The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 1

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 15:53.

The other day I received an email from a reader who expressed the same vexing disbelief felt by all of us, I would say, about the role of “the Establishment” in this vast and viscerally offensive phenomenon that has become known euphemistically as Moslem Grooming.

Steve S, I shall call him, asked how, “given the length of time, the quantity of the victims, and narrow demographics of the perpetrators and the horrific nature of the crime” there could have been literally no Establishment response, beyond an implacable will to look away.

Well, Steve, the time period over which the crime has been around is well over 25 years.  Back in 1988 there had been an uproar among Sikhs in Birmingham when girls from their community were targeted by Moslem men.  Then, when news of the first Rochdale trial finally broke into the press (that is, when the press was forced to report it), a retired police officer came forward to report that as long ago as the early 90s he personally was ordered not to investigate victims’ complaints.  Because of the “grooming” nature of the offence, involving supposed boyfriends, drugs, alcohol, and other forms of bribing the girls, it is likely to have been initiated by Mirpuris of the second or later generations. It could have been going on thirty or even forty years ago.  However, it is not limited to Mirpuri or even Pakistani Moslems today.  The BNP has reported that in Wrexham, for example, the offenders are Iraqi.

Given the uncertainty of the time-scale, the quantity of victims is, of course, impossible to assess with any degree of certainty.  The latest assessment for Rotherham is that there have been around 2,000 victims there alone.  But Rotherham, it has been said, is dwarfed by events in Manchester and Sheffield.  There has been talk of “the tip of the iceberg”.  There have been over fifty cases brought to court so far – few of them reported nationally.  The other day I saw someone use an estimate of 130,000 victims from day one – whenever that might have been - and that could be the right sort of scale.  We just don’t know.

The other thing is the nature of the crimes and the weakness and vulnerability of the victims.  At least one girl was murdered (Charlene Downes in Blackpool, just 14, her body never found, her flesh, it was alleged by police, rendered for burgers).  There was a suicide in Rotherham.  We don’t know how many others there have been elsewhere.  The two official reports into Rotherham and the evidence of the various trials around the country have produced some distressing accounts of what these girls went through.  One girl was raped with a broken bottle.  Another was branded with a hot hairpin.  Another had her tongue nailed to a table.  Another who became pregnant, as many did, was subjected to a crude amateur abortion and almost died.  Another innocent was made to believe she was going to be beheaded.  Another was doused in petrol and threatened with a lighter.  Others were threatened with fire-bombing of the family home.  There were innumerable cases of family members threatened with violence.

And then there was the rapes.  These girls - some as young as eleven, maybe even ten, and many in council care - were (and are) handed around like sweets to older men, frequently relatives of the “boyfriends”.  An unknown number of girls were (and are) sexually enslaved, trafficked and prostituted on the basis that they are young, white, and fresh.  The going rate could be up to £200 a time, apparently.  To put that into context, on average an adult female prostitute in a British city “entertains” her clients for £60.  In 2001, a police investigation in Kieghley found a 13-year-old girl who had had more than a hundred Asian sexual partners.  Social Services in the town were dealing with seventy separate complaints by girls.  But these were children and this was (and is) paedophile rape – in our culture and justice system one of the most serious of all crimes.  Yet the nett result … the Establishment response … was to actively cover up the whole ghastly business – even to the extent of filleting social services files in Rotherham.  But it was the same culture of deliberate and determined neglect, even complicity, everywhere.  The Keighley MP at the time, the redoubtable Ann Cryer, who was alone among MPs in acting with some honour on the matter, said herself that, “It wasn’t an easy subject to approach. It could give a way of attacking the Asian community. But I was horrified. People said this had been going on for years.”

Cryer was subsequently cold-shouldered by her fellow Labour MPs at Westminster.

The official culture of omerta was briefly challenged on 22nd August 2003 by the Channel 4 documentary Edge of the City, which reported from Cryer’s Kieghley constituency.  At this time Nick Griffin had already presented West Yorkshire police with a dossier of evidence gathered by BNP activists (I believe as early as 2001).  On 15th July 2004 the BBC documentary The Secret Agent was broadcast, showing covertly recorded speeches by Griffin and Mark Collett to a party gathering at the Reservoir Tavern, Kieghley the previous January.  On 14th December 2004 Griffin and Collett found themselves under arrest and charged with “using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred”.  The Crown Prosecution Service went to trial twice at Leeds Crown Court to try to put them away.  The jury acquitted them at the second time of asking.  They were free men.

But nothing more would be heard of “Moslem Grooming” until Times journalist Andrew Norfolk broke ranks on 5th January 2011 with a nominally investigative piece titled, “Revealed: conspiracy of silence on UK sex gangs”.  It was not really a Times investigation as such.  In 2010 the Derby sex gang, a group of thirteen “mostly Pakistani” males, had been sent to trial for seventy-five offences involving twenty-six “mostly white” girls aged between twelve and eighteen years old.  Nine of the defendants were convicted of grooming and rape.  The police and the trial judge very “correctly” put away any suggestion that race played a part in the crimes.  It was admitted that Moslem Asian men had been disproportionately represented among offenders reported for child grooming. Of the fifty-six men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997 (when two Moslem Asian taxi drivers in Leeds were jailed for raping twenty young girls) fifty were from Moslem backgrounds.  But no conclusions were to be drawn.  After the Derby trial, Peter Davies, the head of Child Exploitation and Online Protection, was quick to tell the world that “looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours.”  Neither he nor anyone else in the state machine could be accused of doing that.

But the Derby trial gave Norfolk at the Times the storyline and the statistics he needed.  His article was widely reported in the nationals and the broadcast media.  Something in the national mood, after all these years, had changed.  The racial toothpaste was out of the political tube – at least a little of it was - and because Norfolk had shone light not just on the offenders but on the police and social services, it couldn’t be put back as it had been in 2003/4.

The immediate result was fair media coverage of the Rochdale trial, which ended on 8th May 2012 with the conviction of eight Pakistanis and one Afghan asylum seeker on charges of rape, trafficking girls for sex, and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.  One defendant was cleared of all charges.  The jury could not agree on a verdict on another.  A third escaped justice by fleeing to Pakistan.

Among those who found the opportunity to speak to the media in the aftermath of the trial was Ann Cryer.  She told a BBC documentary film crew (shooting Quitting the English Defence League: when Tommy Robinson met Mo) that she had been “round at the police station virtually every week” to plead with the guardians of law and order to do something.  She had done the same with social services.  “But”, she said, “neither the police nor social services would touch those cases … I think it was they were afraid of being called racist.”

So we return to Steve’s question.  How could all those white people involved locally and nationally in all these towns and cities… perfectly intelligent and capable, trained professionals ... not sexual deviants, not criminals but otherwise decent men and women, and probably parents in most cases, every last one of them with the power to speak and act ... how could all those social workers, police officers, local councillors and MPs, legal professionals, church authorities, health professionals, Home Office managers, party leaders and managers, feminist campaigners, local and national journalists and media owners … how could they all quietly agree to turn their heads away from the suffering of these children?  What kind of person can do that?

Certainly, it isn’t a question much of the media has been willing to ask, in all the thousands of words that have been printed in the aftermath of “Rochdale 1”.  There has been some buck-passing, though.  The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland blamed it all, shamelessly, on the police (a line that I noticed leftist blog-commenters at the DT duly adopted for a time).  Nothing to do with Pee-Cee at all, you see.  The DT journalist Sean Thomas blamed the “racist demagogues” of the BNP, especially Nick Griffin.  “It was thanks in part to his thuggish intervention that society felt able to ignore the scandal.  And thus the abuse continued,” he wrote.

What has actually been continued, of course, has been the great multicultural project.  This is an “all costs” endeavour - this is really what it’s all about.  And if those costs are paid, in part, in the blood and pain of white children, well, that’s something which can’t be allowed to obstruct “progress” in multiracialising the English people’s land.  That priority is clear.  It is why James Brokenshire, Minister for Security and Immigration, rode straight to war against “the far right”.  “The ugly face of the far right,” he told some spurious anti-white conference in London, was a real danger to public safety and had the same aim as Islamist extremists of seeking to reshape society.

At least he made it clear who the real enemy is: outraged white men.  Of course!  Far be it from him or anyone else to address the cause of their righteous anger.

But Brokenshire was far from alone in getting it spectacularly, wilfully wrong.  Usual suspect Sue Berlowicz, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, produced a report for her Commission that was so offensive even government ministers had to turn their noses up at it.  She wrote:

What the evidence in this report has shown is that this issue is widespread and there is more than one type of perpetrator, model and approach to child sexual exploitation by gangs and groups.

… individuals classified as `White’ form the largest group of perpetrators in both gangs and groups. BME individuals, particularly those loosely recorded or reported as `Asian’, are the second largest category of perpetrators reported via the call for evidence. However, White British males were the only perpetrators identified in all site visits.

The facts, however, are that of 545 offenders in this category only 166 were white British, 415 were Asian, 266 were black, 49 were mixed-race.  The woman not only put “White British males” left, right, and centre, she quietly dropped Moslems from the charge sheet entirely.

Maggie Blyth, independent chairman of the Safeguarding Children Board, did better.  But not much.  She managed to address the role of the police, social and health services.  But she blamed only “systemic failings” and a “reluctance to condemn under-aged sex as wrong”.  Of course, it was just under-age sex.  Those bad, bad white girls.

Among the thinking classes of the left no one is more courted for his wise and illuminating pronouncements than the “Elvis of culture theory” Slavoj Žižek.  But he, too, walked round and round the problem in his search at the Guardian for “difficult questions”.  He managed just two paragraphs about Moslems out of thirteen, and none at all about the malign neglect of the authorities.  For him, this is all about the “different visions of how different cultures can and should co-exist”.  So right off the bat he is avoiding the only real question that is difficult for the liberal Establishment: why are 4-5 million Moslems (and counting) in England at all?  Not how, mind you – we know how they got here.  But why.  We have never been told that.

Let’s remind ourselves how easy it is to get this right.  On 27th August 2014 the DT carried a piece by the stirling Allison Pearson in the aftermath of Professor Alexis Jay’s report into the Rotherham scandal.  Amazingly, the thread was open and the top-rated comment is by 70sgirly:

Slavish adherence to political correctness distorted the decision-making ability in Rotherham, so much that it was “better” to allow 1400 vulnerable children to be raped and brutalised than for the council, the police or social services to be accused of “racism”.  And this is just one Northern town, like Rotherham, ditto Rochdale, Derby, Peterborough, Oxford etc, it’s almost unbelievable.

This cowardly sickness infests the establishment, our institutions and the MSM alike, with PC zealots salivating at imagined “thought crimes” and always ready to shout “racist!”.  This is a conditioned response they have learnt just like Pavlov’s Dogs, it’s a deeply sinister policy which has been deliberately implemented and enforced and it’s rotting Britain inside out ...

So if a DT commenter can come right out and say it, why can’t the “experts”?  Because, of course, they know they are guilty and they do not want to discuss it.  It takes a man with nothing to lose to admit what was going on.  Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham from 1994 to 2012, and recently released jailbird, came perilously close to honesty on the matter, telling the BBC’s World At One that “there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal-leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.”

As “a true Guardian reader and liberal-leftie” he would have been screaming his lying head off at Nick Griffin in 2001 and again in 2004, and freezing out Ann Cryer in between.  Those white men and women who wield power in this country at every level, and all their fellow-travellers, are in the grip of a vast pathology of Mind.  It is wantonly killing our people.  In part 2 of this essay I will endeavour to penetrate to the heart of that sickness, and provide reader Steve with a meaningful answer.



Posted by Morgoth on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:53 | #

The problem is there is no viable solution to the problem except separation. Unlike the terror attacks such as the Lee Rigby killing these rapes cannot be written off as a singular, or rare event that will fade out of the MSM given enough time. Neither can the establishment hold it in check with a huge amount of MI5, secret service funding and wire tapping.
I simply can’t see how the establishment can deal with it, they will try, there will be ‘‘outreach’’ waffle and little chat clubs with ‘‘community leaders’’ but we know it won’t work and so do the public.

We have long discussed ‘‘when will they wake up?’’ after an out rage but as I not above, the anger dies, this is not going to go away and what we are going to see is white families segregating themselves and those unfortunate to be stuck will simply fortify their families as much as possible.

I’m increasingly seeing the phrase ‘‘We can’t go on like this’‘.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:47 | #

What a truly dismal place the UK is. I have no doubt it is now the most morally corrupt society in Western Europe. And folks have the cheek to wonder why Scottish nationalists wanted out so badly back in September.

To give him his due Theodore Dalrymple was writing about the ‘culture’ of the UK authorities turning a blind eye to the statutory rape of children (under-age sex is the favoured euphemism) in his late 90s and early 2000s ‘City Journal’ column (but minus the obvious ‘ethnic’ issues).

It’s hard to put into words the loathing that this particular slice of ‘diversity’ brings about in my heart and mind, let alone for those that have allowed such developments to occur within the UK. Perhaps Michael Savage is right? Liberalism is a mental disorder and certainly diversity is perversity.

And yes I do know Dalrymple & Savage are members of ‘the tribe’.


Posted by Thorn on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:12 | #

You are so right, Graham.


Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:59 | #

Do you see, people, where Thorn is coming from?

That provides a clear example.

He is not only one who insists that Christianity have a platform here at MR, but that Jews ought to be treated as a part of our group advocacy.

As such, Thorn is fundamentally incompatible with advocacy of Europeans in our authentic, native patterns. Therefore, he is fundamentally incompatible with MR and that is why he was the first troll whose comments I deleted.. This comment I will leave as it makes the point clearly.

None of this even goes into how dogged and highly antagonistic he was to resistance of his being able to impose Christianity and Jews upon MR.


Posted by Bobby in Mexifornia on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:27 | #

The House of Cards will come tumbling down.

We can’t go on like this. The Establishment must go. Time to reclaim the realm.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 07:20 | #

I think this is rather pithy - A Word in the Ear of the Future-Seekers. — Modernity is not the bridge; it is the abyss.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 07:32 | #

Fine Persecution. — Every society has before it an ideal of the kind of society it ought to be, and every society, in order to uphold that ideal, needs to persecute those within it who are at odds with that ideal. Once again, however, the deep mendacity of liberalistic society manifests itself in that it denies the persecution which it carries out against its hated enemies, namely, those at odds with its ideal. This denial of the persecuted status of its enemies — along with the ridicule of them when they claim it — are additional elements for the intensifying of their persecution.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:00 | #

Specify, or Be Damned. — Individualism does not specify itself to be in keeping with any particular society, or even with the existence of society at all, but rather it addresses itself only to an unspecified individuality. Such unspecification about what an individual should be is precisely at the heart of individualism’s boast about its being the friend and not the foe of the individual’s freely seeking to be and to do whatever he chooses. “Do what thou wilt”, it says, whereto it may add the black-box phrase, “so long as it harms none”. Now, given a teaching which says that everyone may do as he pleases, irrespective of all truth, reason, goodness, morality, tradition, authority, obedience, bonds, and so forth, “so long as it harms none”, and which, by its boasted lights, does not specify the kind of society which should be upheld, or even that any should be upheld, how is it that anyone could then come to the belief that it might after all stand as a pillar of any society, let alone a particular one, rather than being, as in truth it is, the rot upon all? One might say that here we are at the brink of sheer madness, inbequeathed through many years of listening to silly tales. But leaving aside an understanding of the teaching itself, which might conceivably have taken any name, the very name which it does carry gives us a clue to its drift, namely, that it seeks to uphold the unspecified individual, and not any society, specified or unspecified.
There are no ends specific to man as man, rather than to what he shares with mere beasts, which can be reached outside of his fellowship with his kind. No speech nor reasoning, let alone higher arts and sciences, would arise if all men stood from the first outside of fellowship. Every man began as a helpless baby and would have died were it not for the society of his kith and kin. Every man was without speech, and would have remained speechless were it not for the same. Every man was without schooling, and would have stayed unschooled. And so on. No man was ever born into a so-called state of nature, as first imagined by Thomas Hobbes, even if this be helpful as a conceptual threshold for the understanding that the closer a society comes in breaking down towards that threshold, the more brutish it becomes. It is nevertheless a figment which has led to misunderstanding and mischief, and it is from it that individualism has grown. Man’s state of nature is the state of society. Man has never been in the so-called state of nature; for he is by nature a social animal and has always been in fellowship. Individualists, having thoughtlessly taken all social things for granted, and having for the most part imbibed unawares some old spirit of seventeenth-century philosophy, often speak as though they rose out of the ground and shaped themselves in isolation, wherein we glimpse also the drunken idea of self-creation born of Romanticism.

But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. [1]

The liberal concept of man as selfstanding being, free to set his own moral ends, is one of the biggest untruths ever told — and yet folk swallow it whole, whereat we might take it that they are greedy for something.
Individualism is an emptiness which blights the field of personhood, turning men, if they can still be called such, into mere units of the mass to be gathered up in the total state. Man is a social animal; society is required to actualise a man’s potential as a person. There are no pre-social individual persons. In the light of this, we may see individualism as some deeply primitive recrudescence, the tendency of which is to destroy the very conditions by which one can become a human person. A man cannot be a person without the fellowship, community, or society that made him. Unsocialised, man’s potencies are not activated, and he stays at a level close to a beast, bereft of speech and reason, let alone partaking of the higher arts and sciences.
Individualistic societies are decomposing social bodies in which kinship-ties are loosened and even cut, and which can be held together only by an all-pervasive and socially-alien bureau-technocratic power — the “coldest of all cold monsters”. In defence of these societies, and, by extension, willing or not, of this bureau-technocratic power, liberals, who sometimes call themselves libertarians, claim the greater freedom of these societies, where the largely unexamined and fuzzily-held concept “freedom” is a multivariate reference, unspecified of what, for what, and to what. In individualistic societies there is more freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, non-specific to mankind, hence the appeal of this freedom to the mass of baser men; and it is these appetites which dissolve kinship and personhood, bringing even greater demands for individualism, which brings greater freedom in the direction of baser and thrilling appetites, and so on, in a downward spiral. In individualistic societies, the freedom in personhood is much lowered, whilst the freedom in beasthood is heightened; and the bonds of kinship are cut whereby men would be men.
Liberals and libertarians, being the fiercest enemies of the freedom of personhood, and the strongest friends of the freedom of beasthood, that is to say, of the liberal haze-ideal of the “individual” whatever that individual may be, must be defeated if the freedom of the person as person is to be upheld. Liberalism, or rather its essential individualism, has a gut-feeling and a canny nose for the breaking-up of everything, even of the person, and it knows nothing of creation. The ideal of individualism can only belittle persons and bring to the fore a bulk of fittingly-blank individuals of the mass — fittingly blank for bearing the stamp of the bureau-technocratic regime.
The conformity that is forged today through the atomized individualism that strips men of their personhood has little to do with the collective identity for which men have always yearned. The conformity today is a stopgap and a takeover of this natural yearning. The atomised individual is stripped bare of his humanity — which has hitherto been actualised in society — and left adrift with his “freely-formed” and “-chosen” opinions, which are in truth nothing of the kind. He cannot think for himself, only of himself, because he is suffering a loss. He rebels against conformity in conformity with everyone else.

As the subversive mind is essentially individualistic and isolationistic, so is it essentially collectivistic and identitarian: on the view inherent in it, the curse of division and of being ‘set against one another’ cannot be surmounted except by a ‘fusion into one’; an actual identification of consciousness, of qualities and of interest. In fact, individualism (tending towards egalitarianism) prefigures collectivism from the outset, and again, collectivism is only individualism raised to the high power of an absolute monism centred in ‘all and every one’. [2]

Individualism foreshadows mass-collectivism and the herd of ersatz ‘individuals’. With authorities and societies broken down, nothing can stand in the way of pressing the individual units of alienated humanity, thitherto existing as persons, into a mass, each homogenised unit shaped to fit and imprinted with a set of political ideas and economic desires.
The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subjectivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom! But of course it is not true that under liberaldom one can believe whatever one likes, nor especially what it is rational to believe. In liberaldom one can believe anything one likes so long as it makes no odds against liberaldom; one’s unliberal beliefs, if they can still bear that name, are to be mild quirks of the self, slight hues in an otherwise grey smear of bureaucratic massification.
The task of liberalism from its beginning, namely, the search for neutral ground whereon the life of all mankind can rest, and whereupon everyone can seek his own ends, can find its end only in a true neutrality and indifference, and that is nowhere to be found in man except in his unpersonhood. Wherefore it is that liberalism’s struggle to settle the life of mankind can find its end only in the death of personhood; and it is for this reason that the struggle against liberalism is the final and most profound one. Liberalism is the greatest evil that mankind has yet faced, and there is almost no-one to withstand it. That lack of withstanding, owed to liberalism’s having swayed almost everyone to its side, is partly why it is the greatest evil.

[1] Aristotle, Politica, Bk.I: 1253a:28-9, tr. B. Jowett, in The Works of Aristotle, Vol.X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).
[2] Aurel Kolnai, “Privilege and Liberty” (1949), in Privilege and Liberty and Other Essays in Political Philosophy, ed. D.J. Mahoney (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 1999), p.21-2.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:20 | #

“The modern world demands that we approve of what it should not even dare to ask us to tolerate.”

Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Liberal Mockery of Rights and Duties. — The odd thing about liberals is that they believe they are being magnanimous and not absurd or malevolent in seeking to impose on everyone the non-existent duty of defending the non-existent right to falsehood, stupidity, vice, or whatever other depravities they cannot be bothered to oppose. [1] From their featherbrained credal belief that everyone has the right to believe whatever he wishes, it follows that everyone has the right to false and vicious beliefs, from which it follows in turn that everyone has the corresponding duty of defending the right of their maintenance and growth. Naturally there is no such duty and therefore no right to impose it. Given that every man has the duty and the right to pursue and uphold the true, the good, and the beautiful, it follows that he cannot also have the duty and the right to the contrary. [2] Where morality by reason imposes a duty, liberalism by whim imposes a mockery of it. In seeking to impose the mock-duty of defending the mock-right to the false, the bad, and the ugly, such that they flourish thereunder, liberalism shows itself to be the enemy of the true, the good, and the beautiful, that is to say, of knowledge, culture, society, personhood, and mankind itself, and it is consequently the duty of every man to oppose it.

[1] An example: Rod Liddle, “We must defend the right to be stupid, vile and obnoxious”, The Sunday Times, 17th January 2010. Tim Worstall calls Mr Liddle’s screed “impeccably liberal”, and he is right to do so: it is stupid and smug and seeks to spread its own miscreancy as widely as possible. (Tim Worstall, “One for the anti-Liddle crowd”, Tim Worstall (weblog), 17th January 2010.)

[2] For more depth and discussion, see: David S. Oderberg, “Is There a Right to be Wrong?”, Philosophy, 75 (2000), pp.517-537.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 09:02 | #

From the psychological-engineering point of view, the liberal’s idea of tolerance is a remarkable one. It encourages him to feel magnanimity in upholding his own beliefs (however absurd or vile in reality) whilst damning all others, with little or no care for the truth or reasonableness thereof, which is to say, it encourages him to feel magnanimity in bigotry. Liberal bigotry is that wonderful state of mind in which one is compelled to call a bigot anyone who stands at odds with it, which is to say, it is bigotry made sublime. Or: the typical liberal is so great a bigot that he feels magnanimous as such.
There is, to be sure, much trouble with the use of the word “bigot” and its cognates: it has always been a word ripe for abuse, it is often used question-beggingly, and so the word has long been a favourite insult cast by bigots; and now, since it has been redefined in many minds to mean someone who does not hold liberal beliefs, the word has become even more fraught with communicative difficulties.


Posted by Liam Kernaghan on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:06 | #

Liberalism - The Creed of Creedlessness


Posted by Morgoth on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:24 | #

That is an outstanding comment @8 I’d like to make a blog entry out of it. In trying to come to grips with what Liberalism actually is I have likened it to the life of a reptile, as opposed the life of a mammal.


Posted by Gong! on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:56 | #



Posted by HEMPSTEAD HEATH on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 04:23 | #


covertreport | Mar 21, 2015

Today’s courageous guest, Sabine McNeill takes down the UK Court, which on Thursday attempted to kill the internationally notorious Child Sex abuse case at Hempstead Heath. The case involves 20 children and 70 adults, and includes graphic testimonials by 8 and 9 year old children of sexual activities, and bodily descriptions of their abusers that has made authorities so uncomfortable. “Sex on Wednesday” was part of school curriculum, as pedophilliac parents pulled kids from classes and took them to other locations, including non-working public toilets and a church basement for sex abuse. Children that cried were injected with knock out drugs, and medical exams show physical evidence of anal scarring. None of that moved the Judge, who declared it a fantasy, but delayed a ruling on who would hold future custody of the children. Ah, but our courageous guest, Sabine McNeill sometimes tearfully, but always strong, promises this fight has just completed its first round. Joined by a concerned barrister and Solicitor working on reduced fees, McNeill talked about the Appeal that’s coming next. Interpol has already been notified! This fight has been predicted to transform how Britain handles child sex abuse complaints. Not only are the children believable, because of their capacity to describe physical tattoos and moles of their abusers, but the public is more aware of the tendancy of British authorities to cover up these crimes. We hope you’ll listen here & support Sabine McNeill and the children of Hampstead Heath every chance you get!



Posted by canuck on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:30 | #


Is the comment #8 all your own theory, or have you interpolated comments from other sources (beyond the Aristotle reference)?


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:59 | #

Graham said in an email:

In the grand scheme of things it does not matter but that bit that I posted that someone reposted to the front psge is actually an lengthy quote from someone else. I just thought it too good not to share and chimes with my own views. Thought I better let you know!

I made the post misunderstanding it as having been written by Graham.

When this email from Graham was passed on to me, I changed the title from:

“Individualism’s Wake: The Abyss - by Graham Lister”


“Individualism’s Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister.

At any rate, I thought its content too good and too timely to let go quietly over the comment horizon, even if only a compilation of well chosen quotes.


Posted by Jonathan Portes on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 05:58 | #

Graham Lister,
                  The SNP are a rabid immigrationist party of exactly the same mould as New Labour. One of the (dirty, lying pieces of political spin ‘arguments’ ) put out by Labour at the time of the Scottish referendum was that Scots wanted independence because they didn’t want UKIP and immigration control.
Now, I am absolutely sure that that ‘argument’ was a pure political lie emanating from John McTernan, and no true Scotsman ever felt like that, but the fact remains that the SNP are dirty bastard immigrationists.


Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 08:36 | #

No true Scotsman, hey?


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:39 | #

Ah old John McTernan. I have the honour of Mr McTernan personally calling me a ‘cybernat’ during a robust online exchange of views with him and the odious Owen Jones.

What’s that old saying? Many enemies bring much honour. Depends on the enemies I guess.

‘Molti nemici, molto onore’ - sounds better in the original Italian, yes?

Alternatively don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Recall politics is like a man rowing a boat upstream. He has no choice; he must go ahead or he will go back (even if his boat is far from ideal).


Posted by Bobby in Mexifornia on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:39 | #

The SNP are just as vile Graham and insanely pro-ethnic. There is an ethnic within their top ranks.

But things cannot go. Moslems have been exposed for the savages they really are. I am disturbed by Professor MacDonald at TOO who is tolerating them yet he claims to be acting in our interests.


Posted by Godfrey Bartlett on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:59 | #

Great article, but could you check the numbers?
“of 545 offenders in this category only 166 were white British, 415 were Asian, 266 were black, 49 were mixed-race.”
They don’t add up to 545.


Posted by Lazar Kaganovich on Wed, 02 Sep 2015 02:02 | #

Lazar Kaganovich:


Posted by Rotherham victim forced to commit crimes on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:12 | #

Rotherham victim forced to commit crimes

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: Individualism’s Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister
Previous entry: Ancient and modern – Part 1

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Ieva Baltmiskyte commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:39. (View)

Are The Finns European? commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:44. (View)

Green Sleeves commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40. (View)

Jerry Cantrell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:59. (View)

Nutshell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:41. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:32. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:16. (View)

Blue on Black commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:12. (View)

2016 commercials commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 06:27. (View)

Like a bad neighbor, State Farm is there commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:40. (View)

2018 Olympic Hockey Tournament commented in entry 'Winter Olympics not diverse enough for US media' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:38. (View)

Taken For Granted commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:42. (View)

Commercials: "resistance is futile" commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:10. (View)

The Mountain Between Us commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:27. (View)

Kristy Boden commented in entry 'Two more London attacks' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:54. (View)

JF interviews Todd Lewis commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:26. (View)

The Rooster commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:06. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23. (View)

Nikolas Cruz commented in entry '"What We Don't Know - Motive." Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 02:09. (View)

Maccabees commented in entry 'The alternative right's big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:57. (View)

Max Musson article mapped commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:14. (View)

8,606 fake refugees so far in 2018 commented in entry 'More Than A Thousand Illegal Immigrants Reach Europe In First Week Of 2018' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:52. (View)

Orson commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:58. (View)

Toba commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:02. (View)

Allman, Wetton, Coryell, Holdsworth commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Invisible men commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:28. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:23. (View)

Twins, one black, one White commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:02. (View)

Distributist vs JF commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:22. (View)

Reactionary Expat commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:54. (View)

On the Obama portrait artist commented in entry 'Obama portrait artist's past work depicted black women decapitating white women' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:39. (View)

KM on proprietory modules of mentation commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:32. (View)

Andrew Torba at RI commented in entry 'FCC doubles down on dead-wrong definition of how internet works' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:26. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:15. (View)