The politics and metapolitics of 24th June 2016

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 10 June 2016 07:22.

Let’s take a confident, positive and, I hope and believe, realistic view of the British electorate’s intent towards national independence, and fast-forward (at least in the imagination) fourteen days. As this gentleman already has:

The politics

It is the morning of Friday 24th June. The political world is stunned. The Westminster bubble people are trying to come to terms with the sheer enormity of it. Why couldn’t it all be like London? London was fine, London was good. The Celtic fringe. The universities. But really, that was it. Across the rest of the country it was a total disaster. OK, the polls had been discouraging for a while. But nothing like this. Even with the huge turnout, there was no, simply no reprieve for Remain.

The BBC and ITV election coverage rumbles on through the morning as a succession of talking heads, jubilant or shell-shocked, come into the studios to explain the new political universe. Nigel Farage, sleepless and as fresh as a daisy, is in philosophical mood now, having got beyond the initial tidal wave of euphoria. For once, he is spared the hackneyed attack-questions by his interviewers. George Galloway, however - also sleepless but looking as though he has been clubbing with winos for the last month - manages to get into an argument with practicably everybody. He doesn’t seem to care, though; and he wins them all.

In fairness, it isn’t that difficult. Everyone now is chorusing that Britain Stronger in Europe ran a disastrously misconceived campaign. Arrogant, supercilious, patronising, bullying, full of over-blown, unbelievable claims that were miles away from the gut instincts of ordinary voters, far too many far too cunning, counter-productive attempts to queer the pitch, simply unworthy of the electorate’s support ... those are just some of the kinder judgements floating around in the cold light of day.

In Downing Street a great gaggle of press waits across the road from No.10 for the Prime Minister to appear. The lectern is in position. A synopsis of the speech has been pre-released to the media by the No.10 press office. First, David Cameron will, as he must, commit his government to honouring the momentous decision taken by the British electorate. There can be no question of disingenuous or partial solutions, nothing that does not respect the very clearly stated will of the people. “The United Kingdom will now leave the European Union,” he will say. “A new and prosperous, secure future for the country must now be built, and all the government’s energies and commitment will be poured into that endeavour, both in terms of formulating with the EU and its member states a new and mutually beneficial, friendly and respectful relationship, and in terms of addressing the great number of implications of yesterday’s vote for our democracy and our economy, and our wider society.”

But Cameron is also going to have to announce that he, personally, will not lead the negotiations with the European Union – a possibility he has laughed off until now. His position is untenable. His time is over, three years sooner than he planned. He must tell the nation that he will remain in office only until a successor can be chosen, and that earlier this morning he had requested the Party chairman to commence upon the selection process.

Of course, speculation as to who the Tories will choose is running at fever pitch. For some years the common expectation was that a George Osborne premiership a year out from the 2020 election was a nailed-on certainty. But Osborne is tainted now, and may not even gather sufficient support to run. Theresa May – a Brexit turncoat who, however, made herself very scarce during the campaign – seems to have few friends anywhere and is also struggling to find backers. Notwithstanding his obvious intelligence and integrity, and his own very strong campaign, Michael Gove has steadfastly ruled himself out. Boris Johnson has, of course, absolutely no such reservation. He bestrides the stage, booming away in irrepressible and justified good humour, seemingly invincible. But there must be a contest, not a coronation, particularly when that toxic little phrase “But ... a shameless opportunist” is still being whispered around the party. Some of these whispers emanate from within the Leave.eu faction, quickly followed by calls to David Davis to consent to stand as a dignified and principled, long-term advocate of independence and the only senior figure in the party who can genuinely run on an anti-Establishmentarian ticket – that being the sine qua non of the new political reality. Davis is known to be deeply reluctant to submit himself to another failed leadership contest. But his principal advocate, Peter Bone, lets it be known that soundings from colleagues across the parliamentary party are positive, and there is little doubt that Davis would relegate the Chancellor, May, Liam Fox … anyone except Gove to the also-rans.

It goes without saying that the other turncoats and shameless careerists in the cabinet, who publicly professed euroscepticism for years and then, when the moment actually arrived, cleaved to Cameron and his presumed patronage, are political dead-wood. Two hundred Conservative political careers are in free-fall. Similar strife is affecting the Labour Party, even though only a tiny handful of Labour MPs actually supported the Leave campaign. The great question of the national destiny hardly mattered at all to the equalitarians of Labour. But the eternally fratricidal left never loses a chance to attack its most bitter and hated rival. So the only element in the party which definitely, ideologically favoured EU membership - the surviving Blairites – comes under withering fire. With Chilcott about to be unleashed on the party, it’s a wise course of action anyway. But, taken together with the evisceration of the Tory Remainers, it means that two decades of cross-party consensus for a progressive, internationalist centre is over.

In the Westminster village, where the talk had been of the cynical Remain majority in the House of Commons defying a victory for Leave, the talk now is of a new political age. Brillo only half-jokingly refers to Boris Johnson as the 21st century Cromwell. There are rumours that Steve Hilton, home from California, has suddenly started talking to friends about a radical New Paradigm. People want to listen. Minds are open. There is excitement in the political air. All is change.

Among the politicos and technocrats in Brussels, meanwhile, change is the last thing on anyone’s mind. There is barely suppressed anger and loathing at the British. It’s not just that Cameron’s confident expectation that the Referendum would be won by the government has proved wholly, wildly wrong. It’s not the sheer scale of the defeat. Anti-Brussels feeling among the British has always been taken for granted. The British commitment to membership has never been trusted. No, it’s the instability they’ve visited upon the European Union itself – “the British earthquake” - which is completely unacceptable. The view from the Brussels insider would go something like: “Now you’ll see. Other dangerous populists - some no more than fascists - will be emboldened by this. The mirage of national autonomy will be dangled in front of electorates, as if the nation state still had a place in the world. Even now the Le Pen women and the Indonesian and those Austrian racists are sending congratulations to the British, and talking about European integration as a thing of the past. A thing of the past, I tell you! Among my good communitarian colleagues in Berlin and in Paris ... not so many in the other capitals ... but there and here in Brussels the consensus is that the UK cannot be allowed to become a free and successful economy outside of the European Union. If only pour encouragement les autres the British must be humiliated. We will crush them tomorrow as we are crushing the Swiss today. In the end their precious referenda don’t make any difference, and this one won’t either. We will always get our way.”

The metapolitics

To talk metapolitically is to talk politically about politics – to inquire after the import and direction of travel in the ordinary political process, such as we have just looked at. Nationalists do this in a different way to non-nationalists because we stand in a particular place outside the liberal thought-world and critique it as a whole system. Our contexts are always coloured by this. It is a distinction hardly ever appreciated by non-nationalists, in part because, today, nationalism is so narrowly defined by them, and never in a systemic sense. It is all too commonly and comfortingly dismissed as extremism, forestalling any need for non-nationalists to lift their eyes to the misty intellectual horizon and try to discern what it is we really mean.

All grand political systems have at their heart a particular understanding of Man himself, or what he should be. It is a model to be realised through the political dynamic, regardless of whether it is in any way true or even a real-world possibility. To help cut through the mist I am going to contextualise this part of my analysis accordingly, thus ...

Liberalism, as the dominant, indeed founding system of ideas in the Western polity, simply does not accommodate nationalist desiderata. As a system of thought which emerged via humanism from Christian thought (which itself emerged from Judaic thought), and which has passed through a Jewish-authored ideological filter not once but twice, liberalism’s direction of travel is always towards a bloodless, confected “individual” notionally unfettered from his or her own particular, existent truth. Beside Man himself, it is a cartoon character – but one, of course, which is meant to draw itself into existence on life’s page. How on earth it was ever taken seriously by anyone, let alone taken as such for the last three hundred and fifty years, and placed at the centre of the entire modern paradigm, is a source of wonder. John Locke’s material, vestigially Christian conception of human freedom has an awful lot to answer for.

But, as we know, it gets worse.

That second Jewish filter … the filter which is neo-Marxism ... has metastasised liberalism’s model of the Ideally Free Man into a de-natured, radically-equal human cypher of the post-racial Western utopia. This is Homo deracinatus, and his time, which is the end of our time, is close. His forefathers are identifiable among us. His world of the modern, super-diverse global city is already here. Power will not brook obstructions to his progress. For a white person, failure to welcome him into being on one’s own people’s soil - which will shortly turn into a failure to comport oneself exactly as this creature comports himself – is, of course, “racism”. As we all know, this is the worst thing in the world next to “anti-Semitism”; which is only logical. The Homo deracinatus of the neo-Marxist left IS the adoring, servile post-gentile of Judaism’s Olam Ha-ba. Put an economistic spin on it and we get another model of human being (we could say anti-human being): the similarly deracinated and de-nationed wage-slave and compliant consumer of The Globality.

These latter three teleologies of the human condition function as weapons in the struggle for the world of the future, and would function as control mechanisms of and for the high priests of that future, if and when it is attained. Human personalities engendered from any of these models would know a life without history and so without truth, without belonging and so without love, without difference and so without beauty, without human dignity and without freedom or even the possibility to struggle for freedom.

By way of a digression, my all-time favourite movie, Ridley Scott’s 1982 tale of a bio-synthetic corporate dystopia”, touches on this via the fragility and plasticity and cruel inadequacy of personal memories in the absence of the organic whole:

Deckard: She’s a replicant, isn’t she?
Tyrell: I’m impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot them?
Deckard: I don’t get it, Tyrell.
Tyrell: How many questions?
Deckard: Twenty, thirty, cross-referenced.
Tyrell: It took more than a hundred for Rachael, didn’t it?
Deckard (in realisation that Rachael has not been told what she is): She doesn’t know.
Tyrell: She’s beginning to suspect, I think.
Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is?

In its literal supplanting of Nature in Man with a work of artifice, wrought by corporate elites who see the human Other as no more than a disposable commodity, Bladerunner raises the question as to whether anyone, anyone at all, is the real article. At the film’s close, that is the only surviving thought. Just as politics had been finalised by and for the corporate elites, so inquiry into its metapolitical status was “retired” by their dismal science; and the hope of men with it.

Thankfully, we haven’t reached that point yet. But, to reprise, the ontological dynamic is: The life and being of the free ethnic man ↔ The forced arising of his eliminator and successor, the universal slave. Nationalism’s grand historical function is to end this journey to hell at once and completely, and to do so however it presents itself, whether as a vehicle of global human equality and justice (as retailed by the UN, for example), of Jewish supremacism, or of the political power play of international finance and the dateline corporations. One can throw in liberal individualism too, because – as we all know - that is scarcely less atomising and self-estranging in effect, and furnishes the other, Jewish-filtered models with the intellectual and ideological foundation for their opportunistic, abusive, racistic schtick. Nationalism is in mortal conflict with all of that.

But the reason that nationalism is a philosophy in itself, and not merely a strand of political activism, is that it extends beyond a simple patriotic reaction, beyond the defence of tradition, Western democratic values, Western culture or “Western civ” - or the Christian faith - and into the positive, creative act of world-making. Of its own inimitable temper, it founds a politics of life in the natural, particularist order of identity, interest, and relation (not merely “the social”). This, of course, is a most revolutionary act. The popular re-discovering of self-hood and connection is such that a vast panoply of principles and values are re-ordered while the interests in the folk are broadly cohered. The antagonisms of the false model, or models, fall away. Change on a systemic scale is inevitable.

This is the grounded truth of nationalism. This is what it does, if the energy for a major shift at the level of the system is there. This, and nothing else, can be European Man’s salvation - and because there is no people anywhere who, ultimately, are not assigned the same destructive fate by Power, the salvation of all.

So what metapolitical shift is to be expected from a resounding triumph for Leave? There are ten principal elements in the campaign for national independence and freedom:

a) Restoration of sovereignty to the British nation state.

b) National liberation from the process of ever-closer political, judicial, fiscal, legal, and monetary union.

c) Return of democratic rights to British electors, restoring the ancient constitutional status of the will of the people over the holders of political office.

d) Return of Parliament’s unique ability to make law for the people in and of the country.

e) Repatriation of full jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, ending the legal competence of the ECJ over British courts.

f) Return of the ability to control Britain’s borders, ending free movement from within the EU and, crucially, acknowledging the essential connection of the extant population (however generally and inclusively that population might be defined by politics today) to the country as such.

g) Ending the economics of creating growth in GDP by immigration-led growth in the working population, and shifting the responsibility for growth back to the creativity and industriousness of the people.

h) Return of government’s ability to raise taxes solely for the British account.

i) Lifting of the burden of uniform EU regulation off business.

j) Diversification of formal trade links to the world beyond the EU.

By any historical measure, this adds up to a real and meaningful national liberation which will course through the constitution and the democratic process, and bestow essential changes to the workings of parliament, justice, border control and population management, economics, taxation, and the comport of foreign and trade policy. And it can travel still further. “Contagion” is the term that the elites of Brussels, the ECB and the IMF, and of international banking and the money markets generally, apply to the destabilising spread of sovereign debt in the eurozone. The same word is now applied to the “dangerous” ideals of Brexit, and the energy it will impart to anti-EU feeling and to the anti-immigrant, anti-Islam discontent which is on the rise all over the Union, as well, of course, to the nationalist and patriotic parties – the hated “populists” - who voice it. Nowhere is that more so than in France.

“It is a protest against the elites,” said Professor Brigitte Granville, a French economist at Queen Mary University of London. “There are 5000 people in charge of everything in France. They are all linked by school and marriage, and they are tight.”

… “Le Pen has attracted all the people who feel left out, the discontented from both Left and Right, and it is spreading to the middle class,” said Prof Granville.

“We are in a very dangerous phase. The French elites are extremely scared of what could happen in France if there is a Brexit,” she said.

In France, as elsewhere, the values of the internationalist ideologues and dateline corporations subsist alongside those of neo-Marxist intellectuals and utopians. French elites can attend assiduously to their share portfolios yet retain their edgy, radical chic ... toujours la même histoire, mais vivre la révolution. Looked at through the nationalist filter, we can say that this strange coherence bespeaks of a very Jewish style of intra-relation. Even where no Jews are present, the “nationalism” in global elitism is Judaic, ie, de-ethnicising for the gentile. It dispenses to the non-Jewish elites a haughty and self-absorbed, cosmopolitan glamour even while they multiracialise their own people out of existence. But, at least, in their moral frailties they remain recognisably human, which cannot be said of the model of l’humanité dictated by their class ambitions.

Like Prof Granville, Marine Le Pen regularly states that the grand conflict is not between left and right but between globalism and nationalism. It is an incomplete summary, but it serves well enough to situate the reactionary and civic in kind, such as UKIP’s long struggle against EU membership, within the general quest for the European ethnic and racial life. The ethny is the unit in which race is patterned – certainly in Europe itself – and the European sovereign nation is the unit in which that is territorially and politically manifest. Likewise, democratic right, although seen by many old-school nationalists as a modernistic, massifying force, is the political foundation for accountability to the people’s interests, including the application of justice and the preservation of the traditional freedoms. These are framework issues, but on that framework hangs the possibility of a successful political nationalism and, therefore, a peaceful transition to a free ethnic destiny (to which the economic and trade elements in the Leave platform refer) and secure life (to which the elements of border control and immigration refer).

Everything in the Leave platform matters to nationalists, civic or economic in kind though much of it is. In one respect or another it all opens to our politics and, therefore, to the liberation of the natural Man from the other, abusive and anti-human models. Nothing is outside the swing of the metapolitical pendulum, and the declaration for Brexit victory in fourteen days time will signal its maximum point of travel away from us and the beginning of its return. It is a wonderful thing.

Tags: British Politics, European Nationalism, European Union, Global Elitism, Political analysis

Comments:

Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:37 | #

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2016/apr/26/anti-brexit-posters-wolfgang-tillmans-eu-referendum

Excellent piece, Guessedworker, particulary the metapolitics part.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:17 | #

Thanks Mick. Oh, the irony of that right-hand poster in the Guardian link: “What is lost is lost forever.” Well yes, but the EU? These are the kind of internationalist idiots who cannot even bring themselves to admit that there is native people in these isles. “Lost forever” could only ever refer to a post-national, post-racial utopia!

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 11 Jun 2016 09:10 | #

Very nice piece GW. I’ve always been against the EU and I am all for the Brexit.

I do believe that when the context of this sentence is considered, however, that “liberalism” is the word that should be there and not “left.”

But the eternally fratricidal left never loses a chance to attack its most bitter and hated rival.

The left and liberalism are contradictions of terms. A left, as a true term, is a social union that includes members and excludes non-members. Thus, a union, as an exclusionary unit, is the opposite of liberalism.

Liberalism, by contrast, is an openness to include peoples and ways from without; and in motivation to not want its pretexts and experiments troubled by accountability, can even be inclined to muddle the very idea of an accountable union by encouraging the merging with people and taking on ways from without.

A union comprised of native British would be duty bound to loyalty to any native Brit who maintains that union.

How to counter free riding, incompetence and genetic dregs is a minor problem compared to the complete dissolution that a people are prone to without such accountability. With assertion of the union, these become mere logical problems.

It is the eternal treachery and will to disregard accountability to social, relational unionization (same thing), that never loses a chance to attack its most bitter rival - social justice, relational accountability in reconstructing the social capital of its people through unionization - that allows for liberal runaway and its exploitation.

This is not therefore to be construed as a “stay endorsement”, of course. As the “European Union” is not a European union at all - it is a porous, scabbed to death by non-Europeans, misnomer, that runs rough shod over the subsidiary unions that are the member states.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:00 | #

Daniel,

Perhaps I am too given to the theoretical and not enough to practice, but “left”, as a taxonomy, has little-to-no specifically nationalist application for me, and neither does “right”. However, the definitely nationalist question of relation and individualism does. It is itself a question of relation, and it is understanding that which I find much more pre-occupying than trying to fit our ideas within the standard terminologies. Relation exists regardless of, say, modernism’s many alienations. Likewise individualism exists regardless of, say, liberalism’s disgorging advocacy of the self-authored individual. Part of the reason that MacDonald (and, perhaps, psychology generally) seems to have concluded for conflict between European man’s individualism and altruism is the assumption that these are, in fact, levelled terms. They are not really such. They do not even level as self-interest and group interest because of that question of an inter-twining and, I would argue, coherent relation. All this needs teasing out.

“Relation” and “union” are not the same. If there is relation within a normal circumstance, in which consciousness and self-hood cohere, then that is enough. “Union” only applies in the non-normal context of, say, liberalism, modernity, Christianity, etc.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:19 | #

It is crucial to counter the Jewish confounding of European social organization that has happened as a result of getting European peoples to react to a misrepresentation of “the left” as liberalism.

It is not a trivial matter.

Every bit as much as they disrupt genetic unionization of Europeans by demonizing it as “racism” - which they call “the far right” - they disrupt accountability and get European peoples to shy away from or even be repulsed by unionization of European genetic capital through didactic misrepresentation of the term left - by activist means wielding quite its opposite: liberalism as “the left.”

Relation and union are different, yes - but not a contradiction of interests. Unionization of relations would be their conscious and deliberate (de-liberate) guarding - including but beyond close personal relations, in the protracted sense necessary to maintain a nation.

A nativist European nationalist union would only be against fraternal others if they are traitors - in the case of elite traitors, that would be the purpose of revolution - but a revolution is not a White Left’s raison d’être - it is not for the sake of attacking Whites, leveling their excellence or reward, let alone because they are native Whites or for the liberalization of nativist bounds; but to remove those who are treacherous and not accountable to what is in fact the White nativist nationalist raison d’être - unionized defense of our genetic capital.

Posted by last minute disappointment team England/Mulatto on Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:58 | #

Russia scored a last minute goal against England for a tie, 1-1. And isn’t that karma for an England team sporting blacks, mulattoes et al? Ethnonationalists route for their own and are not concerned for mercenary teams.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Jun 2016 21:04 | #

Actually, I was hoping for a some good group victories to whip up a bit of prolish patriotic sentiment. Rather useful for the 23rd June.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 02:46 | #

prolish patriotic sentiment

One wonders when the English will get around to having a national referendum on whether they are to have any balls.

Apparently these Irish youth have already resolved that question for themselves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9Z0NbQwM

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:16 | #

CC,

After the first round of the election for the Austrian president I had to inform Carolyn Yeager that her excitement over the prospect of little Austria leading the European world back to Hitlerism was somewhat over-wrought; and that the first big European stride is, in fact, not in a Hitlerian direction at all, and is being taken in Britain.

Now, whether you like it or not we nationalists are beggars not choosers ... subversives and grateful opportunists, not dominant power-players. The opportunity we will have before us over the coming years will be there solely because some civic-type Brits with an annoyingly pee-cee attitude towards race, and no obvious comprehension of the replacement crisis, nonetheless have struck a blow against globalism and internationalism, and the elitism associated with both. As a highly intelligent white man you must understand that we could not have done this ourselves. Don’t rubbish it. Use it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36504890

Posted by Sweden warns Brexit could end EU on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:23 | #

Sweden warns that Brexit could spell the end of the E.U.

Posted by abandon ship! on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:56 | #

Posted by Ryan on Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:02 | #

Acknowledge this is not related to the article but the Euro 2016 Riots are getting very little coverage in the Alt-Media, espically Whit

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/06/11/breaking-news-ukrainian-pravy-sektor-nazis-attack-england-fans-in-marseille/

Look at the joint flag UK and Ukrainian flag on the below image. The UK flag has a Ukrainian Nationalist symbol superimposed onto it.

https://twitter.com/theawayfans/status/742039770935746560

Look at the Balclava on the left. Is this not the same font which Pravy Sektor uses? Would be surprising if a Russian would done this:

Why do all the ‘Russians’ have Waist Bags (Bum Bags)? Is this normal attire for ordinary football supporters?

The text on the Grey T-Shirts reads “Music Hall St Petersberg”. ‘Music Hall’ is a St Petersberg Football Hooligan group. However why would he be wearing an English text version of it rather than a Russian one?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:02 | #

Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun, the biggest selling daily in the country, is declaring for Leave. Hard copy:

Website:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1277920/we-urge-our-readers-to-believe-in-britain-and-vote-to-leave-the-eu-in-referendum-on-june-23/

The efficacy of the hapless Gordon Brown, who was re-focusing and re-launching the Labour Party’s Remain campaign today, is open to question. But The Sun endorsement, bringing it in line with the Daily Express, is a real coup for the Leave campaign, and a firm indication that it is Leave which will emerge the victor. Murdoch doesn’t get these things wrong.

Posted by Brussels Mulatto clowns on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:10 | #

Why do you want to exit from Brussels influence?

The craziness of the Belgian football team is illustrative.

They look like a circus of Mulatto clowns and savages…

Now that Italy has gotten rid of Balotelli, their starting team is looking particularly good by contrast..

Posted by Bill on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:18 | #

The Brexit referendum was always going to be about immigration. For the first time since immigration began 60 years ago this is the first opportunity for the British people to register their true feelings.

I must admit the dramatic surge by the exiteers has taken me by surprise. Why is this? Why has the situation changed so rapidly? Is it mainly because the dam of political correctness has shown signs of weakening, no longer is someone who is concerned about immigration denounced as a knuckle dragging racist.

Only the other day I was gobsmacked when I first saw on the front page of the Sun newspaper the term white. (Which in itself was an eye opener). The word white was used in the context of a comment regarding the BBC, where the Sun journalist accused the BBC of being anti-white. I had to look more than twice to be sure I wasn’t seeing things, jeeze what the hell’s going on here? Ever since New labour the Sun jumped on the bandwagon and anyone perceived as being concerned about immigration was given the racist treatment and yet, today, the Sun newspaper has put it’s weight behind the outers - giving them their support escorting them to the exit door.

I ask again, what’s going on? I’ve noticed in recent weeks the mainstream press authoring front page coverage that I myself could have written. Something is definitely up, I don’t know what it is but bits of the left’s juggernaut are falling off everywhere. Could it be the British electorate, having for the first time, a clear run at giving voice to their 60 years of simmering resentment against their ruling class? Only recently I saw in the printed press how the BBC was being praised for acting even handedly in the debate.

Alternately, could the reason for all this faux conciliation be because the left know they have done enough, so just sit back and watch it’s handiwork to it’s natural conclusion. Whatever that will be?

Whatever which-way, it’s never going to be the same again. Will it be a NWO?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01 | #

Always remember, Bill, those who have power over the politics and discourse have had to work against the grain of the crooked timber. For that reason, and only for that reason, we have had to endure the hard-left’s attachments to social perversity and all the associated emotional violence. The hard-left function as janissaries for the political and corporate elites - that is the extent of the latter’s attachment to neo-Marxism. It is not ideological for them.

We should also remember that globalism, internationalism, and neoliberalism, to which the elites are firmly attached, are still only ideas. We tend to look at the facts on the ground the elite class has created ... the political structures, the dissolution of the European nation state and of democracy in Europe, population change, debtification, hyper-equalitarianism, etc ... and miss the fact that this is also a struggle of ideas, and people can always find reasons to move away from the prevailing ideology. Such reasons never go away - as attested by the evolution of communist power in the Soviet Union and the east.

We are in a moment of flux, when the elites’ ambitions, methods, and effects are open to critique and challenge. Brexit is a Berlin Wall moment.

Posted by get the party started on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:44 | #

Get the party started

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:46 | #

The Brexit will be a blow against a key elite/liberal project - the awful EU. It’s wonderful to, hopefully, see the English people awake from their slumber. Years of being ignored by the ‘extreme centre’ - the dismissal liberal consensus - people’s anger has found a focus. Good. Over at the Guardian even the comments sections are generally pro-leave - much of the sentiment being that if the Labour party really cared about working people they wouldn’t be on the side of their wages being undercut, scab labour from hellholes like Romania coming in unlimited numbers, and in so many ways the quality of life in the UK going to shit in double quick time etc., then they would be for Brexit.

Also rather interestingly it seems that the usual ‘magic words’ (racist/xenophobe/bigot/ignorant proles etc.) will no longer work. How or why lining up with Goldman Sachs is the “progressive” option is beyond me. Incidentally in my conversations with fellow Scottish nationalists many of them agree that the SNP leadership are utterly incoherent on the EU issue - sadly quite a few can only acknowledge the contradictions with denial or an indecent silence. That’s a battle for another day.

So what are the Guardian class left with - insults, lies and smears and bewilderment that the plebs will not listen to their “reason”. You can sense the fear amongst this strata of the cosmopolitan elite.

There is a good video on the Guardian’s site (under the Anywhere but Westminister series) in which John Harris goes out to meet the “plebs” of provincial Britain. He is in Stoke talking to Labour voters - to a person they are for leave and the bovine local Labour MP has no answers as to why and no-one is listening to her shill for JP Morgan. What it reminds me of is how the Labour party was destroyed in Scotland - years of arrogance and ignoring the concerns of ordinary folk. And eventually people find an alternative political vehicle for their concerns.

UKIP should really build on the simple idea that it’s not about left or right but about what’s right and wrong. Let’s hope that if Brexit occurs that within England the Tories and the Labour party are fundamentally crippled by being on the wrong side of the decision.

Video link is here - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/jun/14/labour-supporters-brexit-stoke-on-trent-eu-referendum-video

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:49 | #

Oh and I hope Wales stuffs England on Thursday - I’m not going soft in the head

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:58 | #

Example of a typical comment under that Guardian video:

“Time for all the EU lovers to get their EU passports up to date and bugger off there on June 23rd. If we are so backward and the EU so progressive then you will be ecstatic to go there. Take your pick - Poland, Bulgaria, Romania etc. I’m sure you will get a warm welcome there with plenty of benefits and non-racist natives to welcome you. Take care.”

Posted by brexit debate on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:13 | #

There is little danger that any accusations of racism will stick. The brexit debate is largely framed in anti-German terms (“Fourth Reich” etc.) and there is a consensus in Britain that you can be as nasty towards Germans as you whish, it’s never racist.

Similarly, it is ok to complain about white Polish plumbers. Dr. Khan in the voting booth next to you agrees with you that they need to go.

Posted by Russian team facing sanctions for hooliganism on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:25 | #

Guardian, “Russia handed suspended Euro 2016 disqualification and lash out at England”, 14 June 2016:

Russia will be disqualified from Euro 2016 if there is a repeat of the crowd trouble seen at the Stade Vélodrome that marred their opening match with England in Marseille, Uefa has ruled. However the Russian striker Artem Dzyuba immediately responded that the English fans were no angels and equally to blame.

Dzyuba also criticised the British media for its coverage of the incidents in Marseille, claiming it was politically motivated and aimed at stripping Russia of its hosting rights for the 2018 World Cup.

Russia’s coach, Leonid Slutsky, also criticised the “unethical” behaviour of England fans and said it was unfair to only blame the Russians. He said: “We do not know what happened on the streets, of course, but when the Russian national anthem was played and all the people were shouting, the English supporters, this was something not ethical at all. And all the gestures we received when we were on our bus on the way to the stadium from all these English supporters.

Guardian, “Euro 2016: Russia rolls back support of violence as deportation process begins”, 14 June 2016:

On Tuesday, there was something of a rollback of Russian official support for the fan violence that has dogged the early days of Euro 2016. A day previously, the MP Igor Lebedev, who sits on the executive board of the Russian football union, said he saw nothing wrong with the scenes: “Quite the opposite lads, keep it up!” The top law enforcement official Vladimir Markin said the fans were “real men” and Europe had become too used to gay parades to recognise them as such.

On Tuesday, with the threat of disqualification from the tournament looming, Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, said he could not agree with Lebedev and Markin, adding: “I don’t agree with the statements from my colleagues and they don’t reflect the official point of view in any way.”

Posted by Iceland ties Portugal 1 - 1 on Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:33 | #

Iceland ties Mulatto, er, Portugal 1-1.

Cristiano Ronaldo’s Twitter followers: 43,100,000. Iceland’s population: 330,000

And the steady stream of replacements players were all black or mulatto.

Posted by English football fans grow restless on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:15 | #

BBC, “Euro 2016 violence: Police arrest 36 amid Lille disorder involving England fans”, 16 June 2016:

At least 36 people have been arrested in Lille following clashes between French police and football fans at the Euro 2016 tournament.

French police said the arrests had been made throughout Wednesday - adding that 16 people had been taken to hospital.

On Wednesday night, riot police used tear gas and charged at hundreds of England fans, as flares were set off.

Uefa this week threatened to disqualify England, - who play Wales later - from Euro 2016 if there was more violence.

Posted by Jacob Rothschild against Brexit on Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:49 | #

I.e., more clear evidence to be in favor of it..

The Times, “All the evidence shows that Brexit would be a disaster”, 15 June 2016:

- Jacob Rothschild

We shouldn’t accept a diminished role on the world stage

Success stories in any field are built on one great idea. This was certainly the case with my forebear Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who at the end of the 18th century sent his five sons to the five financial capitals of Europe to set up the first truly international banking system, a “common market”. Operating from London, Paris, Vienna, Naples and Frankfurt, the brothers, working together to exchange information and ideas, built an extraordinary business that operated across boundaries and cultures.

A hundred and fifty years later, the foundation of the EEC operated on similar principles, namely that we are stronger

Posted by non-Whites poll 2-1 for remain on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:43 | #

After polls revealed that non-natives who could vote on Brexit were 2-1 in favor of leave while native Brits were 50-50 channel 4 interviewed the diverse people of Leicester.

non-Whites heavily favoring their own interests - 2-1 - while native Europeans are 50-50 - is typical of the problem of our objectivism versus their assertive self interest.

Posted by Greg Johnson on Brexit on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:16 | #

Greg Johnson talk to Millennial Woes about Brexit.

Posted by Joyce shows utility of "liberal" vs "left" on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:03 | #

Andrew Joyce demonstrates that as oppose to “the left”, the more descriptive and useful term for what our enemies are prescribing for us - viz. liberalism - can be used with perfect coherence. He even alludes to the profound significance of it by article’s end… “liberalism” as the prescription of the enemy as opposed to “leftism” being our problem is likened to an issue way down in the engine-room of the ship…..it is like a gear being controlled by YKW way down in the engine-room.. a very fundamental change in bias needs to occur on that level for the sake our racial solidarity and defense.

We had previously observed Tobias Langdon (at TOO) making this transformation and now Joyce doing it too - a very good move.

TOO, “On Recent Violence in Yorkshire and Orlando, and the Liberal “Suspension of Disbelief,” 21 June 2016:

“The blindness of the masses, their readiness to surrender to that resounding but empty eloquence that fills the public squares, make them an easy prey. … We will have no difficulty in finding as much eloquence among our people for the expression of false sentiments as Christians find in their sincerity and enthusiasm.”

‘The Rabbi’s Speech’ Hermann Goedsche, Biarritz (1868)

I’ve never really enjoyed horror movies. I don’t mind the gore, the violence, or even the bad acting. What I can’t forgive is the mind-numbing predictability that typifies the genre. While many of its fans might preach about the fun to be had with the ‘suspension of disbelief,’ I’ve often been the annoying fellow in the movie theatre asking “Why don’t they just turn on the light/leave the house/stay out of the basement?” Being frightened or shocked requires a lowered level of anticipation, and a lowered level of anticipation requires the viewer to ignore surrounding patterns, cues and clues and, above all, to ‘suspend disbelief.’ To partake in the horror experience, we need to set aside not only our tendency to perceive an unfolding formula, but also the fact that we may have seen such a formula many times previously. And although we are aware that what we are observing is a complete fiction, we must undertake efforts on a subconscious or conscious level to convince ourselves that it is, or could be, true.

As a very rational thinker with an eye for patterns, I find it difficult to partake in the horror experience. It takes a lot to shock me and, for much the same reason, I was left largely untroubled by the recent events in Orlando and Yorkshire. I certainly didn’t feel any sense of surprise at either instance of violence. Like every horror franchise that runs for too long, acts of Muslim terror on our soil started losing their shock value around a decade ago (or at least they should have). And England has been undergoing such a level of dispossession, murder and child rape that a violent response, even from the fringes of White society, was an unfortunate inevitability. Since our movement is greatly concerned with monitoring the facts and the reality of our unfolding racial horror, we anticipated these ‘scares’ with no less certainty than we anticipated the rising of the sun. We knew the likely places from which these events would emanate, and we know that more will follow.

[...]

Barack Obama described shocked communities “grasping for answers with broken hearts.” Meanwhile, in an astonishing piece of emotional projection by liberals, NBC reported that Afghan-Americans (an absurd label) are “grappling with shock, shame and the taboo topics of homophobia and religious intolerance in their community.”

[...]

...shocked liberals of the NBC variety are comforting themselves with the delusion that Muslims are just as shocked and horrified as they are.

Self-deceiving liberals have achieved one of their greatest tricks of journalistic magic by ensuring the disappearance of religion and ethnicity from their commentary on Islamic violence.

[....]

Liberal sociologist, and self-styled expert on ‘guns and gender,’ Jennifer Carlson has written in the Washington Post that

Actor, activist and author George Takei has described the fight for gun control as “the next chapter of LGBT history.”

[...]

By offering their support for mass immigration, and thus the introduction of such a social problem into our nations, liberals have played a key role in making our societies more violent, less trusting, and economically weaker — all while under the delusion that they were making “the world” a better place.

[...]

In much the same way, our modern liberals exist in a world in which they have suspended disbelief in the ideological fantasies they have been indoctrinated with. Their ideology thus becomes immune to reality. The young creatives in our movement have actually popularized a very intelligent meme ridiculing this pernicious liberal trait: “No-one could have predicted that…” One could then complete the sentence with something like “…Black African migrants would do poorly in school and be highly prone to crime,” or “…Arab migrants would rape European women” The meme highlights that these behaviors are actually very predictable while also pouring scathing sarcasm on the real or feigned shock of liberals when such events occur.

[...]

Liberals have neglected to fully interrogate their own arguments because their entire ideology is built on the suspension of disbelief. They are capable of persisting in their delusion only because they ignore the patterns around them, sacrificing an understanding of ‘the plot’ for an emotionally exciting journey on the edge of their seats. The left-liberal existence is lived out on the ‘fun’ of pro-immigration rallies, the thrill of being morally righteous, and the equally emotionally heightened atmosphere of the candle-lit vigils that accompany the ‘shocks’ and ‘scares’ of the dreadful world they have helped to create. Much like that of a young child, theirs is an emotive world where adrenaline, novelty and stimulation are the most significant landmarks. It is a world where Antifa placards mingle with crocodile tears, in which ‘love’ can overcome physical realities and genetic limitations, in which pop concerts can reverse famines, and in which the only enemy is that amorphous but ever-present ideological bogeyman — ‘hate.’

The husband of Jo Cox has apparently urged everyone “to fight against the hate that killed her.” As far as soundbites go, few could be more attuned to the irrational spirit of modern liberalism. Liberalism, wallowing in the conceit that it is the last bastion of rationality, paradoxically imbues ‘hate’ with the same supernatural aura once reserved for poltergeists and demons. Mr Cox and his fellow liberals would do well to remember that ‘hate’ did not kill Jo Cox any more than it killed anyone at the Pulse nightclub. Men undertook these grim endeavors — human beings with social and ethnic connections and identities, grievances, agendas and interests. However, like a horror bogeyman, ‘hate’ is significantly less intellectually demanding and thus more appealing to ‘the scriptwriters’ who believe it is best not to have the audience think too much. Faced with ‘hate’ rather than three-dimensional individuals and ethnic groups, the childish liberal need not attempt to understand its history, its motivations, or even what it wants. It suffices to simply scream when it pops up.

[...]

We certainly weren’t informed by our liberal moral superiors that our failure to provide financial benefits as well as living space to these settlers would result in destruction, violence, and murder on our streets. Instead, chattering liberals claimed ‘shock’ that the new houses didn’t build themselves, that an incoherent thug represented a poor option for employment in an industrial nation, and that their beloved refugees brought with them vice, crime, disease and more than enough of their own home-grown prejudices.

Just as viewers of horror movies can be kept on the edge of their seats, so can they also be deeply misled. Although they may still be spooked along the way, viewers can possess a smug satisfaction that they have the plot figured out entirely, ignorant of the final twist that ultimately looms on the horizon. In the same way, and in marked contrast to responses to events in Orlando, liberals have adopted a smug and self-satisfied approach to the assassination of Jo Cox in Yorkshire.

[...]

I await the advent of a single piece of journalism suggesting that the violence of Thomas Mair was linked to economic deprivation, social isolation, or any other excuses that would have been tenderly laid at his feet had he possessed a little more melanin.

Note that we did do that here, suggesting that aversion to the socializing classification (White Left) and acceptance of of rightist identity ascribed by Jews, creates alienated, deprived individuals, such as Mair, feeling as if they have no social recourse.

With smug satisfaction, the left comforts itself with the delusion that Mair was possessed by ‘hate’ in the same way that one might be possessed by a devil, an abstraction we need not struggle too hard to understand. The only effort that need be expended is that “we as a society” should continue with the rallies, protests and processes that constitute the modern equivalent of a social exorcism. Our liberal priests will continue to wave their rainbow flags and sprinkle the holy water of ‘tolerance’ in an effort to drive out their wholly imagined devil.

[...]

While liberals continue to insist that the rhetoric of Donald Trump is contributing to a coarsening of the democratic process and thus a more violent political atmosphere, it is clear that it is actually the deeply erratic, fanatical and irrational nature of the left that is contributing most heavily to the destabilization of our societies. Immigration and the weakening of social norms, the two biggest liberal cause célèbres, have been utterly catastrophic to the high-trust and relatively peaceful societies that prevailed in the West in earlier periods. The emotive and adrenaline-seeking Left is taking the rest of society on a violent rollercoaster that threatens to derail at any given moment. While death, rape and abuse surround us, the scriptwriters are working overtime to keep the audience guessing. Much like someone commenting on the pleasantness of the journey while clinging to the sinking Titanic, last year Michael Cohen wrote that the West was becoming “freer, more generous, more cognizant of its past and more progressive than it was before.” This was in the context of historic flags being torn down, homosexuals being allowed to marry, and Islamist shootings across Europe and America. Cohen’s lies, and his barely concealed joy at our unfolding catastrophe, will of course go unnoticed by the majority in ‘the audience.’

As the audience gets played by those controlling the narrative, the rest of us, those aware of the simplicity of the plot, are reduced to offering ‘spoilers.’ We know that the West has a problem with the bogeyman of Islamic terror for two main reasons. The first is that we pursued disastrous foreign policy goals in Muslim lands. These interventions benefitted no-one but a self-interested international clique that has successfully confused our aspirations with its own. The second reason is that we have actively or passively permitted the influx of millions of Muslims into our homelands, and not without the involvement of the aforementioned clique. The first reason reignited ancient hatreds that had been cooled for centuries. The second brought these hatreds within our gates. Such is the origin of our Islamic horror story.

Just as the plot is simple, our ‘turn the light on’ moment is also very straightforward. There are really only two steps which must be taken if we are to solve the immediate Islamic problem. The first is to cease involvement in lands that are not ours, and never have been. We would do much better as a people to focus instead on addressing our own internal civilizational crisis, and leave those in more primitive stages of social development to wallow in the mire of their own creation. The second is to rapidly and conclusively reverse the Islamic colonization of our ancient, rightful, and hard-won homes. In order to achieve this, multiculturalism — the engine-room of the Islamic colonization, the camouflage for Islamic terror, and the progenitor of a multitude of societal dysfunctions — must be dismantled, disgraced and discarded forever. Its theorists, facilitators, and supporters should be permanently exiled.

Only when this is accomplished will the horrors enveloping our nations come to an end.

Way down, in the engine-room, is a giant cog which the Jews have been in control of - with its direction, they have been designation our enemies “the left”, thus diverting our people from the humane and moral act of unionizing in our advocative defense, while prescribing its opposite - liberalism - the disintigrative, individualistic propensity to rupture group solidarity.

And because White people have been confused by having this liberalizing action called “the left”, they have been put off from their necessary participatory, unionizing action and indeed: the coherence of group interests and its accountability that will allow for the willing suspension of disbelief necessary for cooperation, coordination, agency and the operationally verifiable warrant of our human ecology.

[...]

Posted by David Cameron submitts resignation on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:41 | #

DAILYKENN.com—Britons celebrate their first Independence Day

In spite of the nation being invaded by Islamic hordes, enough sane Britons remain in the United Kingdom to edge out a victory in the Brexit campaign; a national referendum to leave the European Union (EU).

51.89% of Britons voted to leave the EU. 48.11% voted to stay in the EU.

Prime Minister David Cameron submitted his resignation effective in October and Nigel Farage suggested a national holiday to celebrate the historic referendum.

Farage called for the end to the European Union stressing that sovereign nations can work together.

While patriots in Britain celebrated the nation’s first Independence Day, the liberal media declared it “black Friday” and emphasized short term reactions by the stock market and a temporary drop in the British pound.

[...]

David Cameron, seemed dumbfounded that his betrayal of British culture was resisted by so many ethnic Britons.

The vote to leave the European Union is expected to force a decline in the invasion of Muslim posing as ‘refugees,’ and a possible reversal of the subsequent erosion of British culture.

Britain’s success may encourage other European nations to leave the EU.

The Guardian published photos of Briton in despair; some with their heads bowed in depression and others with their hands over their faces. The Guardian declared Britain “divided,” ignoring the fact that the Islamic invasion of the nation was the cause of the division.

Posted by Reaction from European leaders on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:19 | #

Reaction to Brexit from European leaders..

European leaders expressed shock at a Brexit result that represents the biggest setback in the EU’s history and will plunge the bloc into an era of uncertainty and crisis.

Donald Tusk, European Council president, said the remaining member states now had to pull together to deal with the reality of an EU without Britain. “We are determined to keep our unity as 27,” he said. “For all of us, the union is the framework for our common future.”

But there was no concealing the sense of alarm spreading through the EU’s political elite. Brexit was a “political earthquake for Europe”, said Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian foreign minister.

Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s deputy chancellor, reaction was more terse: “Damn! A bad day for Europe,” he tweeted.

Britain’s departure will deprive the EU of one of its largest member countries, a state with a UN Security Council veto which accounts for about a sixth of the bloc’s total economic output.

It will also send the EU into years of soul-searching as it scrambles to deal with the implications of the Brexit vote — the starkest rejection of the union since the European integration project was founded in 1958.

“The nightmare scenario came true,” said Gianni Pittella, leader of the European Parliament’s Socialist and Democrats group, the main centre-left group in the assembly that includes UK Labour: He said pro-EU forces “must relaunch the EU integration process”.

But others said the vote highlighted the urgent need to reform a bloc that had lost its connection to voters.

“We must change the EU to make it more humane and just,” said Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minister.

His Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban said the outcome of the vote represented a popular rejection of mass migration by a British public in search of control over its future.

“Britons were seeking an answer to how they can resist modern-day migration,” he told state-run Kossuth Radio. “About how they can resist immigration, migrants, how they can continue to keep their own lives in their own hands.”

Czech Europe minister Tomas Prouza said Brexit marked a turning point: “Today is the end of the European Union as we know it. It is not the end of the EU, but a new beginning.”

The referendum outcome was a sign that the EU is “no longer popular in Europe” and that the “shape” of the bloc should change, Poland’s foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski said.

There were fears that the vote could give a boost to Eurosceptic sentiment and trigger calls for referendums on EU membership across the continent.

“A victory for liberty!” tweeted Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front. “As I have demanded for years, we have to have the same referendum in France and all the EU countries.”

“The Europhile elite has been defeated,” said Holland’s Freedom party. “Britain points Europe the way to the future and to liberation.”

Geert Wilders, the party’s leader, said the Netherlands should now hold its own “Nexit” vote. “We want to be in charge of our own country, our own money, our own borders, and our own immigration policy,” he said.

Brexit: the world’s most complex divorce begins

UK talks with the EU will take up to a decade and could enter “a legal and political no man’s land”

There was schadenfreude in Russia, where pro-Kremlin politicians described the Brexit vote as an indictment of the EU.

“Europe’s greatest integrationist project, its obvious achievements aside, has yet to solve its main problem: to become appealing and accessible to the broader masses of the population,” said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament.

There were also calls for a tough approach to the UK as it negotiates exit from the EU.

In Brussels, the head of the European Parliament’s largest party the European People’s party Manfred Weber was particularly blunt, saying Britain should not receive any special treatment.

“There will be no cherry-picking whatsoever,” he said. At the end of the two-year negotiation process, “the UK will be a third country like any other”.

On a similar note, the head of Germany’s influential banking association Hans-Walter Peters urged the EU to make it clear to Britain that leaving “had a high price”.

He said years of negotiations would be “poison” for the stability of the EU and said it was important to “keep the phase of uncertainty for the economy as short as possible”.

Udo Bullmann, leader of the German social democrats in the European Parliament, predicted that the British would bitterly regret their decision to leave the EU. “Europe will be weakened by Brexit, but the citizens in Great Britain will have the heaviest burden to bear,” he said.

He warned the average British household would lose “thousands of pounds a year” through losing access to the EU internal market and that maintaining zero-tariff privileges was “simply not imaginable”.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments