovereign independent nations – at least formally. But they all recognise their common history, shared heritage and have the same type of silly jokes etc., about each other as we do. Why can’t something similar happen for the British tribes? We are all British (even the Irish) in the general sense that the various British tribes all have a legitimate place within the British Isles and share a great deal in common culturally, historically etc., but isn’t it better to be good neighbours to each other rather than grumpy guests in a communal house that is seemingly falling to bits, i.e. parody Britain? Whatever the future of the consistent parts of the UK (btw Leon Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales; the UK is the same but with Northern Ireland added to the mix) I’d hope the ‘social union’ would continue and extensive cooperation on common concerns would be observed. OK so ‘call me Dave’ Cameron does have a Scottish background, great but look at his clearest intra-party rival - Boris Johnston - some weirdo Turk if I recall correctly. P.S. I have an English grandparent so we are all an Anglo-Celtic admixture to some extent (obviously ‘New Britons’ aren’t). P.P.S. Also of interest might be the continuing appalling performance of the Labour Party in Scotland – they are in real danger of the SNP taking a large slice of their Westminster seats at the next UK general election. On balance a positive development I would have thought. 101
Posted by Silver on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:21 | #
Boris Johnson is 1/8th Turkish, and based on the physiognomy of his great-grandfather much less than 1/8th non-white. If this alone qualifies him as a “weirdo” then you’re certainly going to have your work cut out for you bringing others to your side because the numbers of people like Boris are going to skyrocket in coming years. If that alone wasn’t concern enough, there’s also the fact that they tend to “take” a good three or four people, you have to reckon, with them; not just the spouse, but probably one or both of the spouse’s parents, a spouse’s brother or sister or two, plus another some other close family members. That amounts to more than three or four people, but it’s balanced out, I imagine, by some of those people, far from being inured against racialism as a result of the coupling, positively turned towards it.
102
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:01 | # Daniel,
That definition allows for gene flow in the natural manner, which I take to be to and from neighbouring borders, and through the capital and major ports. Leon, If you study the definition you will find that it excludes immigrants in England alive on 22nd June 1948. So it cuts back another generation, which gets us into the 19th century, immigrant-wise. I stand by the definition. I do think it is fair, and I do think it would discover the eternal nation of the English - or Scots or Welsh. But I am open to constructive suggestions. 103
Posted by daniel on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:08 | # Daniel, I imagine that an agreed upon minor percentage of European mixed might be allowed for in the native category. Others would flow over to mixed categories specifically. That definition allows for gene flow in the natural manner, which I take to be to and from neighbouring borders, and through the capital and major ports.
Where to put the more mixed Europeans, I guess that is another issue.. 104
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:17 | # Daniel,
They have to be given the choice. But the preference for us should be the ancestral land of the other parental line, obviously. Failing that, and if white Americans can manufacture sufficient awareness to regroup on the North American continent ... 105
Posted by Sal on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:08 | #
Are those of Sicilian, German and Slavic extraction considered “European mixed?” And hopefully no moolies in your town, Daniel. Like I said, beware mass transit. 107
Posted by daniel on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:15 | # ... Are those of Sicilian, German and Slavic extraction considered “European mixed?” And hopefully no moolies in your town, Daniel. Like I said, beware mass transit.
When talking about mixed, in this case, I mean more recent mixings. Say a person whose parents were Irish and Croatian.
At any rate, however they sort out genetically should be acceptable. Speaking from my pedestrian observation, I have been to Sicily for several months on different occasions. I’d say they are more White than people generally think. I saw one town where there was a great deal of kinky hair but I also saw a surprising amount of blue eyes throughout the island (from the Viking invasions, I imagine). Don’t take my word for it: one might take a look at say, Catania, on Google Earth and look at he people on the street. I also have two aunts who are Sicilian and few people, even here, would look at them and say that they are not White - certainly nobody would claim they are not European. Some examples of Sicilians off the top of my head (not that I think these people are so great): Frank Sinatra, Mike Piazza, Al Pacino, Robert Deniro..Susan Sarandon - she is maybe half Sicilian, but that would perhaps only be a better indication of genetic assimilability. I saw some very refined European women there, much more than her. There is another view on the equation as well. ...going to Italy or Sicily hoping to see striking, dark haired and wispy women but being disappointed to find a rather large number of biggish women with blondish hair and blue eyes…
108
Posted by daniel on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:38 | # Posted by Guessedworker on October 09, 2012, 03:17 PM | # Daniel, Where to put the more mixed Europeans, I guess that is another issue. They have to be given the choice. But the preference for us should be the ancestral land of the other parental line, obviously. Failing that, and if white Americans can manufacture sufficient awareness to regroup on the North American continent ...
What I meant by mixed Europeans was say, someone who is mixed Serbian and Swedish Not one who is half English and half Pakistani. (quotas have to be limited even more strictly). regarding mixed Europeans, I guess that the genetic population that is more threatened, say the English, would need for mixed English/some other European, to favor the other European place, if not another continent, as their home; but you’d leave some room and quota for negotiation.
109
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:51 | # The British diasporas will be better served by Andrew Fraser’s vision:
In order to meet the 1948 definition “...we shall not compromise on leaving nothing of the devil’s handiwork in place … on doing whatever we must to remain forever who we are”, an enormous repatriation effort will be required. It must be remembered that fair and humane repatriation is an oxymoron. Ultimately, there will be more stick than carrot. How will our Polish comrades react when the “English” attempt to transfer those European nationals who do not wish to leave, mixed or not, from their beloved England? Not well based on the WN reaction to a young English boy’s treatment of a neighbouring Slav. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_question_of_repatriation#c71150 110
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:44 | #
Leon The BNP and Nick Griffin soldier on from one staggeringly successful failure to the next. All these various parties/groups and their leaderships are as G_L describes them (hooligans/reprobates/ne’er do wells/Mi5 operatives etc etc). Remember Paul Weston? (Yamulke guy). MR chewed him up and spat him out in short order and he is one of the more promising emergent leaders. What looks better on the ground? Greece!!! Mars!!!
Leon English ethnonationalism is small time at present Leon, the extreme end of the extreme end. What purely pro-English parties there are (English Democrats for example) are civic nationalists as it is impossible to be anything else, and be an official political party registered for electoral participation. BNP/UKIP/Brit First/Brit Freedom - all unionist parties. And as G_L says, that ship is sailing. An independent Scotland changes everything. Scotland, unshackled from Westminster, with its peoples potential unleashed could prosper. This would raise many questions in England as we find we remain under the control of our despised anti-English establishment with all that would entail. However, the SNP plan to take Scotland seperately back into (or remain in) the EU. I believe they hope to keep the pound as their currency rather than join the Eurozone (at least initially). The Scots are likely to be unimpressed with their new found ‘freedom’ as the SNP envisage it (Queen as head of state complete with her links to English aristocracy/largely under EU control/keeping the pound but with little or no say in fiscal policy/large national debt [% share of UK national debt]/initial economic uncertainty [rapid loss of jobs across the border/increased welfare payments/higher taxes - all likely possibilities] and relatively high government borrowing rates as a new, wee nation with no financial track record etc etc). Hope lies in the widening of debate. Once talk of, and the desire for (true) independence, (true) freedom, (true) self-determination etc starts drifting all across the isles it may set off a chain reaction that the UK establishment cannot control. Disentanglement could be rapid and explosive.
Leon I would give all I have if my little brother were in need (even more so if he were disabled, mildly retarded and utterly unaware of the existence and benefits of salad——- only joking G_L!!!). So perhaps ‘exploit’ is too harsh. The English populace have been entirely too complacent, selfish and negligent in many areas. Scottish nationalist sentiment and grievances are not a new phenomenon and are fully justified given our appalling Westminster leadership. The powerhouse of the UK economy is the SE and London. All other regions of the UK gain from its productivity, not just the Celtic fringe. As a family unit, the relationship dynamics just about hold together. Or at least they did until Mr and Mrs Patel set up camp in our living room with their fifteen screaming kids.
Leon Multple problems and divisive fault lines Leon. Not least the blinkered pro-Zionist approach of a huge swathe across all BritNat/EthNat/WN camps. English/Scottish nats on paper have much in common but the resentments fostered England vs Scotland are now gaping chasms compatibility wise. Scottish nationalism must be anti-English and vice versa, at least to a large extent. The next few years are crucial (Scottish independence referendum 2014 - UK General election 2015). There are so many variables, unknown unknowns and possible permutations that it’s difficult to list them briefly. All the while our colonisation continues apace, laws that forbid us to organise and expel our fifth column in the manner that is required remain in place, and Hymie in Afula kicks back with a cold beer, laughing his head off.
Leon There are micro-niche nationalist groups that focus on English identity dating back to 1066 and pre Norman/post Roman times I kid you not. Factor in religious divisions here too Leon because pagan and heathen nationalists figure heavily amongst those groups, desirous of a return to the ‘old ways’. They have a valid point when you think about it. There are also groups looking to seperate into Englands ancient kingdoms, Mercia, Wessex etc. This is what happens when your country is 1000+ years old. Bloody anarchy. Whatever happens, we face common enemies that will unite us all in the end. This is Brittania, and we are her tribes. 111
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:33 | # Meanwhile… Huge turnout for Catalan independence rally. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19564640 Some 1.5 million people have been taking part in Catalonia’s annual independence rally in Barcelona, according to police. Tens of thousands of people poured into the city waving the region’s independence flag and brandishing the colours red and yellow. And the recent ‘El Clasico’ game between Real Madrid and Barcelona had thousands of Barca fans waving pro-independence flags, banners etc., something which has not been seen in a number of years. Interesting times indeed. 112
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:45 | # @Silver I wasn’t suggesting Boris should be deported or some such; he’s probably more ‘English’ than Dave Cameron (in fact both of them are upper-class idiots and globalists) - but Boris Johnson’s (full name Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson) persona and character are much more at the ‘eccentric’ end of the scale. 113
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:47 | # “As the recognition grows that 9/11 was not a radical Islamic attack, but an act of dastardly, bloody treason by supporters of Israel, it will become ever-easier for American policy makers, following in the footsteps of Kissinger and the sixteen intelligence agencies, to recognize the obvious: The state of Israel has reached the end of its shelf-life.” And this too. The end of Israel and the reversal of globalisation into free, prosperous independent states?Scotland, Catalonia? Congratulations gentlemen. It seems we have won. 114
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:13 | # How will our Polish comrades react when the “English” attempt to transfer those European nationals who do not wish to leave, mixed or not, from their beloved England? Not well based on the WN reaction to a young English boy’s treatment of a neighbouring Slav. Since the English aren’t in control of England there will be no reaction as there will be no expulsion of “mixed or not” persons. Your kosher masters do not desire England to be free of their ethnic imports and, given the abysmally ineffectual opposition they face in implementing their policy which comes from sullen and petulant nobodies enslaved to their own sarcastic emotions, the march onward to a Yiddim-supervised raceless superstate “God World” that Jewry envisages will continue unimpeded. But please, go on, don’t suffer me to interrupt this emotionally satisfying and slave-pathology reinforcing rant about Anglo-Saxon he-men named Desmond loading the teeming continental wogs onto barges for expatriation or glittery visions of Albion’s champion defiantly throwing down the gauntlet, braving the glowering stares of the hated Polacks and singing out “Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem, In England’s green and pleasant land!” We face an administrative, an organizational, a political and a spiritual (willpower for those with heart’s hardened against the pre-modern term) dilemma. 115
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:14 | # Perhaps Dessie can tell us about the hereditary peer from up North he’s convinced of joining the patriots? Or some disaffected, daredevil young banker from the City, a good solid Wykehamist, who’s seen through the charade of the cocaine and the sex and now breathes only England. Or what about a cadre of ex- or soon to be retiring Royal Marines won over for us? Well done Dessie with those lads as our vanguard we can storm Whitehall and hold ourselves up, just for enough time to energise the masses via thus captured media attention and show the rank-and-file at Aldershot or wherever that tactical and popular support exists for a coup. Excellent!...er, what’s that you say? You haven’t done that, you’ve just got a quote from a racist Canadian law professor of no professional reputation, no network, no actual concrete plans only wank-fantasies about spontaneously self-organising (Smith’s Invisible Hand!) patriot bands of “trade, commerce, and intercourse within a global network of Anglo-Saxon tribes.” The ultimate network in “trade, commerce and {media?] intercourse” is elite Jewry. Their vision - abominable and disastrous to those of us with eyes - has brainwashed or bribed into compliance the politicians (bought whores really), the boffins, the bureaucrats, the professional fraternities of doctors, lawyers, all the university educated really. This is a vision based on making them, and consequently “the world community” richer, happier, technologically more advanced, healthier, quieter and free of wars, conflicts and other disorders which distress the autistic minds of rationalist modern planners. Desmond’s counter-proposal? Bigotry. Bigotry. Bigotry. With a whiff of “I don’t like ‘em because they’re taking me jobs and women” lower-class failure that’s continually repelled the native elites from risking their careers and lives to oppose what is universally acknowledged as the only rational and moral course for the world: Jewish-led globalization. Back to peddling bigotry for Desmond, and back to running England and the world for the Jews. 116
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:21 | # ...from a racist Canadian law professor of no professional reputation… Corrigendum:
He was hounded out ingloriously from a second-rate Oz university for losing the respect to the migrant Sudanese and consequently of the Vice-Chancellor. Oops. 117
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:25 | # ...losing the respect to the migrant Sudanese and consequently of the Vice-Chancellor. Oops. That should be “losing the respect of the migrant Sudanese…” Double oops that one. 118
Posted by Bill on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:02 | # What is it I’m trying to get grips with? The first tentative steps of a new age, post-modern enlightenment is causing huge anxiety among our people, our world is descending into chaos. People are shocked at the savagery of change happening about them, for they know not what’s afoot. Just as the eighteenth century version of Enlightenment demanded getting rid of old ways to make way for new, so it is with its bastard child in the twenty first. In the last decades of the century gone, the world’s most powerful thinkers decided the old ways of reason must go. Earlier hopes raised that reason would deliver humankind to the promised land. The optimism of reason has stalled, dashed on the hubris of modernity. Modernity failed to deliver the sunlit uplands, hundreds of million died on the way. There must be a better way. But that’s what they said last time. We struggle on. 119
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:29 | #
Jews will always destroy everything they touch for perfectly obvious logical reasons. Jewish-led globalization is no exception and is currently leading everyone to global disaster. The two questions are what can be done to stop it, if anything, and what can be done to best survive the collapse if it can’t be stopped. The answer to the first is a common recognition that what is happening is a planned and completely deliberate attempt at the global genocide of people of white european descent. The answer to the second is anything that increases white cohesion by any amount at any level whether it be a small group of people who join an activist party in a town, setting up a PLE, moving closer to and spending more time with family or forming pre-diaspora groups mimicing Jews.
120
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:29 | # Comrade Wandrin writes: Jews will always destroy everything they touch for perfectly obvious logical reasons. Jewish-led globalization is no exception and is currently leading everyone to global disaster. The two questions are what can be done to stop it, if anything, and what can be done to best survive the collapse if it can’t be stopped. With his darling bluntness, and incomprehension of irony and the rhetorical device of advocatus diaboli, incomprehension being the commonest trait of the intelligent yet stolid Englishman, Wandrin both agrees with my thrust - and misses it completely. Is that not my thesis too that the outcome of the Jewish agenda for the “world” (limited practically to the West thus far in its immediate operation and effects), considered both in that agenda’s inherent administrative and “moral” (i.e. how humans unalterably interact as individual and collective units) presuppositions, and its obvious trajectory, is global ruin and slaughter leading to a renewal of stone-age primitivism? Destroyed, or debilitated from within, we will be easy pickings for the big barracudas swimming in the pool with us: a communist-nationalist China hungry for minerals and overseas diversions for its surplus male population of conscript age, a China militarily and economically beefed up by Jewry (and Marxist white traitors) betraying industrial secrets and sabotaging our industry by transferring it to their shores. This is overlooked by too many of the suburban racists in our circles: China, Russia, the world of Islam, and the Jews’ very own Israel won’t stand by to inactively gloat over the staggering sick man that is the West. This foreign military danger underscores the importance of a political retrieval of the West’s fate not mere bigotry as if we will be left alone, like the Hindoo curry merchants in the East End or Bradford, to pursue “ethnic palingenesis” with the world’s blessing and forbearance. 121
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:38 | #
That already happened in the 19th century, or should have anyway. Romantic philosophy countered the enlightenment, while things like quantum physics countered the ‘clockwork universe’ of Newton and the cult of science, positivism, etc. I guess the real lesson is that few people took notice of these developments. It seems that the masses and the political elites kept right on with the march of ‘progress’ and rationalism, even after the flaws of said worldviews had been laid bare. One wonders if the world was really ready for such a change. Perhaps in our times, it will be, but it may already be too late ... 123
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:43 | # I was laying out for Comrade Jones’ edification the psychological obstacles faced in arguing this case for reality to whites worthy of conversion. The dupes’ world-view has been structured systematically to facilitate not only the intellectual assent to the logic, but the moral approbation of the goodness of this communist endeavour notwithstanding its actual material impossibility of realization in anywhere else than a “spirit-world” (notice here the residue of centuries of Christian values) and the certainty of it causing the impoverishment, disintegration, physical deterioration, and downfall of the nations. Jews will always destroy everything they touch for perfectly obvious logical reasons. How can you idly make this statement when the particular fact is that it isn’t “obvious”. If it were obvious (by which you must mean so clear to any mind that apprehension of its truth is prompted by sensory instinct), we wouldn’t be a helpless, shunned and persecuted minority hottest despised by those we most hotly wish to save - the white lemmings. Your implicit point is sound however: Jews are actuated both by “malevolence”/inter-group evolutionary competition which manifests as hostility to out-group welfare and interests, and a peculiar-to-themselves, as Nietzsche discerned, religious fanaticism that it is not enough to govern the world but they must “cleanse” and “improve” upon it (the detriment, or any accidents, from this experimentation falling mostly on the goyim of course - until the final act of the drama). Domination is a normal, healthy oligarchical trait - the salvific do-gooding millenarianism is an oligarchical trait only those culturally-animated by the Abrahamic dualist-morality supremacism exhibit - Jews fiercest of all as such a wide universalist quilt hides small particularist patches and is the handiest cloak for itinerant minorities. The two questions are what can be done to stop it, if anything, and what can be done to best survive the collapse if it can’t be stopped. I’ll answer both questions by my own single question: Boys and girls, who is the Master of the World? Masters direct fates, the slaves merely endure them. 124
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:27 | #
It’s primarily a moral battle hence why nationalists, conservatives etc have been losing for generations. They weren’t fighting the right battle. The other side are completely amoral but they realised the battlefield is a moral one hence them winning, so far and hence the awesomeness of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8SLNMIBlM&feature=youtu.be Basically i think universal morality is a biological phenomenon that disproportionately effects white people because of an accident of history. That’s the battlefield. The bad guys can’t win in the end because even if they don’t lose directly they’ll have destroyed everything worth winning in the process. This is where i differ. I don’t think the Chinese, Muslims etc will emerge unscathed from the collapse either and may have problems of their own to contend with so it’s possible some white remnant can rebuild something without being crushed from outside. I agree it’s not certain though. I think any form of improved white cohesion increases the odds of that second thing happening (even if only slightly) and even though the only increased cohesion that can defeat the bad guys and stop the collapse itself will be entirely moral (imo).
125
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 03:55 | #
No kidding numb nuts! When did anyone say otherwise?
Read it again genius and then tell us what it means. Erstwhile, “In the past; at a former time; formerly.” The last time the English loaded wogs on a boat was 1940 which the Germans promptly sent to the bottom of the Atlantic. It ain’t gonna happen.
And your racial credentials are? Wankers anonymous? Our in your language malakas anonymous.
Boohoo, the wittle boys feelings are hurt. 126
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:18 | # Comrade Wandrin, It’s primarily a moral battle hence why nationalists, conservatives etc have been losing for generations. They weren’t fighting the right battle. The other side are completely amoral but they realised the battlefield is a moral one hence them winning, so far and hence the awesomeness of this Yes that’s a well-nigh irrefutable diagnosis of our pretended defenders’ impotence: conservatives haven’t been fighting to change how people think and what they think is permissible to think. (Consumerist and nihilist induced indifference is likely a huge factor also but you’ve undoubtedly already thought of that). Many others have made this point, of conservatives being wide off the mark in fighting on the cultural front, for years but its penetration into consciousness in the pragmatic, non-philosophical indigenous English-speaking world has been too slow. A three hundred year history of more or less uninterrupted victory for Saxondom has further relieved us of having to ponder whether “eternal truths” about representative government (so called), religion, freedom in commerce and attitudes and opinions are actually worth the cost to cohesion. “But they worked so well so why bother!” the passerby will think. 127
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:21 | # Comrade Wandrin further remarks, Basically i think universal morality is a biological phenomenon that disproportionately effects white people because of an accident of history. Explain. Is this “accident of history” an original misstep in religious or philosophical (in the wider sense) orientation of the culture which has grown distorted and misshapen through centuries of repetition and extension of its tenets, or do you mean a vicissitude, a random slip-up, in the pre-historic evolutionary habituation of the population to living in groups and how extreme selection pressure from climate, etc, etc favoured extreme altruism? Regarding the latter, Wandrin, I must confess that “teleological” evolutionism, which Darwin’s overzealous popularisers Huxley and Spencer appear to have upheld in their popular dissemination of his discovery, is in its consequences too ‘environmentalist’ and non-hereditarian for me to affirm. Toynbee, the great English comparative historian, formulated a “challenge and response” model of civilisations’ cycles positing that a civilisation undergoing a challenge, e.g. colonization from abroad and alien leadership takeover (he didn’t prophesy these events!), would ‘evolve’ to meet this challenge and its response would then become a part of the fundamental whole. Challenge and response is cause and effect stated differently, and it’s a mechanism which is very, well, mechanistic. Can a leopard change its spots? What’s more, can an old and decrepit leopard set in its ways change its spots and then have the acquired changed-spots remain as heritable characteristics? Form and fulfilment as devised by Spengler seems more consistent with our knowledge of biology, which implies for us that nothing can be done to jettison fixed old ways, even if they’re deleterious. 128
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:43 | # No kidding numb nuts! When did anyone say otherwise? Oh, well if my insinuation was too subtle I owe you an apology for not stating explicitly that fantasies of what should be done to this or that population without the proponent actually possessing the power to achieve said fantasies are déclassé and reek of a tattooed and unaccomplished ne’er-do’well at the local dive drunkenly yowling about the ‘unfairness’ of his lot and how ‘disadvantaged’ he is because of the migrant hordes. Demeanour and presentation are nine tenths of the battle with the status-conscious: idle threats disgust the middle-class when the threatener’s means are laughably disproportionate with the hyperbole of the threat. Also you have a history of gratuitously making insinuations about this group or that of those generally accepted as whites, in this case Poles. It’s one thing for me to chide the Poles as obdurate mules for wrecking German attempts at a reciprocally honourable and advantageous accommodation, or calling Italians chaotic and too unkempt, and another matter altogether when you go out of your way to represent non-English European resident aliens in Britain as more noxious and objectionable, and more powerfully entrenched or protected, than several million destructive capital ‘o’ Others. Several years ago there was a hue and cry over an ad campaign in Mother England wherein it was said the Polish pronunciation of our English word ‘market’, heard by the English as a ridiculous ‘meerkat’ rather than market, was “insensitively parodied”. The conservative Little Englanders in Zionist ultra Rupert Murdoch’s press rushed to defend the ad on grounds of “PC gone mad” and how the Poles are clumsy and foreign don’t you know, so their foibles are fair game. I don’t care about that or Polish sensibilities in England over such a trifle. But when the same conservative Little Englanders can’t bring themselves to say anything about openly traitorous Zionist Jews in England, or the racially-motivated or racially-significant West Indies Jamaica man and Pakistani depredations on English life out of unparalleled moral cowardice but pummel the soft-target pasty and blond Poles it reminds me of foul-mouth, foul-tempered pouters here at Majority Rights too. 129
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:16 | # And your racial credentials are? Superior to his. I’m actually Australian, with family history ascending as far as the time of Federation (but, admittedly, no earlier). But what real-world value have such frat-boy contests when politically the newest arrival, thanks to non-discrimination, has no lesser status than the heir of pioneers, or as nature teaches us the fresh and vibrant snatch the patrimony of the confused and reactionary whenever they feel they can. Prof. Fraser’s Anglocentric work of rallying all the Empire’s white dominions, with republican Yankdom too (“Anglocentric” in this sense as opposed to Australian patriotic), and identification as Australian despite being non-Australian, are not the issue (the survival of “White Australia” means the survival of Anglo-Australia, or simply Australia as I call it), the issue is his prescriptions relying on an outmoded Anglican identity when the vast majority of Australians are religiously apathetic and could easier be converted to Nietzschean ideas or Shinto frankly than any form of the Christ-cult. Among the working class actual Christian, or British, identification has been dead since the ‘40s and ‘60s respectively. If either of you were Aussie you might know that. But, never mind Desmond, I’m magnanimous enough to overlook your ignorance and supply its defects with knowledge. What luck to have such friends, no? Second, recently Fraser has undertaken to introduce a do-it-yourself racial schema into his opinions that dismantles the hard-won victories we have gained, within our ‘movement’ if nowhere else, of establishing a scientifically verifiable and neutral basis for racial differences and a racial evaluation of body-builds, complexions, etc with a simple, unstated but ubiquitous, bigotry. “I don’t like what you look like” “I just want them to go away!” No one worth gaining the attention of will pay the slightest regard to utterances that reveal unrationalized self-interest (outside of the market environment), with access to Australian bounty seen and taught as a human right nowadays, and no one at all will consider even the mere hearing of “I don’t like their looks”. This is bigotry because it’s reliant upon claiming the advantages of what you haven’t demonstrated, or personally earned as your own. Post-WWII and Enlightenment discourse won’t allow it to be deemed meritorious. Darwin, MacDonald, Salter, Bowery : science and Nietzsche not do-nothing bigots. Wankers anonymous? Our in your language malakas anonymous. Malakas apparently means ‘wanker’. Thank you my emotionally incontinent friend for furnishing my vocabulary of ethnic insults with an addition (I had heard of it before, unknowingly). Nicko at the mechanic’s is sure to appreciate it when I next drop in. Numb-nuts, malaka. Careful Desmond, pretty soon readers here will think you’re low IQ if you keep this buffoonery up. 130
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:40 | # It was esteemed and able comrade Uh’s reaction to Drew Fraser’s declarations on TOO that sparked me to adjust my thinking from that expressed on chest-beating aesthetic Teutonism here. More application to the study of Nietzsche, of reality and what is noble, is required. Mere racism is not enough, it’s not enough. 132
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:07 | # @Hesper You make some excellent points. But personally I’m not down with Nietzsche - I’m far more of an Aristotelian. 134
Posted by Madden on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:34 | # Hesper, By accusing Fraser of “bigotry”, it seems like you’re doing the same thing as when people accuse others of “racism”. How does anything that “Darwin, MacDonald, Salter, Bowery” have said go against Fraser, and how is Nietzsche relevant here? 135
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:22 | # Hesper “Explain. Is this “accident of history” an original misstep” I think universalist morality is a by-product of outbreeding. I think it’s biological. The more inbred a population (on average) the more amoral-familial they are and outbreeding simply weakens that so the population becoames more universalist. To see it compare a man choosing between a brother and a cousin and between two brothers. In the first case he uses amoral familialism to choose his brother. In the second case he uses universalist distinctions because both brothers are at the same level in familial terms. So if a nation outbreeds (within an endogamous limit) their relatedness to each other starts to average out and the brother vs brother effect starts to outweigh the brother vs cousin effect. The accident was the late coming of high-density agriculture to northern Europe. The solution to hitting the high density agriculture population limit everywhere else in the world was female infanticide. Christianity prevented that and so a different solution had to be found - the unique northern european late marriage pattern which is what led to more outbreeding (relatively speaking) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line
The tired old leopard is perfectly capable of smashing entire countries within days *if* it believes it is moral to do so. So in our case the leopard simply needs to understand they are the target of a global genocide attempt and self-defence is no offence. “Nietzche etc” Whatever people are in their own head the battlefield is moral. The people you are trying to appeal to are biologically wired to have universalist morality (to some degree) so they have to be appealed to on that level. That’s why the other side always use moral language even though they are totally amoral. I don’t think they know why they do it. I think they do it because we are their environment and they are adapted to us. So even if someone is completely opposed to those kind of universalist moral type ideas (like the other side are) e.g. they are more Nietzchean, NS, Catholic Monarchist or whatever else, they still need to fight on the same universalist battlefield. So if people are personally opposed to it they need to operate in an inner party / outer party, priesthood type way. On the surface they use moral language. On the inside they can be what they like. 136
Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:55 | #
Wandrin Wandrin, would you be prepared to make a % estimate of how many you think may fall into either camp. True believers vs non/fakers. 137
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:24 | # Ukn_Leo Not sure what you mean. In the bit you quoted i was talking about nationalists who might be Nietzchean or NS underneath having to be preachermen on the surface because the battlefield i.e. the public, are wired that way. If you mean what percentage of white people are universalist i think it’s more a question of degree i.e. some people are 10% that way, some are 50%, some are 80% etc. (Everyone is partly amoral-familialist as well.) And white people (particularly northwest euros and northwestified euros i.e. people from south and east who got the outbred thing when they moved to america) are simply more that way on average which means you can’t get them to move en masse unless you have the moral high ground. 138
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:29 | # Ukn_Leo Also you need to move whole familes. If there’s 20 people in an extended family and only 3 agree with a nationalist message that won’t be enough to move them all and the 3 will gradually conform back to their family average (most of the time). 141
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:14 | #
A critical mass of the White middle-class will never be brought to a level of racial conciousness intense enough to cause them to significantly risk their status and material comforts for just the reasons you state. So then, molding one’s presentation so as to supposedly accomplish what cannot realistically be accomplished must then be done for other than practical reasons. It is verily a masturbatory act. What is needed are political soldiers, not more dilettantes whose verbal cleverness outpaces their ability to actually think. 142
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:30 | # @CC Compare and contrast the presentational style here to rival productions. Fair enough, they have a fraction of the budget of their mainstream competition but this is not 1972. Glitz? glamour? presence? razzamatazz? I’m not even sure they hoovered before filming this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xvWaJtFJRs I feel bad criticising. But you could make vast improvements here that surely wouldn’t hurt. Shallow? vacuous? Yep, just the way it is now, the soundbite generation. Slick presentation with killer nationalist content really could work. 143
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:04 | # Leo, quality propaganda will ever remain important, so far as it goes. When I spoke of “political soldiers” I was referring to the men who will do the heavy lifting in the context of an insurgency the likes of which Covington outlines in his fiction. Obviously the leadership cadre of such an insurgency would come from disaffected members of the middle-class or scions of such. 144
Posted by daniel on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:17 | # Wandrin, good comments - we need the moral high ground, yes. Interesting distinction between universalism as a product of outbreeding vs familial orientation. 145
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:03 | #
The disdain on display is nothing to do with Andrew Fraser and his desire to raise ethnic consciousness in an Anglo-Saxon Diaspora, it’s simply that you’re a German-Catholic snob, long on contempt and spittle for the Anglo-Saxon race, whether elevated or demeaned, whether drunken or sober, expressing its desire for survival. This has nothing to do with the moral machinations of a sexually perverse self-described euromutt, dispassionately praising “fellow-feeling and the “blurring” of sub racial distinctions, in a manner that warms the heart of all Zivians, but simple blatant Anglophobia. This is nothing to do with fantasy. This is simple unconcealed venom and hatred of a particular ethnic group.
Are we to believe then that non-English Europeans are not (to paraphrase Fraser) “a lump of gristle” in the English melting pot? Are we to deny the role non-English Europeans, especially Catholics, played in underming the “essential Britishness” which was the “the crimson thread of kinship” which bound Anglo Saxons in Australia into an “essentialised, ethnicised” nation? Rubbish. And if those racialized non-Anglo Saxon Europeans really believed in a ‘White’ identity then they would realize that race is more than an amorphous thinly statistical abstract, founded upon a single shared phenotype, and they would cheer the salvation of their brethren. Indeed, they would triumphantly return to their land of origin and aid their fellow Greek, Italian or Pole in their battle for an essentialized, ethnicized nation, but they won’t because their hearts, like yours are filled with venom.
We tire of the ascendency of the petty anecdote.
It appears you and the little Englanders share a common trait after all.
146
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:40 | #
Pray,do tell dear boy.
Unparalleled moral cowardice? Cat got your tongue? LOL
So what? The vast majority of Australians are racially apathetic too.
Strange then, that English, as a group origin, was the largest racial identity in the 2011 census. Friend…“A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade.”
Yes it’s called an ethnic group or a very large extended family with some inbreeding. It is praised by Mill, and Salter, (upper left corner) as universal nationalism, the very foundation upon which freedom lives, the right to discriminate in association.
This is what makes Fraser’s discourse so appealing to Anglo-Saxons. The freedom to associate with your own kind, for whatever reason, is understood by Anglo-Saxons because it is an inherent feature of our genetic structure.It is like a beaver trying to convince an otter that a dam is a thing of value. It will never be understood. You are not us and because of that you hate us with every fiber of your being because you can never be us. Nicko the mechanic. “Grant attempted to shame Americans of his day for trying to “purchase a few generations of ease and luxury” by importing cheap labor. The avoidance of manual labor by the native born, he warned, was a prelude to their extinction; the immigrant workers were out breeding him and would eventually crowd him out.” Change you own oil. It beats extinction.
Like I give a shit, numb nuts! 147
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:49 | # uknleo@114 Very interesting. Thank you. If I were British, I would support Scottish secession, but as a nationalist, my focus would be singleminded on stopping immigration. That seems to me to be the sine qua non of any future nationalist success (stop the hemorrhaging!). The ultimate question is whether the majority of the native people wish to survive. As long as whites anywhere and everywhere continue to ‘embrace diversity’, we are doomed, as individual nations, and as a race. Once legal immigration has been terminated, then new nationalist demands can be advanced. I’ve been saying this for many years. I don’t know why it isn’t considered obvious. 148
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:08 | # Leon, I wrote that comment because I have seen you ask for that kind of info before and nobody answers, and as some good practice. I would advise caution, although I was careful and am fairly happy with what I wrote, G_L could step in and blow me away at any moment. I think he is just being kind, so bare that in mind. The Scots have a strong and fully justified claim for self-governance and like you, I actually support them and wish them nothing but good. 149
Posted by Silver on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:49 | #
Look, to put it as plainly as I can: you’re not keeping all of Canada, USA and Australia and that’s that. It’s beyond ridiculous to even daydream about it. I can’t begin to imagine what compelling political interest would be served by the (exclusive) retention of all that territory. No other race would take up so much space, and the very hint that such a thing might be the ultimate political objective itself would so infuriate the world that that alone would cause it to unite against you. Your struggle becomes a thousandfold more difficult. But with one simple, even trifling, compromise on territory the struggle is made a thousandfold simpler, thousandfold more workable, a thousandfold more attractive, a thousandfold more difficult for opponents to rail against. Given the stakes, your intransigence is sheer madness. But then it’s not surprising, because someone capable of formulating the following “thought”...
...is surely as kooked out as a man can be. It’s just astonishing the degree to which your mind is warped by racial revulsion. I thought I’d seen racial revulsion before, thought I’d experienced it, but yours is just off the charts. Good God, man, if anyone here hates with every fiber of his being surely it’s you. Look, freely associate away, goose. Put a big sign up: “Slimy, greasy dagoes unwelcome here!” I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it. But is your revulsion-riddled brain capable of comprehending that not all (not by a longshot) of your kind are as eager as you to associate only with their own, that freedom of association for them would be interpreted as freedom to associate with racial others (however defined)? This is all so incredibly simple that it’s difficult to believe someone as obviously intelligent (at least in terms of mental processing power) as yourself cannot grasp the rudiments. That’s why I say it must be that your mind is warped by your hatred. I can think of no other explanation.
150
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:10 | # On Andrew Fraser at Occidental Observer: Frank Edwin Stone October 4, 2012 - 6:25 pm | Permalink
Monarchy (a truly pathetic, outdated, clownish institution) and a state church/religion is what he recommends for the salvation of the non-existent Anglo-Saxon race. The English, far from being a race apart from other Nordics, are merely a branch of the Germans whose low German language got corrupted by the French-speaking Normans, who themselves lost their own Germanic Norse tongue to the local French vernacular. The ancient faith of the Anglo-Saxons was not a set of writings imported from Israel, but the Germanic pantheon of Woden, Freya, Thor and so on. The Anglo-Saxon warriors went to Walhalla after death, just like all other German warriors. Even the names of the week derive from the Germanic pantheon to this day.
The State of the Anglosphere The decline of the English-speaking world has been greatly exaggerated. 151
Posted by Sal on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:03 | # daniel, 152
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:16 | # Wandrin, with his usual good grace and well-considered analysis, I think universalist morality is a by-product of outbreeding. I think it’s biological. The more inbred a population (on average) the more amoral-familial they are and outbreeding simply weakens that so the population becoames more universalist. To see it compare a man choosing between a brother and a cousin and between two brothers. In the first case he uses amoral familialism to choose his brother. In the second case he uses universalist distinctions because both brothers are at the same level in familial terms. So if a nation outbreeds (within an endogamous limit) their relatedness to each other starts to average out and the brother vs brother effect starts to outweigh the brother vs cousin effect. The accident was the late coming of high-density agriculture to northern Europe. The solution to hitting the high density agriculture population limit everywhere else in the world was female infanticide. Christianity prevented that and so a different solution had to be found - the unique northern european late marriage pattern which is what led to more outbreeding (relatively speaking) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line The only “flaw” I think is worthy of being pointed out here (although one could advance several quibbles, which you would not unreasonably disregard as esoteric German “idealist” philosophizing), is that from the record of history every culture-race has undergone this process toward the climax of its Zivilisation: exogamy and cosmopolitanism were no less contributory to the dissolution of social affinities and co-operativeness in late Rome, the widely strewn Caliphate after Harun al-Rashid and the first Chinese Empire (Han Dynasty) subsequent to Wu Ti. Once a race with the sufficient intellectual and administrative potential, with good luck in circumstances or external influences added, forms a culture of shared outlook and life ritual the success they enjoy - if not snuffed out prematurely like the Aztecs - leads to dramatic demographic expansion (with a noticeable lessening of topmost-level quality but many more middling or above-average managers), straining of family-like bonds within the race, achievement of “empire” and the rot of atomization. What’s unique is that Northern Europe - the West par excellence - is the most recent culture to arise and has not gone through this before. It is prima facie foolish to suggest that racial feeling and prejudice was always this weak in Northern Europe otherwise we never would have survived intact to reach this present decay (Southern Europe, though part of the West, is overlaid with the ruins, genetic and otherwise, the memories epigenetic and otherwise, of the dead Classical world so as to preclude the Northerners’ phenomenon of attaining the same extremity of disconnectedness). It reminds me also of a puerile remark I read about we being “the same genetically” as those Germans who slaughtered 20,000 Romans in the Teutoburg. This is so obviously false as to hardly deserve rebuttal, the individuals who existed then, are long gone, and we are not the same just as I may strongly resemble my father but I am not my father. If “genetics” as falsely understood according to this construction stood (you rely on it for your thesis a little) then no behavioural changes would ever be observed and the pure founding-stock pioneers in their daring gruffness, self-mastering Protestant Christian rigidity and, among both sexes as appropriate for each, jealous guard of their own honour would not have degenerated absent intermixture as they have. But they have, and this even absent intermixture. Chemically speaking the boy at 10 is not the same being as the man at 50. Cause and effect, cause and effect -where does one begin and the other end? Isn’t the world, genetically, governed by such small and seamless unceasing chemical reactions that we cannot, nay should not, separate the lightning from its flash?. Why is it that races when “in form”, expressing their inherent genetic potentiality, their destiny, do not “adapt” but rather create stimuli in their environment, while when “out of form” they merely react to environmental stimuli and then only feebly, self-consciously, sensualistically, decadently? Without inward instinct for what promotes Life, what advances it? These are rhetorical questions and I am not imposing on you to address them. 153
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:34 | # So if a nation outbreeds (within an endogamous limit) their relatedness to each other starts to average out and the brother vs brother effect starts to outweigh the brother vs cousin effect. I should specify that I understand your argument that this happened at the beginning (low levels of cousin-marriage, clannish endogamy, etc) of the culture’s formation, when the Christian religion in the North was established and the relative Northern preference, from environmental pressure (supposedly this then affects genetic disposition rather than the latter arising mostly independently of “environment” as de Vries, the evolutionary botanist, and Spengler would have it), of later marriages - but in all honesty clannishness was incredibly strong, compared to what a survey of these nations may suggest now, even until the middle of the nineteenth century. Including cousin marriages. Arranged ones at that. You would be shocked by the severity of a Dutch Protestant father as late as the 1750’s in enforcing his “dynastic” choice of a husband upon a defiant daughter averse to it. Could the prevailing exogamy be so “efficacious” in producing these results so soon, if ethnocentrism and cousinhood were so firm and sacred so recently? Or is exogamy, love-marriages, a loss of the instinct for the future, for building up generation to generation, of declining tradition, the effect rather than the cause of natural processes working themselves out? As I said, “adaptiveness” is too environmentalist and non-hereditarian for me, looking for answers outside of the being rather than within it. Marriage institutions of whatever form didn’t make Man. Man made marriage, including cousin marriage and forced marriages, to suit his will, as expressions of his inner drives. Maybe it’s only a difference in perspective at how one contemplates it. The chicken, or the egg? 154
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:59 | # Madden, Hesper, By accusing Fraser of “bigotry”, it seems like you’re doing the same thing as when people accuse others of “racism”. How does anything that “Darwin, MacDonald, Salter, Bowery” have said go against Fraser, and how is Nietzsche relevant here? Rational and inoffensive questions Madden. It’s bigotry simply because the spirit of the times deems it bigotry. Bigotry is obstinately holding to values, or opinions, without empirical demonstration of their validity. Moreover Christian/Newtonian biases in the West demand universal validity. The assumptions valid for another age, when they were unchallenged and taken as good and true and right prima facie, are not assumptions accepted today. Race, in the way Fraser would have it, is not felt as having the same significance, the same power in everyday lives and, what’s more, compounding this deadening of the instinct, is the widespread suppression and distortion of the scientific basis for believing in racial differences. This fight must be waged, especially since the problems of open borders and non-discrimination are political not “social” per se, on the basis of convincing the worthy and convincible that racial differences are scientifically demonstrable, universally valid, real and sense-perceptive and these differences necessarily produce geopolitical and socioeconomic consequences of grave national import. As to the peculiar defect of Fraser’s approach and how it functionally impairs the serious work of advancing scientific racist data and prognoses, of vital national import (can’t stress it enough), I would politely ask you to consider the question of religion. In preference to the timeworn Jebus spook, some witch doctors of a competing business venture are inviting us to put good old reason and self-respect to one side and adore Nordick spooks like Odin, Thor, Frigga, A.B.B.A and Tintin. Something which does not exist is a very poor foundation for demanding civilian professionals and career generals to base a renovated, re-nationalized outlook upon is it not? Similarly, you can’t summon up a feeling which no longer exists as a psychological motivation: it no longer exists, the white lemmings, and the elites (upper-middle class types) neither hate nor fear the Other, what’s more, rationally and actually (the latter for now), they have no reason to hate or fear the Others. Hence, bigotry. 155
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:07 | # What is needed are political soldiers, not more dilettantes whose verbal cleverness outpaces their ability to actually think. I agree and this self-effacing remark from a cartoon-configured jabberwocky such as yourself is very magnanimous and introspective of you Captain. That said you were a little too hard on assessing your cognitive ability. In the future when the generals are gathered around a table discussing battlefield strategy, you can be the boy who brings them their tea. 156
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:15 | # Madden, just expanding on my last sentence in my reply to you, Similarly, you can’t summon up a feeling which no longer exists as a psychological motivation: it no longer exists, the white lemmings, and the elites (upper-middle class types) neither hate nor fear the Other, what’s more, rationally and actually (the latter for now), they have no reason to hate or fear the Others. Hence, bigotry. If you doubt this and would urge me to consider white flight, “NAM” uncerclass presence in schools creating “awakenings”, etc, etc ask yourself how many whites go around with a raging hatred, one of real motivating practical force, in their bosom for blacks or browns or yellows? Once you’ve answered that ask yourself, of those few who do, what socioeconomic quality and geopolitical power do they hold? Are they doctors or federal government department chiefs? Let’s just say, those occupations are improbable candidates for our raging bigot of today. 157
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:44 | # The always genteel and charming Desmond, The disdain on display is nothing to do with Andrew Fraser and his desire to raise ethnic consciousness in an Anglo-Saxon Diaspora, it’s simply that you’re a German-Catholic snob, long on contempt and spittle for the Anglo-Saxon race, whether elevated or demeaned, whether drunken or sober, expressing its desire for survival. This has nothing to do with the moral machinations of a sexually perverse self-described euromutt, dispassionately praising “fellow-feeling and the “blurring” of sub racial distinctions, in a manner that warms the heart of all Zivians, but simple blatant Anglophobia. Well close; my father’s mother’s mother was German-born Lutheran (Oh, you’re pretty good at this Guess Who? caper aren’t you Desmond?). Since America and Canada are awash in “incest literature” I would hesitate before puritanically castigating Uh on the modes his sexual appetites take. Calling me a snob is a great credit to your ability to acknowledge erudition and discernment in your opponent. Kudos Desmond for the generous sentiment. “Blurring of sub racial distinctions” you say? Yes, I have noticed sexual envy and frustration on fora like this at the success of males of a certain sub race with the females of a certain other sub race. But I’m not envious or frustrated to think name calling and saying the products of such unions should be “pitied” (a la Fraser in his TOO piece) is a manly sentiment. Are we to believe then that non-English Europeans are not (to paraphrase Fraser) “a lump of gristle” in the English melting pot? Are we to deny the role non-English Europeans, especially Catholics, played in underming the “essential Britishness” which was the “the crimson thread of kinship” which bound Anglo Saxons in Australia into an “essentialised, ethnicised” nation? So…you don’t think WWII and the fallout in morality and power structure from that had anything to do with it? Really? I seem to remember the Popes signing accommodationist concordats with Hitler and Mussolini. Huh, must be mistaken. “Especially Catholics”. Hmm, you can’t really bring yourself to acknowledge the existence of Jews, can you? Interestingly Catholic European nations have the same demographic and immigration problems the neo-Chosen Protestant ones have…Israel on the other hand. Hmmm, I think it’s worth exploring further. Anglo-Saxon Australia would have been in better shape had she not followed the British Empire into two disastrous world wars, neither of which concerned us, of doing in the Kaiser’s Germany and later picking a fight with virulently anti-Soviet Imperial Japan. Also, colonial plantings of a mother race almost always diverge and found separate identities of gradually, but continuously diverging, distinctness. You can’t really reverse “evolution” of this sort. 158
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:24 | # Pray,do tell dear boy. I have told you. I’m actually Australian, of multi-generational nativity, with forebears who fought under the flag in overseas engagements. Neither you nor Drew Fraser possess the same historical-genealogical distinction as I do on this point. (This is year 1 reading comp Desmond, come on son you can do better, come on). Most of the flocks of elderly retirees and ease-and-sunshine seeking middle-class immigrants from the UK streaming into Australia take an attitude similar to Fraser’s and what you are endorsing. It’s British (that it is!) and of the same race (the glorious Anglo-Saxon! Anglican, Dissenter, Recusant, Merry Old England in thee are hearts repose!), they think, we can do whatever we like. Fraser was in Canada one day, America the next day, and this week Australia. Which country next week? Norfolk Island or the British diaspora towns on Trinidad? (Your distinction of what constitutes “anecdote” and “datum” is arbitrary and, frankly, wrong so I’m ignoring it). Point: Mike Rann, born in Manchester, Protestant-descended Englishman, moved to NZ to be raised and educated, came to OZ in his late twenties, latched onto the ALP (our socialist lefities) and as premier of a state pursued pork barrelling, union racketeering, and cultural Bolshevism at an unprecedented rate. He even hired mercenaries (foreign policemen with no local connections, vested interests, or predisposition to treat native “civilians” with liberality and future-time orientation) from the UK to be “our” law enforcers and staffed the department chieftaincies with British-accented mega-socialist bureaucrats, fugitives from the horror of Blair, Britain’s obesely bloated bureacracy and awful weather, to exhibit ignorance of local geography and customs and breathtaking scorn for our political traditions which are a much softer socialism and comradely classlessness. Compatible yes, temperamental differences yes. Strange then, that English, as a group origin, was the largest racial identity in the 2011 census. Ancestry not identity, the one a genealogical, past-directed basis the second a socio-political, future-directed one (Hint for reference Desmond: when words are both spelt and pronounced differently, it is usually because they convey different ideas). And by the way, why have you corralled me into denying the primacy of Anglo-Saxon roots for Australia and our ethnicity? I never dreamt such a thing…but trends are trends and as I want us to survive I look at the future unemotionally. Also, this datum is indispensable to forming a correct view of the present: English (36.1%) (2011) The first has been diminishing steadily since the 60’s. Most of the “Australian” would be working-class, the English category old patricians and curious or traditional bourgeois. My own mother, a university educated woman, writes simply Australian (she was a middle-aged groupie of Keating, that cunning lizard. Onward Australia, onward to independence and self-identity!, they all cheered). 159
Posted by Hesper on Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:28 | # Continuing our lovely chat with the debonair Desmond, ... the right to discriminate in association. There are no rights and rights-language developed in Anglo-Saxon consciousness to explain the uprooting from Germany and emigration to Britain, later compounded by the scurrilous Puritans making a butcher’s shambles of our best men and king in the Civil War. Stop trying to define us so narrowly as if we are the rights-people only and not the Chaucer-people or the witty and brave Redcoats-people spreading empire, law and smashingly fab military couture across the globe. Like I give a shit, numb nuts! Madison Grant was a shockingly bad prose writer and short-story author did you know that? Your vocabulary betrays the same limitations of expression. Barbarism isn’t an English trait, so you are very special Desmond, very special. I’m not replying to you again Desmond. It’s not you son, it’s me, I just don’t have the ticker to go on with you any more. You carry on without me, you have always thought of yourself and “your” group as a CHOSEN PEOPLE. LOL. 160
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 14 Oct 2012 05:50 | #
German filiation but Australian ancestry. What is the Australian bloodline? 161
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:07 | #
It’s natural for you to take that position because you are an amoral man, a thief and a hypocrite. This ground was previously covered. Immigration is valid if the migrants are able to increase carry capacity or provide a moral uplift. This clearly is not the case, thus all you are doing is justifying theft. A hypocritical position if one claims racial realism.
Not so. “In any society, the dominant ‘mode of conformity’ ensures its members want to act in the way that they would have to act to ensure the survival of the group.” In other words, if you wish freedom of association you may not ‘freely’ associate. 162
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:34 | #
Ignorance is bliss. Being Anglo-Saxon is being conscious of self and an extended ecology. Fraser does not deny the pagan roots of the Anglo-Saxon. In his view the adoption of a Germanic Christianity did not alter the the pagan magico-religious Sacral kingship model they employed that “submerged the subjective consciousness of the individual in a group-mind knowing no clear boundary between the invisible divine beings and the visible world of nature”. He argues that papal revolution separated the sacred from the secular leaving a gaping chasm to be filled by human reason. 163
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 14 Oct 2012 09:41 | # veteranstoday.com looks like a bunch of leftist idiots. Here is what I had to say to one of them (but couldn’t post there), who was acting like the GOP is the threat to liberty, as opposed to Obama:
164
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:16 | #
Actually I was referring to you, jewboy. Everything you have written here, every syllable you have typed, is only so much rope to hang yourself by. (I fully anticipate your response to my having accused you of being a Jew to be the functional equivolent of why racial advocates should not name the Jew at all.) So go ahead you stupid rat-faced kike, swing away. 165
Posted by Arch Hades on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:50 | # Everyone in serious and well informed racialist circles knows Britain is the anti-Europe. The modern British are the biggest mongrel producers and negro mixers in world history. They lead the world in homosexuality as well. All the most serious anti culture and anti White hysteria comes from that Island. Their racial nationalism is so incredibly impotent it’s only to be laughed at. Britain basically destroyed Europe and played a crucial hand in destroying National Socialist Germany as well. And you can bet your ass that if another Fascist/hardcore nationalist party from the continent ever took over a European country or countries Britain would go against it with all effort. What would be best for Europe is for Britain to be nuked out of existence and 20 years later after the mongrel and paleolithic White trash population has been disintegrated in can be colonized by continentals. 166
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:20 | # Look, pal, if the political gangsters of the Sonderkommando came bouncing down your street today, you’d be the first to run and hide behind mummy’s skirt. The parents of National Socialism - both religious teleologies - were Fascism and Judaism. NS was not some noble expression of the European soul. It was a perversion because of the Jewish elements in it, just as radical liberalism - another religious proxy - has been judaised over the last sixty years. But at least radical liberalism has the excuse that it was only taken over by Jewish intellectuals. NS was Judaised, whether consciously or unconsciously I cannot say, from the outset by its German creators. That is why it killed and enslaved Europeans, and constituted an unbearable yoke for those populations over whom it briefly reigned. Further, the first nation of old Europe to be majority Afro-Asian will not be Britain but Sweden or France, or possibly Holland, in my view. The Finnish government actually furnished a warehouse a couple of decades ago so the first sixty of the West Africans they needed to de-white their land could be accommodated. Where do you think the impulse to commit that act of treachery originated? In Britain’s political form or the continent’s? Your bitter German-American anger, while not remotely unusual, is misplaced, and a bad moral guide. Yes, National Socialist Germany lost the war. The yoke was lifted from Denmark and France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, and so on. No, it’s not some flaw in British blood that we strove to free them, as well as others we could not free in the end, any more than it was a flaw in German blood that attracted so many to a cult of a European anti-life. 167
Posted by Link on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:04 | # I don’t think he’s German-American. Going by his blog, he seems to be a greaseball. Style and content similar to Rienzi. 168
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:32 | # The British used to be a great people, and may be so again one day. But that could be said for all the white nations (though Britain surely is at the apex of historical greatness, in military, political, economic, scientific, literary and intellectual accomplishment; it only goes down to a lower level wrt the arts, and of course, cuisine, where it’s basically at the bottom 169
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:01 | # While in no way endorsing Arch Hades desire to exterminate us few remaining poor white Brits, I have added him to the MR blogroll. 170
Posted by Arch Hades on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:47 | #
Mostly greaseball at least. And at least the mothers, sisters, and daughters of us greaseballs aren’t being bent over by Tyrone and Abdullah while culturally uplifting the world with shit like Boy George and Elton John. That is Britain. Take a look at Obama’s mother, see something familiar in that face? That’s a British face…as a friend told me she could be the sister of Paul McCartney. Britain is DONE….like dinner. Point a fork in em. You should just embrace your soon to be mulatto grandchildren and give up. lol 171
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:24 | # . ........................... How do you hope to make allies among the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish with this nasty, more like evil, attitude? We really need to support each other, not in integration but as a team. I imagine a large reason why GB has been under such assault is because of its success in previous centuries. They would be seen as a prime target and the arch villains of the Jews, whether of a Marxist or liberal stripe. More, London has become the seat of Banking - Jewish Banking. True, their culture has its blind spots that have left them susceptible to this scourge; but none of our European cultures are beyond reproach and you have occasion to present helpful and nuanced suggestions rather than instigating inter-European conflict - the last thing we need.
There has been some hubris, hypocritical anti-racism displayed in a bullying manner by the upper classes; which not only effects the working classes but has probably gained assent among them. The hubris, the fault of ours, has been objectivism. The cure is placing us all within the White class (compartmentalizing it according to White nations) and looking after our relative interests. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left 172
Posted by Mail on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:12 | #
It would take one to know one, right? You’ve been shown to be niggers: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373 173
Posted by Arch Hades on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:25 | #
Not me personally, they removed the Greeks from that study. : ) And gosh darn, I’m sure lots of southern euros would loose a lot of sleep being 1% black from geneflow over the course of 2 millienia. Maybe it’ll help them get a fling with a cheap British cunt. Anyway if that study is correct it doesn’t seem to prevent the Jews from completely owning that disgusting island. lol
174
Posted by Mail on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:08 | # It’s called the one-drop rule, nigger. We’ve practiced hypodescent. You don’t. Though it’s not like you can even tell between a quadroon and one of you anyway. 175
Posted by Arch Hades on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:59 | # So the British went from ‘practicing hypodescent’ to being the biggest mongrel producers in world history, lol. We’ve done this, we’ve done that, truth is it’s 2012 and you’ve got a one way ticket to Sharia Law and eventual extinction…and it’s coming at a very unnatural rate. The funniest thing about it is that the degenerate and slutty garbage that occupies most of that island will like it. You know in your heart they do…take a look around….hence your current pathetic and impotent state.
176
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:45 | # Arch Hades, being anti-British is not the concept that is needed; any more than being anti-France; Holland or Sweden. On the contrary: We need the metaphor of the compartmentalized ship and its implementation. European and White Russian Nations are the ship. The various states (and provinces) are the compartments. As the ship is compartmentalized, if one gets flooded with muds, the others are still air-tight and protected from spill-over. This would allow the White nationalists from the dry countries to better assist the White nationalists in the flooded countries. 177
Posted by Silver on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:09 | # Desmond,
Okay, so I’m justifying theft, so what? Answer me, dude: so the fuck what? SO THE FUCK WHAT. There’s plenty of territory to go around, plenty. Plenty, plenty, plenty. Much of it “stolen” at some point or another anyway. Much easier to aim for a fair and reasonable redistribution of that territory than to attempt to claim it all (or worse, to stake the viability of your political position on it—but then again, you’re a WN and few people have ever associated WN with political genius). Also, if my position helps save your kind from themselves then my presence is quite clearly beneficial, duh. The main reason you deny it that, like most screwball racists, you’re so overwhelmed with revulsion you can’t see straight.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. 178
Posted by Silver on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:18 | #
Comments like this do nothing but convince me that I’ve always been right about nationalists: that you’re the greatest scum to have ever lived, much worse than delusional anti-racists. At least anti-racists can get over their delusions. The extreme hatred and total inability to consider another’s feelings and point of view and the extreme unwillingness to recognize even the most basic rights of the hated other seem written into nationalists’ genetic code. 179
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:36 | # Catch the latest issue of The Economist? I’d love an English patriot to deconstruct the falsehoods in this ‘gem’:
180
Posted by Bill on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:30 | # Here for your delectation is an incomplete list of ingredients in today’s Britain’s political pie. Not in any particular order because there is no particular order. This is no analysis, no critique, nothing more than a observation. Insane level of Immigration. Only net immigration figures are quoted hiding the fact hundreds of thousands of Britain’ brightest and best are leaving. High adult unemployment. Record level of youth unemployment. Chronic shortage of housing of all types. Stagnating wages. High level of corruption among elites. Corrupt political system. Corrupt media. Dumbed down populace. Overarching dysfunctional liberalism. Chronic housing shortage. A city of the size of Bristol is needed to be built every 12 months just to stand still. Neoliberal transfer of taxpayer’s money to the private sector in in its varied forms of welfare services, energy, water, transport, prison services, health and many more. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. BTL (Buy to Let housing) is a perfect example where local government hands over the cash (billions) to the private landlord who is letting to social housing applicants Programme of austerity measures which only exacerbate most of the above. There’s no building of infrastructure in the amount needed to accommodate millions more people. Cameron came up with the idea home owners should be allowed to build extensions without planning permission. Local councils rubbished the idea as it was licence to build shanty towns, which in some parts of London is actually happening. This observation as I see things quickly follows on the heels of a similar recent post. I make no excuses for using the same words but in a different order, for what is happening here in Britain defies rational description. As I said, all is looking normal out there and life is carrying on. There is no conversation taking place other than at Internet websites. I see and hear passive television. The dialogue is a peculiar experience as it is a one way conversation. Oh sure, the talking heads are talking to other talking head cut-outs who are wheeled out with moth eaten regularity. The coiffed barbie seems pleased as she thanks her guests. Hmm, That went well. I’m still waiting for that ‘Oh my god what have we done moment.’ Not yet it seems. My gut feeling tells me it’s gotta come but I’m still waiting. Trouble is, I see no signs of WTF is going on coming from the people. The establishment know the games coming to head, houses are not being built in anywhere near the required numbers, joblessness must be increasing at similar numbers of immigrants entering the country and yet there’s no dot joining by the media. Cameron is more Blair than Blair but is still given a standing ovation at conference. I think we’re in the midst of mass insanity, there’s no other explanation. The economy is showing little or no signs of improvement but the show must go on. I think there is no pretence any longer by those at the top, they know the games is up, what was once abstract political theory is now a reality and biting them on the bum. I get the distinct feeling now, that whenever the political class talk of future Britain it is to a multicultural Britain they are referring. Whether or not they include white’s is not at all clear. Any elections from now on will be an indicator of where things are going. I reckoned years ago people would just give up on politics in despair, but it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps the next general election (whenevr) will be a game changer as the people see UKIP as no different to the others. (Globalism the only game permissable) PS. The same goes for across the pond, this November could be a game changer. 181
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:53 | # The agonies of the UK are the product of a quite rancid combination of the worst aspects of right and left liberalism combined into a highly toxic ideological brew. Theodore Dalrymple/Anthony Daniels has called Britain the most culturally degraded nation in Western Europe. I think he’s correct. Read some of his older (and longer) ‘City Journal’ and ‘New Criterion’ articles for a ‘flavour’ of the nation and its ambience. We are indeed in a sorry state. The best parts of the USA are, on average, generally far more pleasant with regard to the quality of everyday life/personal conduct etc. A typical British city centre (on a weekend night) is not a place for even a moderately civilised person to spend a large amount of time in. A miasma of drunken thuggery and libertine abandonment settles over them like a noxious haar. 182
Posted by Bill on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:36 | #
This isn’t the result of random forces at work, this wasn’t an accident, it just didn’t happen. It was deliberately engineered, how do I know this? Because I watched it happen, I watched it over a period of 50 years of my life. It was the BBC (media) who done it. I didn’t know at the time what it was all about, most was hidden in the form of entertainment, drama, political satire (viscous stuff against the grouse moor mentality ruling class.) Programmes like, That was the Week that Was (TW3,) Till Death Do Us Part. It probably all began in the ‘50’s with rock’n roll, this was the beginning of satellite transmissions which in themselves only lasted a few minutes duration. It was all revolutionary state of the art stuff, the first toe in the water of what we all experience today. These were the days when Brits were paying £10.00 per head to emigrate to Australia. It took 6 weeks to get there by ocean liner. The Atlantic crossing was about three days to New York, and yet viewers in Britain were receiving live pictures within minutes. I can remember the Hippie movement drugs, sex’n rock’n roll. (How I laughed, how we all laughed.) Riots in the south (Watts?) By the mid ‘60s the BBC was in full swing, pushing the boundaries remorselessly, swearing, sex, feminising the male. From Suez 1956, to around 1963/4, Britain had changed from the fag end of a Victorian society to something entirely different. I couldn’t put a name to it, looking back the 1960’s had left the war far behind. After the 50’s swords to plough-shares, ‘60 s Britain was a jumping and a swing’n. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, the Mini skirt and the Mini car, producing consumer goods, full employment, whole industries nationalised, prime minister Wilson’s education expansion and white heat of technology, all heady stuff in which the BBC made great strides engineering a modern (open) society. Piece of cake. It is with a mixture of hind-sight and memory at the time, that conjures these images, for both, 50 years later, show in stark relief that what had taken place was a deliberate programme of destruction (deconstruction) of the British people and their nation. The programme is ongoing to this day, we’re pretty near the end now, what’s left of what used to be is almost non existent. In the course of a life time our traditions, culture, deference, courtesy, (my dad used to raise his hat to a female, open doors, give up his seat) and he was only an working class chap. Whatever happened to conservatism on the way? The BBC (media) is more powerful than the government, there’s a Plato’s cave in every living room. Culture war, what culture war? We didn’t stand a chance. Did Dalrymple and Daniels mention any of this? 183
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:44 | #
You pretend to be a lover not a hater but you can’t comprehend that theft of territory is an existential threat? At least your Serbian/Greek/Romanian/Macedonian/Hispanic/Pakistani co-ethnics show no pretense about hiding their real feelings. The hate is evident and they will take all they can, displaying no moral compunction. Your deceit is much more egregious. You proclaim that theft of territory, despite the evident threat, is fair and reasonable distribution. You sir are the most contemptible of all beings. And yes you’re are correct, I am no genius. However, it is unfathomable that your reading comprehension is so poor that you actually believe I am WN. Too funny dude! 184
Posted by CS on Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:01 | # Silver @ 183, You’re normally a sensible person. If the UK stands in the way of other white countries embracing sanity why not hope that it becomes powerless to do so? I’m all for blacks rioting like they did in 2011 on a regular basis. It just demonstrates that we’re right in a way even idiots can understand. 185
Posted by Bill on Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:26 | # One man’s take.
http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk/2010/09/25/labour-gives-liberal-social-democracy-a-go/
186
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:47 | # Off topic but I just watched an interesting and, in places, a beautiful documentary filmed in the NE of Scotland. A rather lovely part of the world now being destroyed on behalf of one Donald Trump. Anyway it’s called “You’ve Been Trumped” and it gives a flavour of the NE of Scotland and its people. Should be available on the BBC iplayer soon. Outside of the UK you will need a UK proxy to watch. 187
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:09 | #
“Theft” is your word, not mine. I see it as redistribution. A “Land for Race” peace deal whose purpose is to secure racial existence, which is the polar opposite of threatening it. It’s really not that hard to grasp.
You can call it (the plan) or me whatever you want—hateful, contemptible, sanctimonious, blah blah blah—but the point is what I am proposing would actually work. Not only would it work at pitifully little cost, but I am prepared to claim it would work better than the previous “eternal conflict” model of securing racial existence. (This, too, is pretty simple to grasp.)
There’s no small amount of truth to this. Well, here is your big chance to (finally) turn the tables on them (us). You can turn their hatred to your own ends. (Remember too that they don’t just hate you, they mutually hate each other, which affords another opportunity to practice “racial aikido”—take that momentum and redirect towards your own racial ends.) At the end of the day, as McCulloch says, it’s far better for your race to be hated but have its vital life interests respected than to be loved but have its vital life interests violated.
Well, you are, you just limit the definition of “white” to anglo-saxons or, in your more adventurous moments, to nords in general. (Not a definition I dispute, as you know.) 188
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:15 | # CS,
I’m familiar with Arch Hades’ posts on other boards. It’s not just the liberal, anti-racist British state he has it in for. I don’t know whether the nogs rioting is really all that helpful. It opens some eyes, sure. But it also has the effect of strengthening the resolve of the anti-white power structure, which tends to double down on its race-denial in the wake of such events. Those lunatics are just incorrigible.
189
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:27 | #
Oh please, what total BS. A golf course doesn’t destroy the environment or natural beauty. If you ask me, in this case it’s adding beauty to what appears to me a depressing barren wasteland. “Save the sand dunes!“come on. When was the last time you visited a sand dune, Graham? Ever? Will you ever? As for the people living there, they can get over it. If they dislike it so much it’s not so hard to pull up stakes and move a few kilometers down the road. More to the point, something like 95% of those nuisances trying to block the development would probably stand foursquare behind immigration and race-replacement (whose effects are vastly more destructive than those of a golf resort) so why throw your support behind them without demanding anything in return? It makes no sense. I would be threatening them with more and more and more development until they come to their senses and support an immigration moratorium.
190
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:57 | #
Yep, thats about right. 191
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:51 | # Single issue anti-immigration movement. That’s the max of what WNs can hope for at this time, at least politically. Culturally, we can promote appreciation for our traditional heritage(s). 192
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:28 | #
Just to go back to this for a moment, I said above there’s a lot of truth in this statement, but the truth is there’s also a lot of falsehood. It’s not at all clear to me that everyone is just oozing with hatred towards the Desmond Joneses, not clear at all. What I suspect Desmond—who, let’s face it, is a bit, shall we say, peculiar—is doing is provoking these other groups and then using their reaction as evidence of “hatred.” Well, back on planet Earth I see a large number of people of various backgrounds apparently genuinely getting on quite well with the Joneses—many of whom the Joneses in days gone by were adamant would never be able to fit in. For example, I was talking to this fellow in his 20s this past weekend who, before he announced his background, I thought was just a “dark Brit” type . It turned out his mother was a Turkish Cypriot. (He looked like a young Dudley Moore, actually. Certainly much whiter than a much more famous nord/cypriot mix, Cat Stevens.) By his accent, his mannerisms, his dress, the company he kept, and the opinions he volunteered, I never would have suspected this was his background. He was telling me how his mother hated her restrictive background, ran away from home and married her anglo husband while in her teens, and how she despises certain groups that come to the country nowadays and insist on holding fast to their traditional ways. Now, Desmond Jones would probably claim that this kid is the embodiment of Racial Death itself and accuse him of harboring all sorts of secret hatreds, but really now, how likely is it that a critical mass is ever going to arise that sees things quite so starkly? That’s not to say I don’t believe the Joneses have good reason to feel aggrieved. Of course they do. Every time Desmond posts I have this image of the patriarch in the movie version of “The Go-between”—what a mean, no-nonsense uber-Saxon that chap was. Boy, that sure was some extraordinary cultural attainment portrayed in that film, wasn’t it? That there has been a severe cultural decline since those heady days there can be very little doubt. Unfortunately for Desmond, none of that justifies the extreme sort of intransigence he exemplifies, nor does it do much of anything to encourage his own countrymen to adopt perspective that would soon lead them to conclusions similar to his own. 193
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:35 | # Haller,
A better way to phrase that would be anti-immigration across the political spectrum. That’s more effective than “single issue” because single issue suggests that anti-immigration properly belongs to only one sole political pole. In reality, anti-immigration is something that could appeal across political lines. It promotes the idea that people can disagree as heatedly as they like on everything else but agree on the vital necessity of killing immigration. (“Killing it” sounds quite vicious, but it deserves to be killed, to be extinguished, to have its living daylights totally snuffed out.)
194
Posted by CS on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52 | # Silver, What is your “land for peace” deal? Could you posit it or show me where to find it? 195
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:05 | # It’s “land for race,” not “land for peace.” It refers to any sort of race-based partition/separation/segregation plan, not one that I have specifically drawn up for the purpose. (In the long-term I’m partial to something along the lines of McCulloch’s, which you can read at his “The Racial Compact” site. In the short-term, I think smaller steps will have to be taken, if for no other reason than to make the project appear plausible.) The idea is to maximize the number of people who will support a policy that will result in racial salvation, no matter what their personal interest in racial salvation (whether they care for it or not, or are even aware that racial survival is at stake or not), and the claim is that the best way to do this is to give as many people as possible something palatable to sink their teeth into. In a country as mixed as America today (but the logical will soon apply to many other formerly white countries, most likely) it’s unreasonable to aim for racial exclusivity of the entire territory. You can have more territory or more racial exclusivity but you can’t maximize both. This isn’t strictly true, of course. If you fight and win a race war you could probably maximize both. But we’re working with the assumption that a race war (of such magnitude) is unlikely and undesirable. 197
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:26 | # And one more thing, if you agree that one of the most (if not the most) powerful weapons in the WN arsenal is calling opponents anti-white (rather than historical revisionism or crime stats or IQ truth or fascist aesthetics or recondite philosophies of being and time) then “land for race” feeds right into that because, regardless of whatever else it’s about it (and it’s about many other things), it’s always fundamentally about racial survival, so those opposing it are anti-white in the most fundamental sense possible. It’s powerful because it allows you concede (or give the appearance of conceding) non-essential issues that obstructionists love to play up and zeroing in on securing a racial future, enabling you to very straightforwardly characterize your opponent as outrageously unreasonable. WNs complain that liberals (their usual objects of disdain) can be swayed neither by reason nor emotional appeal, but the sorts of propositions that WNs have historically hit liberals up with are so easy to say no to or look aghast at it’s a real wonder to me they were ever attempted. The approach outlined here differs significantly from the antics WNs have engaged in up to now. 198
Posted by CS on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:32 | # Silver, Yeah, if this also give us the moral high ground then that is a major bonus. I’ll have to look into this. 199
Posted by Silver on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:53 | # CS, yes, please do consider it. If you’re as motivated as you seem it’ll be a far better use of your time than to log onto some race blog to learn about the latest outrage or devour yet more essays purporting to explain in ever greater depth just how much superior whites are and how inferior everyone else is. With respect to seizing the moral high ground, land for race (or “racial reform,” which is another catchy way of putting it) opens the door to reciprocity, which is of tremendous moral importance. You help me secure my racial rights and I’ll help you secure yours. It’s infinitely more difficult to oppose that than to oppose someone declaring race war on you. Also, on the (very important) issue of plausibility, land for race has legs because the sequential steps are more apparent (and, again, more palatable). Compare that to the “logic” of alt-right/counter-currents crowd: an economic collapse occurs; there’s a spontaneous racial awakening; then a miracle; finally a white ethnostate emerges. Come on. 200
Posted by Bill on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:20 | # Post British politics within the framework of neo-liberal hegemony. My journey of several years of quest has taken many twists and turns along the way. Then came the question as to why our politicians were not reflecting the concerns of their constituents. However, as this was not my principle concern at the time, I let the matter rest. Fast forward to recent times (shambolic political crises in Britain) and the question of British politics has again loomed large, namely, traditional politics was no longer functioning, what the people were being asked to vote for was filtered top down managed outcomes for the elites. Most discerning voters were/are aware of the omni-presence of the EU and the mass of legislation awaiting Westminster rubber stamping, but I felt there was something more to it than that? Why do our politicians enact legislation that is counter to the interests of the people and the nation? It would be fair comment if I echoed the oft heard phrase, politicians they’re all the same. Well, if they are all the same, how has this state of affairs come about? I confess I readily went along with its twin mantra, there’s no such thing as left and right any more, but somehow even then, I wasn’t wholly convinced. I’ve now come full circle and firmly believe there is a (biological) left and right. Fast forward to the present and the question of the state of British politics is becoming more consuming, something is definitely amiss but what is it? Meanwhile I’m Googling the question a-plenty. I frame the question, ‘Post British politics within the framework of neo- liberal hegemony.’ I soon found other people (smarter than me) were discussing the same question, surprisingly, my half baked ideas were being confirmed. I’ve often likened liberal freedom to a song bird within a gilded cage, which I thought was apt. Upon reflection, I would amend that description to the freedom of a battery hen. When freedom of speech, of association, of discernment and of thought are taken away, there’s not much else left. Universal liberal (economic/social) hegemony is a given, it is an immoveable object, unchallenged and permanent. It is within this wired fence narrative British politics has hit the buffers. British politicians cannot escape the black hole of liberalism. Some probably don’t even know they are in such a hole. If all the major questions are being dealt with from up above, then what’s left for the elected eunuchs to pontificate on? All they can do between them is to construct a filtered top down consensus for people to vote on. No choice on offer there! Consensus is a fake entity, there’s no such thing, there’s always dissent somewhere. The shows over, the system is broke, not fit for purpose. What is it Blair once said? The Kaleidoscope has been shaken and the pieces are in flux. The establishment know all this of course, hence the Diamond Jubilee, the Olympic Games, the endless celebrity minutia, we’re all in this together nonsense, yada-yada. The poor old voter hasn’t got a clue, for how much longer can the BBC keep its finger in the dyke? Something’s gotta give. 202
Posted by CS on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:41 | # Silver, This is good stuff Silver. http://www.racialcompact.com/preservationalternative.html “The race is more important than any amount of land or territory, the value of which is only derivative, derived from the race that inhabits it and which it supports.” 203
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:19 | # G_L Thanks for that recommendation G_L. Trump has powerful friends it would seem. As a resident of South Devon, environmental and community destruction by the forces of ‘progress’ is alas, nothing new to me. I wish nothing but ill for Trump and his cronies. For his golf course to flop, and the dunes to restore themselves to their natural beauty. And that someone gets that perfect shot of Trumps ‘hair wall’ flapping like a sail in the breeze. Disgusting situation. Disgusting man. 204
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:45 | #
Anecdotal tripe from Mr. Mendacity. It matters not whether critical mass rises, or that Desmond is peculiar, the point still remains, if you believe in the impact upon EGI of mass immigration from distant populations, and are not just a hateful contemptible hypocrite, then such migration is pathological for the host population. http://www.amren.com/ar/pdfs/2003/200302ar.pdf How exactly is land for peace going to work? It won’t.
How exactly will Mr. Mendacious repatriate these people without racial conflict? How exactly does McCulloch plan to transfer AAs without racial violence? “As illustrated by the above map, an independent nation for the Sub-Saharan African racial group (#2 above) could be formed out of the area of the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas north of the Colorado river, west of the Mississippi river, and south of the Arkansas river.” http://www.racialcompact.com/partitionmap.html
205
Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:56 | # The very best of men. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uTALssbCsA
I guess race replacement just can’t happen quickly enough for some folks. 206
Posted by CS on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:10 | # Silver, The website is good, but basically stuff I already know. The question is how we are going to achieve “victory”, which at a minimum means acquiring “some” land exclusively for whites. 207
Posted by Silver on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:06 | #
I can agree that it has a negative impact now that I understand it. I wasn’t born with such understanding. I didn’t intuit it at an early age. It’s something that only became apparent to me later in life, and after considerable study and reflection. I’m sure this is the case for the great majority of people. Well, I’m sorry, I can’t just up and leave now, just like that (which wouldn’t do any good anyway, which I’m sure you realize but are unable to resist the urge to take a dig at me). Also, let’s be clear: the only reason I’m “Mr.Mendacity” is who I am, not anything I’ve done. I’d still be considered mendacious and contemptible by Desmond even if I’d never set foot in an anglo domain and had only learned English by correspondence and came to a blog like this to talk race. So thoroughly do racial hatred and revulsion pervade his person he’d still hurl abuse at me. That’s his right, of course, and I don’t particularly mind what he thinks of me. But I draw attention to it to highlight what an extraordinarily unreasonable entity we are dealing with here.
I don’t recall saying anything about no conflict. The point was to maximize the number of people who’d support the ends of such a conflict, and an effective way to do that is to outline how separation could proceed (potentially, theoretically) without recourse to violence. (If ALL people wanted separation and agreed on a separation plan then separation COULD be effected peacefully. It quite likely won’t, but at least it could.) If that seed is successfully implanted recourse to violence will seem infinitely more reasonable than if racial violence were to be engaged in apparently mindlessly, with no definite plans, no firm or viable end state, from a place of rancor rather than reconciliation. Perhaps the distinction is entirely too subtle for you, but I consider it the missing moral ingredient. With respect to more practical matters, AAs are the least likely to support any such separation, but are themselves the easiest selling point for separation for all other groups.
208
Posted by Silver on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:38 | # CS, I didn’t send you to the site with the promise that it contains all the answers. I simply suggested the partition plan outlined there as one (whose end state) I consider reasonable. As for the “how,” as I see it, the most important, essential step is for the fight for racial life (or “against genocide,” for those who think that’s a more appropriate way to phrase it) has to become a live issue, a burning social issue that will not go away, an issue that refuses to quieted. That’s not what it is today. It’s anything but that. In the minds of most people there is no such issue. That’s why it’s so important to keep pressing the issue, and pressing it and pressing it and pressing it. It’s easy to become impatient and declare that you’ve “heard it all,” but most people have not, and they will need to hear it many, many times before it sinks in. If such a point is reached that it’s recognized by all as a legitimate issue then various solutions to deal with it can begin to be seriously publicly debated and the opposing camps will come into clearer view. It’s far too soon to predict how things may shape up at that point. Desmond, You’re wrong about McCulloch being such a dove. I’m quiet sure he was a William Lucifer Pierce disciple in his younger days and contributed some articles to Attack!. I have no way of knowing it, but I suspect he rues the time and effort wasted during his involvement with that style of racial movement. His later work reflects greater maturity and reasonableness at any rate. 209
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:58 | #
Oh please…is it really necessary to reiterate the comments on the “Are Jews White?” thread to show for the umpteenth time that you lie like a cheap rug? 211
Posted by antifascist on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:00 | # Nick Griffin; you can criticize the politician on the left, or the right. <u>Nick Griffin: “Yes, Adolf went a bit too far.”</u> <u> <u>Nick Griffin, [asked why he had described the Holocaust as a myth]: “I cannot explain why I used to say those things, any more than I can tell you why I have changed my mind.” “I was very critical of the way in which the Holocaust was, and is, abused to prevent serious discussion.” “I have changed my mind… one of the key things which makes me change my mind is British radio intercepts of German transmissions about the brutal mass murder of innocent Jews on the Eastern fronts during anti-partisan warfare. </u> <u> Now from my point of view, I would not want to be associated with a politician such as Nick Griffin who makes a clown, or a troll out of himself in public, with outrageous, unintelligent and politically incorrect comments such as these. As a radical leftist/marxist, I believe Nick Griffin is the ideal opponent of our marxist ideology, because he is easily to criticize and ridicule, and makes a fool of himself in public on a regular basis, like a British evil Hitleresque personality. Post a comment:
Next entry: Some tips for thread warriors
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
). Perhaps I’m being “hopelessly American”, but I prefer to deemphasize intra-European ethnic quarrels, and adopt a “we’re all in this together approach”.
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:00 | #
It doesn’t really matter if Griffin is or not. The BNP was plainly driven into a wall before the 2010 election by people inside and as the NPD thing shows *enough* people like that will always be inside. The only solution i can see is to make it not matter. The Tsarist secret police had agents planted everywhere before the Russian revolution but it didn’t help because enough head of steam had been built up. I think that’s all you can do really. Try and build up steam and if it’s ever enough to blow then it’ll blow.