|
|
|
Thoughts of talking to government So we have all got well and truly used to the idea that the left is out of office after thirteen long, hard years. The political class generally has lost the trust of the people, and will not easily win it back. In Europe the post-national project is in trouble. The internal inconsistencies of the single currency seem set to tear the Union in two. Power, it seems to me, is more fluid than it has been for twenty years at least. Yet at the very moment that political nationalism in England should be rising irresistibly on the back of this and of its European Parliament success of a year ago, it is mired in self-doubt and introspection. The Labour Party, shamed and defeated on Election Night though it was, out-thought and out-classed it in Stoke and Barking, and the usual squeeze on minor parties did the rest elsewhere. The same old questions return again and again about the leadership, about the calibre of senior activists, about finances. There is an inescapable feeling that the BNP has a narrow performance corridor in which it will, from here on, oscillate electorally, but from which it will never escape. It is not going to shake the ground. It is not going to destroy the Establishment. The Establishment, meanwhile, may be tempted into returning to the legal fray to destroy it:
Of course, it is theoretically possible that under the coalition the Establishment will behave less hatefully towards the English than it did under the party that gave us Neathergate and Bigotgate. But without help from outside I think that is unlikely. The left’s ability to dictate the way that English resistance to race-replacement is perceived, and English interests negated, has been a staple of politics for sixty years. As things stand, it will continue unaffected by election defeat, and the right’s utterly typical inability to look reality in the eye with it. In this respect, as we know, even when it is not in office the left is firmly in power. However, next year will be that ten-yearly calling to account which is the national census. A certain clarifying of the public mind is likely to flow from that, and there will be an opportunity in it for voices other than the left to be heard. So we come to the question which preoccupies us more than any other, which preoccupied me before this blog was conceived, and which guided its conception: How do the awake and aware speak to the world of shadows? How do we seat at the very centre of our thought, speech and deed that love for our people which is natural and good, and which is ours, and yet be heard? The examples are everywhere, of course. The MultiCult is peppered with bodies practising ethnic-pleading, from the British Board of Deputies down. None of it offends the exquisite sensibilities of the shadow-men in the places of power and in the media. Advocating for the English would be more difficult than that, and more difficult that merely advocating for immigration control, as does the only successful advocacy body we’ve got, MigrationWatch. But if it is possible, it must be tried - providing, of course, that the window of opportunity is really there. This is something I’m thinking about in a practical way, not merely speculatively as a post. To be honest, I’ve got Lee Barnes and his commendation of local activism to thank for this idea. I would appreciate hearing your own reflections on it. Comments:3
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 04:30 | #
I’m not sure I was able to distill the idea from your post GW, could you elaborate further? As I understood LJB’s proposition, it concerned an ‘under the radar’ approach to ethnic mobilisation, although it wasn’t entirely clear what that might entail in terms of actual and concrete activity. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 May 2010 09:41 | # Dan, Sorry. In English (almost): 1. The political ice age is over. The pack ice is loosening. 2. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that its pro-WWC, anti-Labour, anti-Islamic strategy is not so well meshed with political reality, the BNP is not going to take advantage of this. 3. One alternative is to attempt to shape the national discourse directly through a body constituted like any other ethnic advocacy group but speaking for English rights and interests. 4. What would that group look like? Who would be able to formulate it? How much will it cost? What would be its platform? What methods would it use to make itself known, trusted and consulted on all matters relevant to the English people? Etcetera. All the questions one must ask in the initial consideration of it. Grimoire, Notwithstanding the less than divine nature of government and the media, an interesting observation. But I would say that in our time formational philosophy is, though less direct in application and slow in operation, just as practical as “nuts and bolts” advocacy. 5
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 30 May 2010 11:33 | # I remember years ago when i was on the other side talking to people who i knew i’d persuaded but where i also had a very strong gut feeling that it didn’t matter. They weren’t going to support us for some separate reason. Looking back i think it was simply that we weren’t respectable and we weren’t respectable because the dominant culture said so. Nationalists, including me sometimes, use the terms sheep-dog and sheep to describe people and i think it’s accurate but i don’t mean sheep in a disparaging way. Society couldn’t function unless a large bloc of the population were naturally inclined to support the consensus as a way of keeping society stable. It’s only a problem when the consensus is created and maintained by a hostile ethnic elite. I think what we have is a situation where a party that has been deemed heretic by the dominant church substitute, which in the UK is the cultural marxist BBC, has a glass ceiling determined by the strength of the hold of the dominant culture over the minds of the sheep and that glass ceiling is independent of the nationalist’s ability to persuade rationally. An individual voter might completely agree with everything but they can’t bring themselves to vote for it. (One of the things that has led to this view is a comment i read somewhere from someone saying the first time they voted BNP their hand shook uncontrollaby like they were fighting some kind of mind control.) If so that implies there are two separate if potentially over-lapping battles. The first is to make sure that every last scrap of support underneath the glass ceiling has been maximized: every vote, every potential member. Even if the worst happens an extremely cohesive, well organised and well disciplined 5% or 10% of the population is potentially a very powerful force in a crisis situation. This battle is all standard and straightforward politics revolving around policy, organisation, canvassing, leafletting, talking, community activism etc. The second battle is to try and undermine the psychological power of the multicult thereby pushing the glass ceiling up. There must be hundreds of different ways of doing that. I think the much discussed *search for an idea* that would infect more cerebral types fits into the second battle. Personally i think that idea is liable to be EGI somehow wrapped up in a political expression but we’ll see. Once honed, the key to opening people up to be infected by it would i think be fear propaganda. MigrationWatch is a good example of political advocacy which is worthwhile in itself and also raises the glass ceiling inadvertently or indirectly. More like that would be good. My own thoughts revolve around trying to hone propaganda talking points aimed at increasing fear of the multicult and/or reducing its power to induce guilt among the sheep. I do think that whole side of things has been undeveloped among nationalists since WWII compared to the left. In fact when you think on it nationalist art and themes were often strongly dominant before WWI. 6
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 30 May 2010 11:53 | #
I suppose the American jewish anti-defamation league could be one model. 7
Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 30 May 2010 11:53 | # Face it GW, Football Unfortunately, that’s the material you’ve got to try to get your message through. 8
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 11:54 | # It is time that we adopted a totality of struggle - a war on all fronts, cultural, community activism, environmental, street activism, art, economics, charities, a nationalist variant of Gramscian infiltrationism etc etc That means we need 90 % of Nationalists to live below the radar - no more putting all our eggs into one political basket all the time. The moment a nationalist is outed as a nationalist, they are a spent force. Therefore the aim of community activism is to create what I define as the The Spider Web Strategy. There must be hundreds of nationalist group and organisations established that each work entirely on their own in order to form a web. The web does not have any direct links - it works with the aim of a Unity Of Purpose - in that we all share the same enemy and have the same end goal of a nationalist counter revolution. This nationalist web exists in order to operate thus; When one part of the web is attacked, the rest of the web are activated to defend that section of the web. eg a nationalist is attacked or sacked from his job for belonging to a nationalist political party. So the web activates. The Free Speech organisations then attack the people attacking the nationalist on the grounds of defending free speech. A legal body then offers to assist the nationalist with lawyers. A nationalist street organisation undertakes demonstrations against the people attacking the nationalist. A nationalist legal fund helps pay for the legal case. A nationalist magazine interviews the nationalist and publicises his case. A nationalist conference is called and people attend to discuss the case and plot strategy and tactics. The more parts of the web exist, the better the response when one section of the web is attacked. The web is unconnected, but capable of responding when one part of the nationalist web structure is attacked. 9
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 May 2010 12:40 | # LJB: Your vision is basically that of a “mirror image” response. It can’t work for the simple reason that the indigenous British are blessed with a genetic predisposition toward individualism. They just don’t operate as a group organism the way the invading nations do. Demoralized individuals are everywhere set upon by cohesive “webs” formed from the genetic constitutions of group-oriented peoples. This is why Euroman, unique among the peoples invading him, is morally inhibited from forming a self-interested group. I’ve repeatedly provided a concise and incisive political platform to handle this conundrum. All it takes is one political party to run on it within a parliamentary government anywhere in Euroman’s domain, and the Holocaustian theocracy falls world-wide. 10
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 12:54 | # Thats the biggest load of pseudo-intellectual psychobabble bullshit I have ever read James. Would this be the same ‘individualism’ that built the British Empire, the same individualism that allowed us to survive the Blitz, WW1 and WW2 ? Would this be the same ‘individualism’ that the EDL demonstrate ? That football fans demonstrate ? That the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate ? That the BNP and other nationalist organisations demonstrate ? Read the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom on Super-Organisms and the section on Perceptual Shutdown and The Myth of Individualism and realise you are talking out of your fucking arse mate ; http://howardbloom.net/lucifer/excerpt1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle http://howardbloom.net/lucifer/ Individualism is a myth, as we are all part of a Super-Organism and we all require a communal existence to survive. Individualism is merely a slow death. The spider web strategy is based on autonomous groups comprised of like minded individuals working in their own groups towards a set of clear goals - to attack the common enemy and to mutually assist each other. I am sick and tired of pseudo-intellectual wankers doing nothing but talking a load of pseudo-intellectual old shit on the internet. Shut the fuck up and just switch the fucking computer off, get out into the real world and start actually doing something instead of being in love with your own fucking voice and equating using the internet with doing something to save our people. 11
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 12:57 | # It looks like a single being. But it’s a society of former individualists…the slime mold. Over a hundred years ago, Matthius Schleiden, the German botanist, was pondering the recently discovered fact that beings as simple as water fleas and as complex as human beings are made up of individual cells. Each of those cells has all the apparatus necessary to lead a life of its own. It is walled off in its own mini-world by the surrounding hedge of a membrane, carries its own metabolic power plants, and seems quite capable of going about its own business, ruggedly declaring its independence. Yet the individual cells, in pursuing their own goals, cooperate to create an entity much larger than themselves. Schleiden declared that each cell has an individual existence, and that the life of an organism comes from the way in which the cells work together. In 1858, pathologist Rudolph Virchow took Schleiden’s observation a step further. He declared that “the composition of the major organism, the so-called individual, must be likened to a kind of social arrangement or society, in which a number of separate existencies are dependent upon one another, in such a way, however, that each element possesses its own peculiar activity and carries out its own task by its own powers.” A creature like you and me, said Virchow, is actually a society of separate cells. The reasoning also works in reverse—a society acts like an organism. Half a century after Virchow, entomologist William Morton Wheeler was observing the lives of ants. No ant is an island. Wheeler saw the tiny beasts maintaining constant contact, greeting each other as they passed on their walkways, swapping bits of regurgitated food, adopting social roles that ranged from warrior or royal handmaiden to garbage handler and file clerk. (Yes, at the heart of many ant colonies is a room to which all incoming workers bring their discoveries. Seated at the chamber’s center is a staff of insect bureaucrats who examine the new find, determine where it is needed in the colony, and send it off to the queen’s chamber if it is a prized morsel, to the nursery if it is ordinary nourishment, to the construction crews if it would make good mortar, or to the garbage heap kept just outside the nest.) Viewed from the human perspective, the activities of the individual ants seemed to matter far less than the behavior of the colony as a whole. In fact, the colony acted as if it were an independent creature, feeding itself, expelling its wastes, defending itself, and looking out for its future. Wheeler was the man who dubbed a group of individuals collectively acting like one beast a superorganism. The term superorganism slid into obscurity until it was revived by Sloan-Kettering head Lewis Thomas in his influential 1974 book Lives Of A Cell. Superorganisms exist even on the very lowest rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Slime mold are seemingly independent amoeba, microscopic living blobs who race about on the moist surface of a decaying tree or rotting leaf cheerfully oblivious to each other when times are good. They feast gaily for days on bacteria and other delicacies, attending to nothing but their own selfish appetites. But when the food runs out, famine descends upon the slime mold world. Suddenly the formerly flippant amoeba lose their sense of boisterous individualism. They rush toward each other as if in a panic, sticking together for all they’re worth. Gradually, the clump of huddled microbeasts grows to something you can see quite clearly with the naked eye. It looks like a slimy plant. And that plant—a tightly-packed mass of former freedom-lovers—executes an emergency public works project. Like half-time marchers forming a pattern, some of the amoeba line up to form a stalk that pokes itself high into the passing currents of air. Then the creatures at the head cooperate to manufacture spores. And those seeds of life drift off into the breeze. If the spores land on a heap of rotting grass or slab of decomposing bark, they quickly multiply, filling the slippery refuge with a horde of newly-birthed amoeba. Like their parents, the little things race off to the far corners of their new home in a cheerful hunt for dinner. They never stop to think that they may be part of a community whose corporate life is as critical as their own. They are unaware that someday they, like their parents, will have to cluster with their fellows in a desperate cooperative measure on which the future of their children will depend. Sponges in the wild. Another creature enlisted in a superorganism is the citizen of a society called the sponge. To you and me, a sponge is quite clearly a single clump of squeezable stuff. But that singularity is an illusion. Take a living sponge, run it through a sieve into a bucket, and the sponge breaks up into a muddy liquid that clouds the water into which it falls. That cloud is a mob of self-sufficient cells, wrenched from their comfortably settled life between familiar neighbors and set adrift in a chaotic world. Each of those cells has theoretically got everything it takes to handle life on its own. But something inside the newly liberated sponge cell tells it, “You either live in a group or you cannot live at all.” The micro-beasts search frantically for their old companions, then labor to reconstruct the social system that bound them together. Within a few hours, the water of your bucket grows clear. And sitting at the bottom is a complete, reconstituted sponge. Like the sponge cells and the slime mold amoeba, you and I are parts of a vast population whose pooled efforts move some larger creature on its path through life. Like the sponge cells, we cannot live in total separation from the human clump. We are components of a superorganism. ——————————————————————————————————————————————— 12
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 12:57 | # Remove the sponge cell from the sponge, prevent it from finding its way back to its brethren, and it dies. Scrape a liver cell from the liver and in its isolation it too will shrivel and give up life. But what happens if you remove a human from his social bonds, wrenching him from the superorganism of which he or she is a part? In the 1940’s, the psychologist Rene Spitz studied human babies isolated from their mothers. These were the infants of women too poor to care for their children, infants who had been placed permanently in a foundling home. There, the children were kept in what Spitz called “solitary confinement,” placed in cribs with sheets hung from the sides so that the only thing the babies could see was the ceiling. Nurses seldom looked in on them more than a few times a day. And even when feeding time came, the babies were left alone with just the companionship of a bottle. Hygiene in the homes was impeccable. But without being held, loved, and woven into the fabric of a social web, the resistance of these babies was lowered. Thirty four out of 91 died. In other foundling homes, the death rate was even higher. In some, it climbed to a devastating 90%. A host of other studies have shown the same thing. Babies can be given food, shelter, warmth and hygiene. But if they are not held and stroked, they have an abnormal tendency to die. Two means have been discovered to produce depression in laboratory animals: uncontrollable punishment and isolation. Put an animal in a cage by himself, separated from his nestmates, and he will lose interest in food and sex, have trouble sleeping, and undergo a muddling of the brain. Tampering with bonds to the larger social organism can have powerful consequences. In humans, feeling you’re unwanted can stunt your growth. The flow of growth hormones, according to recent research, is affected strongly by “psychosocial factors.” Monkeys taken away from their families and friends experience blockage of the arteries and heart disease. On the other hand, rabbits who are petted and hugged live 60% longer. When their mates die, male hamsters stop eating and sleeping, and often succumb to death themselves. They are not alone. A British study indicated that in the first year after a wife dies, a widower has a 40% greater risk of death. In another study at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, men who had lost wives to breast cancer experienced a sharp drop in the activity of their immune system one to two months after the loss. A survey of 7,000 inhabitants of Alameda County, California, showed that “isolation and the lack of social and community ties” opened the door to illness and an early demise. An even broader investigation by James J. Lynch of actuarial and statistical data on victims of cardiovascular disease indicated that an astonishing percentage of the million or so Americans killed by heart problems each year have an underlying difficulty that seems to trigger their sickness: “lack of warmth and meaningful relationships with others.” On the other hand, research in Europe suggested that kissing on a regular basis provides additional oxygen and stimulates the output of antibodies. Closeness to others can heal. Separation can kill. The cutting of the ties that bind can be fatal even in the wild. Jane Goodall, the researcher who has studied chimpanzees in the Gombe game preserve of Africa since 1960, saw the principle at work in a young animal named Flint. When Flint was born, his mother adored him. And he, in turn, doted on her. She hugged him, played with him, and tickled him until his tiny, wrinkled face broke out in the broad equivalent of a chimpanzee smile. The two were inseparable. When Flint reached the age of three, however, the time came for his mother to wean him. But Flo, the mother, was old and weak. And Flint, the chimpanzee child, was young and strong. Flo turned her back and tried to keep her son away from the nipple. But Flint flew into wild tantrums, lashed about violently on the ground, and ran off screaming. Finally, a worried Flo was forced to calm her son by offering him her breast. Later, Flint developed even more aggressive techniques for ensuring his supply of mother’s milk. If Flo tried to shrug him off, Flint struck her with his fists, and punctuated the pummeling with sharp bites. At an age when other chimps have freed themselves from parental apron strings, Flint was still acting like a baby. Though he was a strapping young lad, and his mother was increasingly feeble, Flint insisted that his mama carry him everywhere. If Flo stopped to rest and Flint was anxious to taste the fruit of the trees at their next destination, the hulking child would push, prod and whimper to get his mom moving again. Then he’d climb on her back and enjoy the ride. When shoves and whines didn’t motivate his mother to pick him up and cart him where he wanted to go, Flint would occasionally give the exhausted lady a strong kick. At night, Flint was old enough to build a sleeping nest of his own. Instead, he insisted on climbing into bed with his mommy. Flint should have turned his attention from Flo to the other chimps his age, forging ties to the superorganism—the chimpanzee tribe—of which he was a part. But he did not. The consequence would be devastating. Flint’s mother died. Theoretically, Flint’s instincts should have urged him to survive. But three weeks later, he went back to the spot where his mother had breathed her last and curled up in a fetal ball. Within a few days, he too was dead. An autopsy revealed that there was nothing physically wrong with Flint: no infection, no disease, no handicap. In all probability, the youngster’s death had been caused by the simian equivalent of that voice which tells humans going through a similar loss that there’s nothing left to live for. Flint had been cut loose from his single bond to the superorganism. That separation had killed him. Social attachment is just as vital to human beings. Research psychiatrist Dr. George Engel collected 275 newspaper accounts of sudden death. He discovered that 156 had been caused by severe damage to social ties. One hundred and thirty five deaths had been triggered by “a traumatic event in a close human relationship.” Another 21 had been brought on by “loss of sta- tus, humiliation, failure or defeat.” In one instance, the president of a college had been forced to retire by the Board of Trustees at the age of 59. As he delivered his final speech, he collapsed with a heart attack. One of his closest friends, a doctor, rushed to the stage to save him. But the strain of losing his companion was too much for the physician. He, too, fell to the floor of the platform and died of heart failure. Our need for each other is not only built into the foundation of our biological structure, it is also the cornerstone of our psyche. Humans are so uncontrollably social that when we’re wandering around at home where no one can see us, we talk to ourselves. When we smash our thumb with a hammer we curse to no one in particular. In a universe whose heavens seem devoid of living matter, we address ourselves skyward to gods, angels and the occasional extra-terrestrial. Our need for other people shapes even the minor details of our lives. In the early 1980s, a group of architects decided to study the use of public spaces outside modern office buildings. For over twenty years, architects had assumed that people long for moments of quiet contemplation, walled off from the bustle of the world. As a consequence, they had planned their buildings with solitary courtyards separated from the street. What the architects discovered, to their astonishment, was that people shunned their secluded spots. Instead, they parked themselves on low walls and steps near the packed sidewalks. Humans, it seemed, had an inordinate desire to gawk at others of their kind. Even mere distortions in the bonds of social connectedness can affect health. According to a study by J. Stephen Heisel of the Charles River Hospital in Boston, the activity of natural killer cells—the body’s defenders from disease—is low for people who, on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test, demonstrate depression, social withdrawal, guilt, low self esteem, pessimism and maladjustment. Those who withdraw have pulled away from the embrace of their fellows. Those with guilt are certain that their sins have marked them for social rejection. The maladjusted have failed to mesh with those around them. And those with low self-esteem are convinced that others have good reason to shun them. In the study, low natural killer cell activity wasn’t linked to use of medication, alcohol, marijuana or recent medical treatment—just to measures of impaired social connection. Meyer Friedman, the doctor who delineated the Type A and Type B personality and its relationship to heart disease, says, “If you don’t think what you do is very important, and if you feel that if you died, nobody’s going to mourn, you’re asking for illness.” Even the well-being of the men we would imagine to be most invulnerable to social forces depends on the sense that the superorganism needs them. When President Dwight Eisenhower had his heart attack on September 24, 1955, mail came in by the sackful from all over the world. Ike said, “It really does something for you to know that people all over the world are praying for you.” Eisenhower’s doctor sensed that the president’s position in the social network could heal him. He insisted that Ike’s aides continue to discuss business with the recuperating president, making him feel he was still important. Eventually, Ike went to Camp David for five weeks of rest. It was the worst thing he could have done. Stripped of his sense of social purpose, he went into severe depression. It was the first setback Eisenhower had experienced since his heart attack. The ailing chief executive eventually recovered…when he was allowed to go back to work. Finding himself necessary to the social organism had a similar impact on another warrior—Colonel T.E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia. In the Middle East, Lawrence had been a dashing, energetic figure. He had dressed as an Arab, and worked hard to win the respect of tribal leaders. He had taught himself to jump nine feet onto the back of a camel, something few Arabs could accomplish. He had steeled himself to ride across the desert for days without food. He had stretched his limits until he’d gained an endurance far beyond that of the average desert dweller, and he was admired greatly for it. At the same time, Lawrence convinced the British that he could successfully mobilize the Arab nomads into a unified fighting force. With that force, Lawrence argued, he could help defeat the Germans and Turks in the First World War. The success of his argument boosted his power. When he rode into a circle of bedouin tents, his camels frequently carried several million dollars worth of gold—a gift to cement his negotiations with the desert chieftains. Using bribery and the force of his personal reputation, Lawrence drew together the widely-scattered Arab tribes to storm Akaba. His force took the city despite seemingly impossible odds, defeating a small Turkish army in the process. After riding the desert for days, and leading the charge in two suc- cessful battles, Lawrence was totally exhausted. Yet when he realized his troops in Akaba were starving, he mounted his camel and rode three days and three nights, covering 250 miles, eating and drinking on his camel’s back, to reach the Gulf of Suez and summon help from a British ship. The sense that he was critical to the success of the social organism had given the young British officer an almost unbelievable physical endurance. When at last the war was over, Lawrence rode into the city of Damascus in a Rolls Royce as one of the conquerors of the massive Turkish Empire. But once the fighting ended and Lawrence was forced to pack his Arab robes away and return to England, he felt totally out of place. True, he had friends in high places—Winston Churchill and George Bernard Shaw, among others. But he felt wrenched from the social body into which he had welded himself. He was bereft of purpose—unneeded by the larger social beast. Lawrence went back to live in his parents’ home. His mother said that the former war hero would come down to breakfast in the morning, and would still remain sitting at the table by lunchtime, staring vacantly at the same object that had occupied his gaze hours earlier, unmoving, unmotivated. Eventually, at the age of 47, Lawrence died on a lonely country road, victim of a motorcycle accident. Or was he really the victim of something far more subtle? Not long before his death, Lawrence wrote to Eric Kennington, “You wonder what I am doing? Well, so do I, in truth. Days seem to dawn, suns to shine, evenings to follow, and then I sleep. What I have done, what I am doing, what I am going to do, puzzle me and bewilder me. Have you ever been a leaf and fallen from your tree in autumn and been really puzzled about it? That’s the feeling.” Experts on suicide explain that vehicular accidents often occur to those who are depressed and courting death. Was it mere chance, then, that T.E. Lawrence, a man of almost superhuman physical skills, was killed by a bit of sloppy driving on a vehicle he had used for years? Or had the former leader of the Arabs’ inner calculators come to the conclusion that, like the un-needed cell in a complex organism, it was time for him to simply slip away? 13
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 May 2010 13:14 | # The British Empire was basically a post-Cromwell Jewish extended phenotype expressed in the body of the nation. It was a disease exploiting nationalism’s natural expression as should be manifestly obvious from the consequences now being visited upon the homeland by formerly colonized nations. The treason was not yet overt but was destined to become so. The conflicts up to and including WW II were fought by a British people who had not lost the government to overtly treasonous interests. The more recent expressions of nationhood are pathetic. Howard Bloom is a Jew who is trying to draw attention away from Jewish virulence and the fact that Jews are among the most group oriented genotypes in the world. Stop being a loser. 14
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 13:37 | # CALLING SOMEONE HERE A JEW WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS A BANNABLE OFFENSE. I, LEE JOHN BARNES, AM TREADING ON THIN ICE. 15
Posted by nemesis on Sun, 30 May 2010 13:43 | # Posted by Wandrin on May 30, 2010, 10:33 AM | # Great post. Yes, I’d agree with that analysis. The late John Tyndall wrote that much of the Establishment’s “respectability” is due to the fact they have power. We lack respectability because we are powerless. We, in the BNP, need to be consolidating and maximising our instinctual support. We then need to tailor our message to those voters who will respond to what can be described as implicitly white interests: low tax, sound money, less regulation and state interference, a curtailing of welfare dependency, freedom of speech, freedom of association, rule of law, respect for property rights. These types need an alibi in order to bring themselves to vote for us - a popular policy which concerns them but which in itself is not yet deemed beyond the pale. 17
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 14:36 | # Re Lee’s points contra the individualistic explanation: If we look at opinion polls that survey around the issues of immigration and admitted levels of racial prejudice then you’ll get averages around 70% and 25+% respectively, views strongly in line with BNP policies. And yet the levels of voting for the BNP, UKIP and smaller right wing parties is combined (on average) under 10%. There are many competing explanations for why this is so. Is it they are just unaware (for instance Eddy Butler stating on his blog that much of the election material for the recent elections was not received in time to be delivered). A respectability issue (status quo explanations; social conditioning by education, the press, deference to authority via elite positions on issues). Or is it because we are genetically and therefore culturally less inclined to vote for ourselves as English / British (individualism). Obviously not any of these explanations in itself is enough. Everything is on a scale but I think it has to be agreed that the English are much more inclined to individualistic mode of living than other European peoples as well as other races and this might be part of the reason that people don’t vote for nationalistic parties. I understand that the Willets book I mentioned on the blog yesterday looks at many examples of how this has played out economically in our culture though I haven’t read it. They have the opinions but they won’t logically vote them through. Most of the tribal examples your give are groups set up to fight against a direct enemy that attracts small but dedicated numbers of young men from out of millions in the population. That works well for those groups but as a nationwide approach getting people who are opposed to the more diffuse rising tide of colour to vote for it as their overriding concern seems to be a harder proposition. Mind you it’s interesting to see the EDL militancy focuses against Islamism and out of it creating a more civic nationalist bloc. I wonder how this plays with Joe Public. That being said I think that Lee’s argument for creating social institutions to bring to the surface group awareness that can then be harnessed politically is a great one. As ever though it will butt up against the human and monetary resource issue depending on what area we’re discussing. I wonder how well the Steadfast Trust is doing? I don’t though see why in some cases these institutions can be created by people with our sensibilities but who hand over the running of them (or work in the background) to members of the general public. Such as the weekend (Sunday school type) history lessons idea I stuck on your blog the other week Lee. May not be an idea that would catch fire in itself but as an example could be run by people who had no idea of its original aims. Let a hundred flowers blossom as our good friend Chairman Mao said.. N.B. Regarding the art idea, how about a proletarian type of art form to start with – T-Shirts with images and slogans. There’s a range of controversial companies out on the www that do similar from a generally offense driven trailer trash perspective (i.e. http://www.tshirthell.com etc) but there’s no reason why one with a political undercurrent couldn’t be created extremely cheaply with the product created on receipt of order. For instance your working class man on crucifix idea, or another one that has a few extinct species listed on the front (or more subtly images that represent them) and at the bottom The English (or British / Irish etc depending on the market you’re selling to). On the back various contributions to the world that ethnicity has produced. Just an obvious one off the top of my head. 18
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 14:54 | # BTW if you type “the lucifer principle” and Rapidshare into Google you’ll find the whole book.. 19
Posted by DRS on Sun, 30 May 2010 14:57 | # LJB wrote:
As a motorcyclist with over half a million miles of riding experience plus a few accidents, the answer is yes, it could have been “mere chance”. 20
Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 30 May 2010 15:00 | # The great Tom Metzger (by far the wisest head in the whole pan-Aryanist movement), has long advocated what he call s the ‘lone wolfism’. 21
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 15:07 | # Some good ideas there BGD - I will steal them thanks mate. Re - individualism and why the BNP vote does not reflect the opinions of voters. In the last elections as in Barking for example the BNP were completely encircled - on the Far Left we had the UAF putting out leaflets, we had Searchlight feeding stories to the media and directly running a campaign in the Daily Mirror, we had the Trade Unions delivering anti-BNP leaflets, we had the Churches refusing us access to the hustings to talk to the voters directly and from the right we had Nothing British About the BNP using Tory Generals and soldiers to attack us. We were like the wagon trains in the old west, formed in a circle and surrounded and cut off by hostile injuns. Of course our vote will collapse when THE ENTIRE LEFT - LIBERAL - RIGHT AND SOCIAL ESTABLISHMENT SUCH AS THE CHURCH all attack us at the same time. It takes that level of attack to undermine our vote. They have perfected the process now and will use it all the time, which is why we need innovation. The model of ‘More Money = More Seats’ has proven a total failure. We raised more money than ever and lost more seats than ever. Therefore to equate income with success is idiotic. This is why the Spider Web Strategy is required. When the entire Left / Liberal / Right Alliance comes for us - then we must trigger our networks to go on the defense. Only when we have a network able to counter their network will be able to operate fully and efficiently. This is also why under the radar nationalism, outside the BNP and below the radar of the enemy is essential in order to combat the encirclement process. We need people to set up organisations with no links to the BNP who push towards the same goals we all share. I have been asking for the BNP to adopt this model for over six years. Hopefully now people will see that 1) increased income is no guarantee of success, 2) that putting all your eggs into one political basket is foolish, 3) that a network of autonomous groups all working towards the same goals and against the common enemy is required, 4) that simply copying the Blue Digital Model will not work as we need Community Political Activism and doorstep politics not phone canvassing in order to defeat the media conditioning of our people and to avoid the encirclement trap that the establishment has prepared for us 5) and that in order for a party that seeks to represent a specific community politically then that community and individuals from that community primarily need to have a consciousness of being part of a community and thats why we need Community Building projects to run alongside Community Political Activism. Without our people feeling part of a community, then they will not vote for a party that seeks to represent them as a community. If we dont do all those things we are totally fucked. 22
Posted by Vercingetorix on Sun, 30 May 2010 15:19 | # Everything will fail. The time is not ripe. The nation’s conscience ( the white brits) is anesthetized. They can not perceive the mortal threat to their biological ethos even if you strike them in the head with a pole. There is no racial awareness; although maybe one has to say there is racial awareness for a mixed breed society. There is a point of no return in biologcal dynamism. That point might have been reached long ago. Do you see a political , militant group, marching over to parliament , taking over that brothel and routing all the pimps inside ???. No ??. There is no hope, other than blathering inanities within the parameters of the rigged system, the dictatorial, despotic system. The BNP is an anachronistic body. Full of good intentions, but hamstrung by its own inertia. No nationalist, or racialist movement can be borne in present circumstances, social and political. The forces of the neo colonizers of Britain is too strong and too militant. In contrast there is no native organized resistance of any kind. The laws are molded and fashion in such a way that any semblance of resistance is nipped in the bud. 23
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 15:26 | # You dishonour the noble name of Vercingetorix. The idea is to prepare the foundation of the future resistance TODAY, so that when the moment of historical punctuated equilibrium occurs in the future, when the present political / economic system collapses, then we will already have built up a Nationalist Movement capable of coming together and sustaining our programme to take our nations back. Do you get it yet ? For fucks sake its like leading blind , stupid, one legged idiot horses to water. The next time I hear some idiot saying ’ we should all just sit around and do fuck all until we become extinct as a people’ I will let you know what I really think of you. 24
Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 30 May 2010 15:49 | # It keeps coming back to what I call the ‘tosser hypothesis’ - namely that actual raggedy-arse, unspeakable, farting louts that we are attempting to organise and get our message through (that is Salterism in all its aspects and genetic theory) are, quite frankly an ignorant, ignoble uneducable rabble more concerned about which imported, mercenary multi-millionaire black ball-kicker managed to kick a ball in the FA/Carling/UEFA/World/League/Euro/Premiership/Championship/Champion’s League etc etc etc Cup than anything resembling an intelligent debate about their genetic disposession. 25
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 16:09 | # Apparently the Green Party used the Blue Digital methodology “The Big Schlep” in the recent election (or significant parts of the technique) and if true obviously failed. 26
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 16:13 | # Angry Beard, to be frank the intellectuals whose plan is ‘lets sit on the internet all fucking day wanking over Hitler and Ze Jews ’ and moaning that the people who get off their arse and are trying to fight Islam are all chavs are a bunch of idiots we can well without. An intellectual is a coward with a thousand excuses to just do nothing, and then expects everyone to say ‘oh how clever you are’. Fuck off. Give me an honest chav who gets out and gets on the streets, to a thousand wanker intellectuals who do fuck all but talk shit on the internet all day. 27
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 May 2010 16:34 | # LJB, maybe we got off on the wrong foot: Quite literally, some of my best friends are gay. I just want gays (and their ecological symbionts) to reach their metazoan potential with less ecological impact so that individuals can continue creation’s manifest direction and perhaps even enjoy the “honey” produced from the metazoan hives—such as space industrialization, etc. There is nothing wrong, and much to say for turning all that energy and matter into living mass. Even if it does resemble slime mold, it is living and that brings more of creation along its manifest direction. Your multi-pronged “under the radar” strategy has much merit (particularly for individualists schisming off in their own directions) and I’m simply suggesting a strategy for a political party that can help achieve it without necessarily putting all of one’s eggs into a political party basket case. That strategy is a political party with this platform: * Treat pollution as a criminal assault on the nation. Such a political party need have no racial or “national” referents at all. My complaint about the multi-pronged approach is mainly based on the higher degree of enlightenment our people require in order to work together to defend their interests as an individualistic people. Gays are important in that even though they have metazoan predispositions, many are our kin. Indeed, one of the weapons used against us is to literally queer some of our best and brightest so their genes are exterminated. Cloning may help here—and the value of cloning is one of the first lessons of any metazoan species. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 May 2010 16:53 | # OK, well, I framed the proposition as broadly as possible, leaving open the specifics of what I have in mind, because I wanted to see whether the logic of the situation drove others to a conclusion similar to my own. No one has reacted to it in that way, which is disappointing. But let’s move on a little further, and see whether we can make at least some progress. Collectively, our interest in “the looser politics” lies in the access it may afford us. That opportunity, should it exist, resides not at the level of nationalist politicking, as I made clear, but at the level of opinion-forming. Certainly, there are several ways to form opinion through activism. One of those consists in the long-term investment in consciousness-building among the WWC, as outlined by Lee in our interview. But another consists in formal advocacy and representation of English interests to the media and the political and government machine - essentially, in putting the majority interest on the political table, where it has always belonged but has been pushed away. So I am asking that consideration be given as to how people who have understanding, and who are equipped socially and intellectually to look potential partners in academe, business, the media and politics in the eye, carry what is now only a sketchy and highly speculative idea forward into a working hypothesis, and thence a full-scale project. I am NOT talking about an end product of a body of nationalists. I am not talking about a body that will reach out to the people at large. I am talking about a body of known and respected figures, like the people associated with MigrationWatch, who can provide an advisory service to the target sectors of politics, government and the media. 29
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 May 2010 17:52 | # There is the question of money, GW. I’ve answered that question. What is your answer? Moreover, I’ve answered the question of how you get rid of the political class entirely. 30
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 17:54 | # James, I agree with you on all the points you make in your last post. GW - you are 100 % correct on all points. 31
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 18:09 | # GW with regard to your last paragraph be interesting if Mr Gabb ever agrees to an interview to ascertain his thoughts on the feasibility of working like this this due to his being more entrenched within academia and the political classes generally. Separately the LA hopes to spread its ideas into the political culture rather than win elections. 32
Posted by nemesis on Sun, 30 May 2010 18:14 | # “....at the level of opinion-forming.” Control of the media - society’s central nervous system - is what is required, or at least some input somewhere. We do not control it; we have no input outside political coverage. This has been obvious to some nationalists for decades. We need artists, graphic designers, film makers, documentary film makers, playwrights, photographers, dramatists, musicians, composers. We need to find a conduit. Nationalists have been slow to exploit the opportunities afforded by the internet and in particular video streaming. Somehow we have to tap into youth’s natural rebelliousness, something the Left has done brilliantly. We need to elicit and harness emotion. How has EDL got where it is? GW, what are you asking? Why don’t you just do something? Speak to your peer group especially those with professional skills and ask them if they would be willing to help with something along the lines of, say, an English anti-defamation league. Perhaps, the process of doing something, anything, will prove enlightening. 33
Posted by Bill on Sun, 30 May 2010 18:37 | # Nationalism (of the BNP variety) has learnt a salutary lesson over the period of the general election and it is this. If they continue to not tell as it is they will continue to get disappointing results. Part of that lesson is another lesson. The BNP have learnt (and readily admit) there is a great danger when contesting in a well enriched area - they will be out-smarted, outgunned and outvoted. The number of such areas is growing alarmingly. When it come to matters of race/culture (inseparable in the eyes of the great unwashed?) the white electorate is made up of a myriad of different types. No.1 50% are female and are unreliable, they are hardwired to a different set of survival values. No. 2 The aware type, the ones who do not need much help in recognising what is happening to them and their kind. Although it’s odds on they haven’t got the full Monty, they instinctively know the threat they are under and vote accordingly. Ditto (those who are aware) but through guilt/fear cannot bring themselves to vote for the BNP and continue to vote for more of the same. No. 3 The unaware (at present the huge majority) who are unable for whatever reason to understand the plight they are in. And continue to vote for more of the same. No. 4 The ones who genuinely just don’t see the threat, and are cavalier or just too lazy to address the matter. No. 5 The ones who reject the idea on ideological/religious grounds or brain washing. There maybe other categories but I think the above constitute the main types. What we are asking here is what will it take to to bring this dispirit group into a more focused view of their plight? I say tell it like it is at every opportunity, there are no atheists in a foxhole under fire! I have long been an advocate for telling it as it is. Immigration is a deliberate programme set in train by our own politicians to destabilise and overthrow our country and its people. The politicians are anti British white and are selling them out to immigration. If this doesn’t stir them into enquiry then I don’t know what will What have we got to lose by telling it as it is? Our situation couldn’t be any worse, could it? I thought when the BNP had gained access to millions through the MSM they would grasp the opportunity with both hands. But no they didn’t, and all their efforts have been for nought. The EDL are telling it different. They are telling it as they see it. In a short few months they have marshalled an army of several thousand, ready to march at an instant. Just think of the potential out there, thousands of young football fans, hundreds of thousands of young NEETS (not in employment, education or training) disaffected with their lot and no future to look forward to. The directness of the EDL’s approach of going into the heart of enriched areas on peaceful protest marches could well be a parallel approach to awakening the masses, in whose eyes cannot appreciate the differences of the factions. To them a sea of white and red signifies the same goals, England’s interests. Just wondering. One last thing. I often think about our cities which are about to reach the tipping point. The London’s, Birmingham’s, Leicesters and Bradfords, why is it these cities haven’t fallen into dysfunction? Why aren’t the remaining natives protesting? Why aren’t they voting for the BNP? I know that white flight is taking place in all of these cities but there are still many thousands of native Brits still living cheek by jowell with the enrichers, and on the surface seem to be doing so in tolerant harmony, although to me the picture is not at all clear. Is it a case that humans can infinitely adapt and evolve? White replacement/displacement must be taking place approaching the 3/4 million per year, England cannot survive much longer at this rate of attrition. Maybe the bottom line is as has been said all along, things have got to get a lot worse yet before the scale falls. Reminds me of what Kunstler wrote, ‘We will carry on whilst we can, and when we can’t, we won’t’. 34
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 18:51 | # I guess one way to create an English and/or British place at the table would be to create a British ethnic manifesto of ten or so points and then have someone well known and respectable sell it to 30 or more public figures across the board who are willing to put their names to it “as a way of forestalling the march of the BNP.” Not dissimilar to the UAF in that regard. Get your useful idiots to sign onto it, academics, sports folk, politicians etc. The language it was written in would probably have to be couched in grievance type identity politics and incorporate some criticisms of ‘racism’ etc. Set it up as a non-profit of some form. Have a purpose that you initially want to achieve and a few secondary and tertiary steps and work towards it. Solicit donations, demand to be taken account of during TV debates, legislative measures etc. Have a supporters network, a petition(s) on the government website etc. Hopefully creating more open allegiance among the peoples of these islands as they will feel more ‘allowed’ to sign onto it as it will have respectable backers and respectful media attention. Have volunteers out at summer fêtes, farmers markets, pubs with collection tins, petition forms and supporters pin badges most of whom will be unaware of the originators or the bedrock of thinking behind it. Hopefully this might allow the awareness to grow among Britons of there being legitimate (but sugar coated) grievances and allow their own concerns and self awareness to break cover and stay closer to the surface. Thereafter there is a much smaller distance for them to travel to vote for the BNP or a similar political party than there is now and done gently it will also be a vehicle for stripping of some of the layers of conditioning that make some people embarrassed to admit to having any ethnic concerns. I think in a small and loose way some concerns are already coming to the surface in ‘polite society’ especially in education with the awareness that WWC children, particularly boys are slipping to the bottom of the table. 35
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 19:56 | # I have just wrote this for my blog ;
For instance the way that some Nationalists attack the EDL for having ethnic minority people attend its events, and then in the same breath they say they support the BNP. Its as if the fact the BNP is no longer a Whites Only party since the Constitution has been changed, has not occurred. The BNP constitution has been changed and it is no longer a whites only party, so people better be prepared to see non-white people not just join the party but attend meetings, be officers of the party and stand in elections. Thats reality. The Constitutional changes of the BNP, which I had nothing at all to do with in relation to the drafting up of the new constitution nor its formulation in relation to its legal logic, ensures that the BNP is not a whites only party, and also that if the BNP sought to stay a whites only party then sooner or later it would be sued either by a legitimate disgruntled ethnic minority member or by an infiltrator determined to cause the party legal problems. Therefore the BNP, like the EDL, is going to become a multi-racial organisation. So to attack the EDL for being multi-racial is simply absurd. In fact the EDL are in fact a type of ‘model’ for the BNP to follow. The EDL as a group are of immense historical importance, though I doubt they are aware of why that is. Nor are many other people aware of why that is. Since the era of mass immigration the influx of immigrants into the UK have been brought here not to be integrated into British society and transformed into British citizens with a proud British Nationalist mindset, but they have been brought here to act as a mechanism to dilute nationalism, they have been taught to despise Britain as racist, to regard British history as offensive and British Nationalism as something to reject. This is why we have Colonisation in our country, not integration. Integration would have required immigrants to adopt British culture, respect British laws and become proud British citizens with a British Nationalist mindset. What we have seen instead is what I call Liberal Multi-Culturalism - which is the present evil system which teaches non-white British citizens to have a chip on their shoulder about racism, to regard British History as racist and to reject British Nationalism and to work only for the interests of their own community and not the nation as a collective. This has led to some ethnic minority people, such as the 7/7 bombers, to hate Britain and the British people - even though they were middle class, well educated, had been to universities and never experienced any racism. Liberal Multi-Culturalism taught them to hate Britain and the British people. Liberal Multi-Culturalism run by the Far Left and liberals has exploited ethnic British citizens and used them as a way to undermine British Nationalist values and to embrace a sense of ethnic and racial grievance, to adopt insular ethno-communalism instead of integration and feel a sense of perpetual contempt for the indigenous British people, hence the year on year rise in race attacks against whites in Britain. Liberal Multi-Culturalism has destroyed British social cohesion. Instead of Britain asking immigrants to abandon their previous identities and adopt a British one, integrate into our society instead of being colonists and to work for the interests of Britain instead of just their own racial / religious community - we have allowed them to come here and be given British citizenship and yet remain here as colonists. This was done simply to ensure the immigrants voted only for the Left and Liberals - and that they rejected Nationalism. This is why you have third generation immigrants in the UK who still support mass immigration, even though they know that it is destroying British social cohesion. They say ‘we are 100 % British’ and then still vote on the basis of their ancestors immigrant status. As I have said many times before, the day that third or second generation immigrants say ‘immigration has to stop’ is the day that I will believe they are integrated British citizens who put the interests of Britain before their own personal history or community identity. These people say ‘I am British’ and then vote and act on the basis of their race / religion etc which contradicts that position totally. If you are British then you vote for, and stand for, the interests of all the British people and not just your own community or because of your grandad’s immigrant status. But the EDL have changed this. They have initiated what I call Nationalist Multi-Culturalism, which is the process whereby ethnic minority British citizens are taught to be proud to be British, to reject the left and liberalism, to respect British Nationalist values and to put the interests of all the British people first instead of just their own ethnic or religious community. This is of immense historic importance. The failure to Nationalise immigrants, has led to the breakdown of a cohesive British society. Multi-culturalism is a form of voluntary apartheid, has led to ethnic ghettoes all over our country, created the race problems we see in British society, has led to vast swathes of Britain being colonised by unintegrated groups and British Nationalism becoming a despised ideololgy in supposedly immigrant British citizens. Nationalist Multi-Culturalism rejects Liberal Multi-culturalism and demands integration and seeks to nationalise immigrant British citizens - it is what America used to do when it made all immigrants reject their past and embrace a future simply as Americans. Note that the Liberal Multi-culturalists now call blacks in America - African Americans rather than simply Americans - in order to divide America up into racial groups who vote on the basis of their identity and sense of racial grievances rather than for the benefit of all Americans and America as Americans would do. Liberal Multi-culturalism has in effect reversed the civil rights struggle totally - the blacks in the 1960’s that fought for the right to be called simply Americans, now demand to be called African Americans - and in effect have re-ghettoised themselves on the grounds of their race. This has divided America on racial grounds and allowed the Left and Liberals who peddle white hatred and racial grievances in the educational system to dominate the debate on American identity. This form of Liberal Multi-culturalism has been taught to people in the schools simply for the benefit of the race relations extortionists, the left and liberal politicians and the proffesional ‘community leaders’ who self designate themselves as the leaders of a racial community simply for profit and career promotions. Liberal Multi-culturalism has in effect broken America up into competing ethnic and racial groups, and transformed Americans into competing communities. America is now ready for a racial civil war as a result of Liberal Multi-Culturalism. This has been done simply to profit the far left and liberals. This is why the EDL is so important. British Nationalism, like the Liberal Multi-culturalists, has never sought to invite in ethnic minority people and encourage them to be British Nationalists. This has led to them being as exploited by the left and liberals and them being used as the mechanism to break down Britain into competing communities - whilst simultaneously denying only one group, the indigenous British people, the right to also organise as a community to protect our community interests in the Liberal Multi-cultural society. The EDL though are reaching out to ethnic minority people and seeking to Nationalise them, and hence to form a cohesive model of a Nationalist Multi-culturalism to replace the Liberal Multi-Cultural Model. This is also what the BNP must do. We must say to ethnic minority people ’ we do not stand for assimilation, but integration - in that we are all British citizens who are proud to be British, we all put the interests of our country first, we each can work for the benefit of our Britain as well as our own communities and that we each face the same enemies and threats - political correctness, liberalism, Zionism, Islamism and social breakdown leading to crime, unemployment and poverty’. Nationalist Multi-culturalism demands that we all work together for the benefit of our nation, not just for our own racial and religious communities. This is also something the BNP must do, because very soon we are going to have ethnic minority members who will taking on leading roles in the party. And if we havent prepared the membership for this, and got the ideological position clarified, we are going to experience real legal problems. Therefore members of the BNP attacking the EDL for them having ethnic minority members are simply in denial, and they need to get their heads around the fact that the party has changed its constitution and that we must start to develop the ideological principles that this change requires. Nationalist Multi-Culturalism is the model to follow if the BNP is to stay legal and stay in the game of the British democratic political process. 36
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 19:59 | #
Another one is the Optimum Population Trust. 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04 | # Barnsey:
To the degree which blaming the Jews exclusively for what ails us induces a fatalism which stymies realizable, incrementally increasing corrective action on our part in lieu of a sweeping defenestration of ze filthy kikes you have a point. But I think you know, at least I hope you do, that your admonition to leave the Jews alone will induce in them some feeling of benevolence by which they will no longer feel tempted to drive us into the ground is delusional. You say it out of political expediency and with the expectation of the ancillary benefit of our not succumbing to the sloth of fatalism, correct? Bowery:
But what blocks the implementation of your plan is also what obstructs the realization of racialists merely assuming control of the extant machinery of state, namely, artificial internalized opposition in the masses and conscious, counter-revolutionary actions on the part of the ruling elite. To implement your plan you would need access to the levers of power, and if you had that, why not simply pull the levers in hand instead of tossing them out of hand and then smashing them? Beardy:
Here’s the relevant paradox: If ‘lone wolves’ are not merely suicidal nihilists and wish their probable eventual demise on account of their anti-System activities to come to fruition then they must at least believe others, many others, will follow in their footsteps. And if not, why then should they sacrifice themselves for others who do not care? And if so, if there are indeed a sufficient number of like-minded individuals to make a difference, then why should they not engage in visible collective action, taking the System on in broad daylight by other means? 38
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 20:11 | # I coudnt care less what the Zionists and the racist extremists in the Jewish community think, what I want to win over is the loyalty of the ones who are loyal to Britain. They are not a single monolithic group, any more than whites are a single monolithic group - as the scum whites Zionists who betray our people and nations prove. 39
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 20:22 | #
Two thoughts arise on reading this GW. First is the use of ‘English’ rather than ‘British’. Knowing how careful you are about usage generally, I’m taking this as an indication that your fundamental interest is in promoting English nationalism, rather than British. If this is the case, is it not true that various other operatives already vie for that franchise, ranging from the English Democrats to Billy Bragg’s Barmy Army? The nettle that would need to be grasped is how to avoid falling into the trap of ‘progressive ’ nationalism - which bestows Englishness on anyone who simply asks for it, just as [civic] Britishness is already - while attaining the respectability that MWUK and the OPT (Patron: Sir David Attenborough) clearly enjoy and which the BNP do not, and never will. 40
Posted by FB on Sun, 30 May 2010 20:24 | # The indigenous population has no freedom of association, no freedom of speech, and no freedom of contract. Besides that, the U.K. is truly a beautiful democracy. Can things get any more absurd in their totalitarian way when a political party is forced by the judiciary to revise its constitution so that all of its clauses are in total synch with the Left-liberal, immigrationist agenda? Why have the charade of political parties at all? The ideological spectrum in the U.K. is so narrow in scope on the most fundamental issues as to make politics irrelevant. Everything, all ancient rights and freedoms, must be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness to the jealous God of multiculturalism. They can only do one thing: watch helplessly as they’re being displaced and obliterated, with the collaboration of their deracinated and hostile elites. Should they resist or protest their slave-like status, they’ll be hounded, vilified, fined, and jailed. In terms of comparable humiliation, I can only think of a husband forced to watch his wife and daughters being gang-raped by intruders. The English are being gang-raped by their Establishment and colonists and told to sit back and enjoy it. 41
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 20:41 | #
Do you anticipate that the ethnics in such leading roles will be able to assist the party in explaining to their fellow community members why it will be necessary to prevent their extended family members from taking up residence in Britain in the future, or why it will be necessary for them to seek their future spouses within the settled communities in future once the BNP assumes power? 42
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 20:47 | # Yes. An integrated ethnic minority British Nationalist espouses, and embraces British nationalist political positions. 43
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:00 | # An “integrated” ethnic British Nationalist minority also espouses the need to police their own community against the miscegenation genocide of the English. But that is not quite “integration,” at least not as normally understood, now is it Barnsey? I mean, if your nappy-headed niggers and shit-skinned wogs are not good enough for your sisters, your daughters, to spread their legs for them, and bear their mongrel offspring, then why are they good enough to have within your borders? “You want us to ‘integrate’ with you, we want White women. Only a Nazi would turn us down.” 44
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:06 | #
I’d suggest that any such individual sticking his head over the parapet is likely to be perceived by fellow ethnics as an Uncle Tom, as is dear old Rajinder. I have just been reviewing a paper by Statham and Geddes ‘Elites and the ‘organised public’: Who drives British immigration politics and in which direction?’ in which ‘claims-making’ over immigration by various civil society actors over a 15-year period is analysed. Immigrants, together with specific pro-migrant rights and welfare, general solidarity, human rights and welfare, and anti-racist groups constitute the most active claims-makers in favour of mass migration (average valency +0.80), while the BNP along with MWUK are at the opposite end of the valency spectrum (-0.80). Have the party managers performed a gap analysis on this phenomenon and determined that it is still worth while facilitating the entry of ethnics into leadership roles? 45
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:21 | #
There’s the interesting character UnionBlack on http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/ 46
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:22 | # ” I mean, if your nappy-headed niggers and shit-skinned wogs “ Here we see the voice of the idiot fringe that have polluted nationalism for decades, that have left us a despised and reviled marginalised cult in the margins of society and whose pathetic rhetoric has resulted in the endless race relations laws being passed to limit free speech and close down our right to operate in the political process. People like you have turned nationalism into a movement about as politically potent as a slug on viagra. You are a fucking moron. I suspect even the Hollywood Nazis on Stormfront would reject you as a loud mouthed dick. In fact only one type of person talks like you - and I bet you are one of the Equality Commission staff. The Canadians and the NPD in Germany have learnt that fools like you are either ; 1) Zionists 2) Reds 3) or working for the government as only fools talk like you. You are either a wrong un or a dick. Either way you are political liability and hence should fuck off into the wildnerness ASAP. 48
Posted by gt on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:29 | #
It is in the interest of the elite to create an illusion of access to E-Z money; thereby acquiring the capital needed to manipulate market conditions, lower the real wages of domestic workers, exploit cheap second- and third-world labor, take control of distressed properties everywhere at the lowest value possible, and accumulate greater unearned wealth. Why should urban brokers, small-time investors, and pensioners who are dependent on this barely-understood game for survival buy your program? Why should middle-class individuals of white ancestry pretentiously promulgating a recently acquired white nationalist Internet perspective which merely crowns a lifetime accumulation of Republican “iwannaberichtoowithouthavingtoworkforit” politico-philosophical baggage (in which they were simultaneously opposed to the welfare state while winking at tax advantages, socialized risk, and direct government subsidies for themselves and their political allies in the upper-class) support your program of equal revenue distribution to all citizens? 49
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:35 | # Immigrants, together with specific pro-migrant rights and welfare, general solidarity, human rights and welfare, and anti-racist groups constitute the most active claims-makers in favour of mass migration (average valency +0.80), while the BNP along with MWUK are at the opposite end of the valency spectrum (-0.80). Have the party managers performed a gap analysis on this phenomenon and determined that it is still worth while facilitating the entry of ethnics into leadership roles?
Hence they became liberals and adopted liberal positions. I note the fact that along with the immigrants you mention there are human rights groups, welfare groups and anti-racist groups WHO ARE WHITE LIBERALS who also support the policies of mass immigration - so support for mass immigration is not race specific, as in fact more whites than ethnic support mass immigration. I read some statistics a few months ago that said more immigrants than white british people want an end to immigration. The problem is liberalism and a lack of nationalisation of immigrants in the UK and the failure to integrate immigrants into British Natinalism. 50
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:38 | #
As oer my above if there was some form of organisation with a founding manifesto whose stated outward purpose was to defend the disenfranchised English elements, be a voice from them to the government and in the other direction as well then if that was built into the founding document one would hope that it would be more difficult to subvert from the ethnic element. 52
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:57 | # In order to create a group that represents only one racial group then it has to have less than 25 members under the race relations act. Any more than that number of members and it is illegal. Political parties WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ( unlike the NF ) are illegal if they racially discriminate in their membership criteria. Affirmative action is only allowed for ethnics in order to raise their numbers in organisations where they are under represented, which is why affirmative action never works to benefit whites in Britain. Thats the law. I may not like it, but if we want to remain in the game we have to play by their rules until we can get power to change the rules for our benefit. 53
Posted by nemesis on Sun, 30 May 2010 21:57 | # Barnes’ prescription represents the final reductio ad absurdum of our hobbled political process. Anyone signing up to this would look ridiculous. It would be the final betrayal. If they want to drive political representation for the native population out of the political process make them do it openly. Let the British people see they have no representation; cannot have any representation; their loss of nationhood is not to be recognised even by their own people. If, in the meantime, we have started to get in amongst the middle class any ban on the BNP could have interesting consequences. Perhaps at some point we should withdraw and advocate that elections be boycotted. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:01 | #
LOL! That’s what I thought of you at first too, Barnsey. But your interview with GW dispelled most of that notion and convinced me that you are at least a moderately bright bulb. I’m sure you’ll forgive what was confessedly an attempt at provocation utilizing strong language in that you yourself are no stranger to plebeian vulgarity. But I would still appreciate an answer to my question. A coarse analogy: If you want to shut the English in ze gas chamber (“integrate” them with muds) without provisioning them with gas masks (measures to combat miscegenation whilst “integrating”) then you can expect them to choke on Zyklon-B (be mongrelized by muds). You don’t want the English to choke on Zyklon, do you Barnsey? Only genocidal “Nazi” filth (i.e., “ze Jews”) would want that. 55
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:07 | # Well I would hope that embracing and promoting ethnic British Nationalists provides a greater payoff for the party than did the decision to thrust Jew into leadership positions in 2004. We all remember how popular that initiative was amongst the party faithful. A very senior party functionary explained to me at the time how Pat Richardson’s entry into the limelight would serve as a talisman immunising the party from charges of anti-Semitism and Nazi/fascist leanings. 56
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:09 | # Barnes’ prescription represents the final reductio ad absurdum of our hobbled political process. Anyone signing up to this would look ridiculous. It would be the final betrayal. If they want to drive political representation for the native population out of the political process make them do it openly. Let the British people see they have no representation; cannot have any representation; their loss of nationhood is not to be recognised even by their own people. If, in the meantime, we have started to get in amongst the middle class any ban on the BNP could have interesting consequences. Perhaps at some point we should withdraw and advocate that elections be boycotted.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I want to get into power to change the law. That means we had to adapt and evolve. Now people need to absorb the reality and deal with it, and stop living in denial. You cant win the game if you walk off the field. The members chose to play the game and try to win power. The aim is now to create a new set of rules to allow us to get into power with the minimal difficulty. If we dont get into power we cannot save our people. If we dont get into power the English are extinct. ALL THAT MATTERS IS GETTING INTO POWER. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Only by getting in power can we save our people. Revolutionaries understand that the phrase ‘WHATEVER IT TAKES’ doesnt just mean violence and extremism, it also means comprimise and pragmatism. Those that put their own principles before the pursuit of power are liabilities to us taking power. 57
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:10 | # I think the Cap’n raises a serious point in his inimitable manner. 58
Posted by Helmsley on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:11 | # James Bowery writes: “The British Empire was basically a post-Cromwell Jewish extended phenotype expressed in the body of the nation. It was a disease exploiting nationalism?s natural expression as should be manifestly obvious from the consequences now being visited upon the homeland by formerly colonized nations. The treason was not yet overt but was destined to become so. “ James Bowery is right. From The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg
59
Posted by Helmsley on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:18 | # The link in my previous comment to pgs. 22 - 25 of The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg should be: http://books.google.com/books?id=ljxoA7SJsDMC&lpg=PP1&dq=the fatal embrace&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q;&f;=false 60
Posted by nemesis on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:19 | # Barnes, if the BNP becomes indistinguishable from the other parties why should anyone vote for us? What is our unique selling proposition with regard to the native population? 61
Posted by BGD on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:24 | #
Well as a charity or non-profit pressure group would it need to have more than 25 members? It may have supporters who sign the founding document, an advisory committee who are not members etc. Could not volunteers be used to generate income and could not satellite supporter groups be used / somehow accredited should it grow to a size that would require it? 62
Posted by Bill on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:24 | # Here’s a comment by Wandrin from the ‘Early thoughts about nationalism in the coalition age, thread. Posted by Wandrin on May 25, 2010, 12:04 AM in reply to Bill.
This follows the consistency of the liberal multi cult’s - zero tolerance to the right. Extrapolating this consistency, we can see that any concession given to the multi cult will be treated with the zero tolerance mantra. IOW, the multi cult are a creature of creating law/s to counter or suit any contingency that they deem fit to fit their zero tolerance to the right policy. Therefore, no matter what the Right (BNP) decide to do or not to do, will simply be countered by legislation, no matter how many times the the right kneels to the multi-cult in servitude, they are forever destined to be dragged further leftward into the path of destruction. Just look at the irrelevance of the conservatives/republicans. Check-Mate! Every time. PS. EDL. Neocon? That would explain the free passes. 63
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:27 | # CC writes: “To implement your plan you would need access to the levers of power…” I have to assume you are American and if I were referring to this program in the American political system, you may be right. However minor parties can get a foothold in parliamentary governments. If the minor political party stayed on message with these points, it would be unstoppable in a parliamentary system. 64
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 May 2010 22:54 | # gt, the policy harvests what modern portfolio theory calls the “risk free asset”—which is exactly where wealthy parasites make their money. Distributing it to all citizens equally dethrones the wealthy parasites and makes all citizens stockholders with enough of a secure revenue stream to defend their interests. Every stockholder has a clear stake in maximizing the value of society and all investments are biased toward bettering human capital. Now, according to liberal theory all humans are equal as capital investment opportunities. However, they need the welfare state apparatus to bias all human capital investments toward their client demographies at the expense of the majority. So, you remove the money from the likes of Bill Gates as well as the political class, and make the middle class independent of both. 65
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 30 May 2010 23:42 | #
I don’t believe this is entirely correct. The RRA76 has been repealed by the Equality Act 2010 which received its Royal Assent last month. S 100-107 of the EA10 defines ‘membership associations’ and the allowable criteria for membership, which as you note prohibits discrimination on racial grounds. However Schedule 16 to the Act defines the exceptions that can be claimed by ‘single characteristic’ groups (race is of the 8 defined characteristics):
I don’t see anything in the Act at present that would prevent the formation of an ‘English Rights’ association along the lines that have been suggested here. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 May 2010 00:43 | # Dan, I agree with that interpretation. But then in an advocacy field populated almost exclusively by foreigners’ organisations why would Harriet Harman, a race traitor in a party of race traitors, craft a law that renders racial criteria illegal? You write: I’m taking this as an indication that your fundamental interest is in promoting English nationalism, rather than British. Everything comes back to the most efficient mechanism for advocating the rights and interests of the people of the land, which in England is the English, in Scotland the Scots, and in Wales the Welsh. I think a single umbrella organisation would be best, but the voices should be distinct. One name I have in mind, btw, is Our Land. In this day and age when, apparently, we have British Somalis and British Pakistanis, I would certainly not rush to embrace the B-generic. is it not true that various other operatives already vie for that franchise No, nobody is speaking for us. They are speaking for themselves and their own pet projects. The nettle that would need to be grasped is how to avoid falling into the trap of ‘progressive ‘ nationalism Of course, foreign race artistes who want to divert Euro-centric advocacy into civicism are a bloody menace. Nothing new in that. But the function of this body would be quite clear, providing people of the right calibre are awake enough to run with it. And that’s something we just can’t tell until we speak to them. BGD, Interesting that you mentioned Sean Gabb. I had it in mind to renew my contact with him. He has written that he is more optimistic about multiracialism than most patriots. Also, his wife is Slovakian, which might influence him towards a more civic comprehension of nation. But if people like Sean would be uncomfortable advocating for the English, we would have a major difficulty taking the project deeper into Sleepy Hollow. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 May 2010 00:54 | # James, An advocacy group of the type we are discussing would be registered as a charity for tax reasons. It would have to raise funds by way of donations from the usual sources, which are institutional, corporate and personal. Small single-issue set-ups employing one worker, sometimes part-time, commonly operate for £80,000 to 125,000 pa. I would guess ours might need to cover operating costs in the area of £250,000 rising to £500,000 pa. 68
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 01:12 | #
I half agree but i think you are going too far. It’s like a knife and butter where the knife is the party and the butter is the dominant culture. To make it easier to spread you can either heat the knife or melt the butter. Heating the knife involves improving the party in various ways. Melting the butter involves undermining the dominant culture in various ways. When the cultural marxists were taking over they knew they’d never have majority numbers so the heating the knife option wasn’t available. 90% of what they did involved undermining the previous culture and only 10% involved infiltrating political organisations like the Labour party and using it directly. As Dan Dare’s posts about the various race relations acts showed there was almost no political resistance to those acts because that resistance had been destroyed in advance through cultural warfare. The people who might have resisted were too afraid of being called a racist - cultural warfare trumping political warfare. It’s like the air phase in the first Gulf War. Iraqi resistance was so destroyed in advance that when the tanks rolled forward all they had to do was pick up prisoners. Nationalists have both options available but seem in the past to have mostly focused on heating the knife, partly i guess because they were part of an ethnic majority, but perhaps in doing so they neglected the cultural warfare part. I’d say it shouldn’t be either 90/10 or 10/90 but maybe closer to 50/50. The same person can do both of course. By day a mild mannered BNP leaflet deliverer but by night Super Situationist with a marker pen writing slogans on the back seat of buses or public toilets which attack the dominant culture without mentioning politics directly e.g If only white people are racist then anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white.
69
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 01:19 | #
I disagree. Tribes fight with their neighbours. If a tribe consistently wins over a period of time they eventually end up with an empire. Eventually the empire collapses under its own weight. It’s the history of the world and happens everywhere, jews or no jews. (No doubt some of it was jewish influenced in the same way America is currently building a rickety empire in the middle east that the neocons think will help Israel.) I don’t think it’s impossible to understand our predicament without reference to jewish agency and the role of ethnic conflict in general but it’s important not to get too carried away. jews are a tribe and for whatever reason instead of having a terriotory and fighting with their neighbours like everyone else they insert themselves inside a host as a minority and engage in stealth tribal warfare from the inside. Part of that internal conflict involves jews trying to dominate those institutions where a small minority can most influence the majority. In my view the single most important factor in our current destruction is the creation of the electronic mass media and the jewish seizure of that mass media. The first point is that the goggle box has taken the place of the church as the source of moral judgement. The mass media are now the ones who get to decide who is orthodox and who is a heretic. If anyone in public life steps out of line the mass media is the inquisition who can hound them out of office. Specifically jewish control of the mass media has had two critical effects. The first is they have created the idea that white ethno-centricity is morally bad. The multicult promoted by the mass media protects jews by weakening our collective defences to group competition like AIDS reducing someone’s immune system. They have created a religion of white suicide. This first effect produced desgregation and mass immigration and the second critical factor is they censor the consequences of those changes. If today the media started to report all the anti-white violence that occurs in Britain daily then within six weeks the BNP would be on 40%. However it would (at the moment) have to be the mass media doing the reporting. The information in itself is only partially effective - it has to be respectable information. The BNP could hand out leaflets to x people about a muslim paedophile ring or the same x people could see a report on the BBC. The latter would be dozens of times more powerful because the BNP is heretic and the BBC is respectable. There are many factors involved in our demise but in my view jewish agency via the mass media is the single most critical factor. The paradox of jewish influence is that their dominance of the mass media means talking directly about the malign influnce of jewish power on our survival chances is usually counter-productive. They have created such a strong and negative cliche of anti-jews that avoiding that cliche is often more useful than telling the truth directly. However it’s important to talk about the JQ where possible so as to have a clear understanding of what’s going on. (For example one of the reasons i am more optimistic than some others is i believe jewish group strategy is based on paranoia, that paranoia leads them to crave security through wealth, that craving for wealth leads them to be insatiably greedy, that greed always leads to them to cause an economic collapse and that’s what always gives us a chance.) Once you have, or think you have, a clear analysis of at least part of the problem then the counter-attack becomes obvious - alternative media (which includes everything down to spray cans on walls and felt markers on the back seat of buses and of course the most basic tool of all, your voice) and the use of that alternative media to undermine the moral authority of the dominant culture and spread suppressed information. 70
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 01:33 | #
My experience is in more rowdy rabble-rousing leftie type activism like sit-ins etc so i don’t have much useful input. I can certainly see the value in a having more well-dressed combatants involved in a stealth ideas war. 71
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 01:40 | #
I’m not sure that’s neccessarily true if the organisation was involved in an ideas war that was not connected to ethnic nationalism on the surface but was underneath. An obvious English example would be the EU. Obvious American examples would be things like states rights, gun control, attacks on freedom of speech etc. A more extreme example might be a closet white ethno-nationalist acting as an advocate of free speech for those reasons even up to defending anti-white organisations - perfect camouflage. 72
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 01:55 | #
It’s true that there is no point making concessions to the multicult as a way of influencing the multicult. They want us dead, cannot be appeased and will always be hostile. However there may well be a point in making concessions with the multicult if it means avoiding a minefield that hurts us with the public. I’d say make the absolute bare minimum concessions neccessary to get to a point where the party can keep expanding. A photograph of the party leader in an SA uniform for example is the sort of thing i’d say was a bridge too far but hold out for the bare minimum concessions that still allow steady expansion. 73
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 02:58 | #
I think there is some truth in this although maybe a bit overstated - more individualistic maybe. I saw a documentary about US prison gangs and what struck me was how the black and hispanic prisoners seemed to form ethnic gangs automatically the white prisoners didn’t and those that did all had Nazi type names. It almost seemed that they needed an ethno-centric idea to form around rather than just simple ethno-centrism on its own. You don’t need to believe it’s genetic. It could be a by-product of the multicult conditioning. Either way though it does tie in with some of the things PF and GW say about a nationalistic idea being potentially useful. If, for whatever reason, white rabbits find it hard to rally around their blood then at least some of them might find it easier to rally around some idea of their blood. I know in my case i got involved in this stuff for practical reasons but the EGI idea, specifically my understanding of it as the selfish gene but on a tribal level, has gradually become more powerful a motivation: blood for the blood god. 74
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 31 May 2010 04:57 | #
I saw a documentary about US prison gangs and what struck me was how the black and hispanic prisoners seemed to form ethnic gangs automatically the white prisoners didn’t and those that did all had Nazi type names. It almost seemed that they needed an ethno-centric idea to form around rather than just simple ethno-centrism on its own. I suggest the white prisoners upon incarceration still felt ties with the larger society of which the institution was part - white society - until experience proved the danger inherent in trust and identification with that idea of society. Thus the prisoners identified with a white society in opposition to the ideas of the white society that administered the institution that left them defenseless in the face of organized ethnic aggression. The Nazi idea is powerful, irresistible in this sense. It may be fruitful to contemplate this fact. The Nazi ideal is unshakeable regardless of any movements wish to circumvent or downplay it’s influence. 75
Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 31 May 2010 09:51 | # Lee Barnes, 76
Posted by Steven E. Romer on Mon, 31 May 2010 09:57 | # Had to comment on this—this is THE CENTRAL ISSUE in our plight as far as I am concerned: QUOTES:
I think we are using the term “individualism” too much here. The word is not a good one for Europeans. The main descriptive terminology for us as Europeans is that we like to be ruled by reason, logic, and objective truth. Our apparent “individualism” is not actually a motive so much as other things which require individualism—such as objective truth. In order for truth to be the #1 ruler of society, we need to be self-reliant and not political or corrupt etc. We need individualism. It is not really a choice, so much as self-selection pressure. If someone has a misfortune, we are not “individualists” any more—we help them. If they are simply lazy, we do not. If you take enough of these types of scenarios into account—including our invention of freedom, etc.—the overriding connection between them is objectivity and truth. That is what fuels Europeans, and NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH. Even though we are not perfect, people need to be made aware that we are unique as a race. If we disappear from the Earth, then all sorts of ills will befall mankind. We may even go extinct. The soul of the white race which gave us freedom and the scientific revolution must not perish from the face of the Earth. There is nothing hateful or racist about that. NOTHING. THAT is what we need to teach people—that our overall pattern as a people is the only one on Earth GOING SOMEWHERE. The only one with a higher destiny. We are like a living religion and should be saved as something truly UNIQUE in the universe. A race from whom great things flow. The miracle race. We are a SUPERORGANISM with different types arising in our gene pool at just the right frequencies to make our pattern work. The overall patterns of other races will destroy this larger pattern in us, this miracle, because our patterns are incompatible. The evolutionary patterns of other races formed partly in opposition to OUR type, and so they are automatic predators of our types. For example, the lower IQ / higher impulsivity / easier and more murderous rage / lower time-preference / higher fecundity ...of blacks is perfectly aligned as an opposing pattern to ours. If we begin to build and move toward truth (with the accumulation of resources that entails) then these characteristics of blacks will be drawn to us and destroy us eventually—that is why there WERE NO US in Africa, despite having a common ancestor. We can see even more easily that Jews formed as a direct parasitic and predatory pattern against the amassed resources of the civilization-builders. They manipulate and destroy us and reap rewards directly—leaving us open to other destructive corruptions just like the patterns of the AIDS virus. The asian races do not have truth as their main pattern of coping, but have an unusually high ability to learn / mimic from the rare innovations they do get (or from us or genes like ours that might arise). Again they are opposed to our pattern because of their placing social factors and solidarity above truth. We mine truth while they mind their elders or superiors or peer pressure. This is why they are just as corrupt as any other race, if not moreso—despite a high IQ. WE ARE UNIQUE, AMAZING, HAVE A UNIQUE DESTINY, ETC. AND THIS IS WHY WE MUST BE SAVED!! I truly believe all other races should be behind this notion—should help us because ultimately it would be good for them! The very idea that wanting to separate races is ILLEGAL over there is absolutely absurd and immoral. It is bad for the WORLD. Teach that to people! 77
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 31 May 2010 10:50 | # The fact that the EDL not only admits wogs but puts wogs in charge is reason enough to hate them. —read my comments above as regards dickheads that use this type of language. 78
Posted by BGD on Mon, 31 May 2010 10:55 | # If such a thing is to be attempted does anyone have any knowledge of the work of the Steadfast Trust?
The successes, difficulties they have encountered and so forth? 79
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 31 May 2010 11:15 | # I havent until now read the Equality Act as it was passed as I havent had the time, but it appears you are correct Dan. Now is the time to use the act to set up Ethnic English groups and associations and also charities. 80
Posted by "Ronnie James Dio Flashed a 'Devil's Horns' Gestur on Mon, 31 May 2010 12:19 | # GuessedWorker is on record as saying that he wants Britain’s ‘ethnic minority’ (soon to be ‘majority’) population removed hence from British soil as the ultimate aim of nationalism. 81
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 May 2010 12:47 | # “Angrily Bearded One Fatally Dismayed by Condition of English Working Man He Wants To Save”, You have me right. We struggle for the survival of our own English kind or we lose everything with them. There is no comfortable median point whereby we can accomodate foreigners and somehow save “Britishness”. There is only restoration and survival or dispossession and disollution. BGD, Tony Linsell has set up a mini political party based on his Steadfast notion. It welcomes all ethnically English people regardless of skin colour. In other words, Tony is commending the dissolution of the very genetic product he might be thought to care for. Let me make it crystal clear. There are no black English people. There are no mixed-race English people. In England, only the English people are the rectus sincerus. 82
Posted by BGD on Mon, 31 May 2010 13:04 | #
Personally, you would never hear me arguing differently. As an ethnically based advocacy organisation I assumed they might have some experience to share. 83
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 15:06 | # @Grimoire
Yes it is interesting. Horus of white rabbit radio apparently did some research before starting his show to find out what young white rabbits were looking at on the net and he found big traffic for conspiracy theory stuff related to the Nazis. It’s similar in a way to the prison thing with young rabbits getting psychologically abused at school by their teachers and maybe beat up as well if they’re a minority. It does make perfect sense for it to come out in extreme circumstances.
The EDL is great. Our masters have us slated for a nice well-ordered extinction so the more chaos the better. I’d like to see a hyper-violent black gay jewish transvestite anti globalist riots as well. There’s a lot of potential good side-effects politically that could come from the EDL and as long as BNP members are officially proscribed from joining in then they should be immune from the possible negative side-effects. @Steven Romer
Yes. Interesting stuff. Interesting if true and even if not true but white rabbits came to believe it anyway then they might go from save the whale to save the white rabbits - with flamethrowers if neccessary. 84
Posted by Ronnie James Dio flashed a Devils Horns Gesture. on Mon, 31 May 2010 16:01 | # Anyone who seriously doubts the proposition that the EDL are a zionist funded false-flag operation (desgned for wholly Israeli self-interest, not British, the Jews know full well that Britain will *inevitably* become an islamic state and a nuclear arsenal and residual wealth is no good for Israel), she log on to Alan Lake’s (no, not Mr. Diana Dors, but a shadowy Mossad go-between agent, who impersonates a ‘businessman’) personal website http://www.4freedoms.ning.com . 85
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 31 May 2010 16:36 | # Who gives a toss what Alan Lake thinks. The idea that the EDL are some sort of Zionist puppet whose strings are pulled by Alan lake via Mossad is simply tabloid crap for nazi idiots. He is one man. He doesnt run the EDL. He isnt even linked to the EDL anymore. The person who runs the EDL is Chris Renton, a BNP member who resigned the BNP to take over the EDL Anyone can go to an EDL demo. The recent BBC documentary revealed that the people that ‘lead’ the EDL , dont lead anything. They run a website and thats it. They dont organise who go to the demos - all they do is say where a demo will be held and ANYONE can turn up. As for the fact that the EDL is pro-Israel - so what ? I am pro-Israel, but I am also Anti-Zionist. I am also pro-Palestine, but anti-Islamist. As a Nationalist I support the right of all nations to national self governance. Only anti-semites attack the right of Israel to exist as a nation. I am able to see the difference between Jews and Zionists and Israeli Nationalism and Zionism. Anti-semites cannot, as they are nutters. If Britain was a ‘democracy’ like Israel, then this country would be a far far better place. Israel is in fact the sort of Nationalist Democratic model we should follow. At least they put their people first and defend their borders - unlike the assholes in the UK. 99.999 % of people who go EDL demo’s are ordinary people. This ’ EDL is a Zionist group’ is simply for people who dont have a clue what they are talking about. If the EDL was a Zionist front group, then the Zionist media would not be attacking them and calling them ‘fascists’ would they !!!! If the EDL were Zionists then the media would adore them, as it does all Zionist organisations. What I see here is jealous Nazis, Zionists, Reds, undercover state agents and idiots all desperate to attack the EDL and undermine its growth. The very fact that the UAF and the Stormfront Nazis ( half of whom are reds ) all attack the EDL shows me that the EDL is legitimate. The desperate attacks on the EDL by the Hollywood Nazi idiots, the reds, the media, the UAF and other assorted scum prove to me one thing. The EDL is sound. 86
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 May 2010 17:08 | # Romer writes: “The main descriptive terminology for us as Europeans is that we like to be ruled by reason, logic, and objective truth.” The evolutionary origins of European character are important to consider in all this. Priority must be given to prior things. Prior to our development of high population densities, we were, like other sexual creatures, self-reliant except for the need to recognize another individual, radically different from ourselves, as vital to us. Nothing in that singular dependence is ruled by reason, logic and objective truth as it is prior to all of those things. Where logic, reason and truth find their origin is in the rapid expansion of ecological range to new, sparsely populated environments where knowledge of nature becomes far more neurally, rather than genetically, encoded—and social instinct plays far less a role in survival than it does in more densely populated portions of the species’ ecological range. From this we can see ecologically imposed monogamy, romantic love, reason and even moral integrity as evolutionary pressures. So when I speak of “individualism” I’m not speaking of the kind of absolute self-sufficiency perhaps exhibited by asexual cells floating in the amino acids of the primeval oceans. It is an intraspecific relative condition. 87
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 31 May 2010 17:13 | # Romer writes: “The main descriptive terminology for us as Europeans is that we like to be ruled by reason, logic, and objective truth.”
Thats why Europeans have rejected Nazism for the last fifty years, as Nazism is based on irrationalism, hate and the worship of violence. The fact that ‘intellectuals’ in the Nationalist movement are still fascinated with Nazism is because they are like the rabbit fascinated by the snake. 88
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 17:31 | #
I’d say Europeans have rejected Nazism for the last fifty years because (imo) Nazism is a reaction to extreme conditions and only ever likely to get off the ground after a world war, great depression, hyper inflation, and with the threat of a communist takeover in the shadow of (jewish) Bolsheviks murdering 40 million people over the previous 20 years and within a few hundred miles of their eastern border. If anything like those kind of extreme conditions recur then people are likely to react the same way. 89
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 31 May 2010 19:23 | # @Wandrin
LOL You don’t work for NED funded Memorial do you? 90
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 20:15 | #
I see banging on about the suppressed history of the Bolshevik holocaust as being of great counter revolutionary value for a bunch of reasons - one being to undermine the official narrative of les krauts suddenly voting Nazi out of a mixture of unemployment and natural German nastiness. If you add a clear and present (or at least a not unreasonably exagerated) threat to the equation then it changes the picture. Even more so when you add in that the starvation of the Ukraine happened in the year before Hitler was given power. I’d imagine most nations in those exact conditions would have voted Nazi too. Then there’s fear-guilt propaganda and something else and something else, blah blah. Basically there’s a massive amount of psychology locked into the official narrative which it might help to dislodge a bit. What i would like to see is Americans of East European descent started a pressure group to have holocaust memorial day designated for both the Bolshevik and Nazi holocausts and for any memorial museums that had any public funds to be split between the two also. I think the reaction to that could be quite dramatic. 91
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 31 May 2010 20:24 | # Its a simple equation ; No Lenin = No Hitler No Russian Revolution = No Nazi Party taking power No Rosa Luxembourg and Jewish Bolsheviks in the Russian and German Communist Party = No Holocaust of the Jews. Each was the trigger of the other. The fact that the Germans came to fear Communism and Jews was based entirely on what happened in the Russian Revolution. Even Churchill commented on this ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism In an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on February 8, 1920, Winston Churchill asserted:: There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.
The fact that these Bolshevik Jews also targeted religious Jews, Russian Nationalist Jews and Jews who supported anti-Bolshevik political groupings is conveniently forgotten by anti-semites. 92
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 21:03 | #
The multicult is built on the official narrative. The official narrative needs to be undermined. Tactics. Fight fire with fire and all that. 93
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 31 May 2010 21:08 | # I’m not even particularly anti-semitic really but jews are sitting on some critical nodes that need kicking in if we’re ever to bring the system down. 94
Posted by FB on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:08 | #
Can you please tell us the names of these Jewish Russian Nationalists and anti-Bolsheviks? Assuming that they existed and are not the figment of an overheated imagination, can you tell us how those numbers compare with the Jews who supported and participated in the Bolshevik Revolution? In other words, are you as dumb as you sound? One of the most interesting facts of the October Revolution is that Jews of Russia saved the faltering Revolution when ethnic Russians in the civil service decided to go on a collective strike to protest Bolshevik mismanagement and terror. It’s obviously impossible to run a modern state without a competent civil service, so who stepped in to save the imperilled Bolshevik Revolution? Jews, the only highly educated and sympathetic sector in the Russian Empire. Jews constituted the sole ethno-religious group in the Russian Empire that was overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the overthrow of the Tsarist regime. Without Jewish participation there would have been no successful revolution. 95
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 05:59 | # FB’s point indicates a thread that runs deeper than time and space allow…..however , I add the assassination of Russia’s First Minister Peter Stolypin by Jewish assassin Dmitri Bogrov…..(Stolypin vowed to keep Russia out of what he saw as Britain and France’s synthetic war…an act that would have saved Imperial Russia, Germany, and the British Empire…all of Europe herself .) A superficial and unlearned mind can toss off the bromide ‘anti-semite’ in an open forum such as this….. I find constant nattering about Jews counterproductive and nauseatingly tautological…. I think it would be a sign of maturity in our movement to develop the discipline and ethics to understand that some topics must not be spoken of in an open forum… as it is to the benefit of our enemies, and rarely ourselves. I hesitate still to see someone calling another a ‘anti-semite’ in the pejorative sense. It seems to me that this is the privilege of the Jews and the irremediably stupid. 96
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 06:48 | #
Hear, hear. 97
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:03 | # You do the research instead of just reading Stormfront ;
The Doctors’ plot allegation in 1953 was a deliberately antisemitic policy: Stalin targeted “corrupt Jewish bourgeois nationalists,” eschewing the usual code words like “cosmopolitans.” Stalin died, however, before this next wave of arrests and executions could be launched in earnest. A number of historians claim that the Doctors’ plot was intended as the opening of a campaign that would have resulted in the mass deportation of Soviet Jews had Stalin not died on March 5, 1953. Days after Stalin’s death the plot was declared a hoax by the Soviet government. These cases may have reflected Stalin’s paranoia, rather than state ideology — a distinction that made no practical difference as long as Stalin was alive, but which became salient on his death. In April 1956, the Warsaw Yiddish language Jewish newspaper Folkshtimme published sensational long lists of Soviet Jews who had perished before and after the Holocaust. The world press began demanding answers from Soviet leaders, as well as inquire about current condition of Jewish education system and culture. The same autumn, a group of leading Jewish world figures publicly requested the heads of Soviet state to clarify the situation. Since no cohesive answer was received, their concern was only heightened. The fate of Soviet Jews emerged as a major human rights issue in the West. 98
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:08 | # Unfortunately Grimoire, you and your idiot chums on Stormfront peddle so much nonsense on Ze Jews that unless it is countered publically, then every new generation of young nationalists become as stupid as the last. I gather you are the Grimoire who posts on Stormfront and is one of the main posters on that site - so are you going to start attacking the insane, idiotic, anti-semites on that site you frequent ? Nah, thought not. It appears what Grimoire wants is for people not to address the issue of the Jews in a way that undermines the anti-semitism of the Far Right. The problem is that silence allows those that shout the loudest to dictate the agenda. And those that shout the loudest about ze jews are the anti-semites on stormfront, of whom you are a senior member. 99
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:57 | #
Our current predicament is built on the multicult - white people having been made guilt-ridden over any form of white ethno-centricity. The most suggestible 20% actively support their own national suicide. The middle 60% passively accept their own national suicide. Therefore the multicult needs to be brought down. The holocaust narrative is a huge part of the multicult. By starting the narrative with the Bolsheviks and the Bolshevik holocaust you create a rational and understandable reason for the German people of the time to vote for the Nazis. The aim of this is to replace the official version where the reason given is white rabbits being their naturally evil, irrationally racist and anti-jewish selves. nb This doesn’t require saying anything bad about jews or anything good about the Nazi leadership.
I think this movement needs a deeper understanding of political narratives, talking points, having a consistent message etc. If i say “with the threat of a communist takeover in the shadow of (jewish) Bolsheviks murdering 40 million people over the previous 20 years and within a few hundred miles of their eastern border.” I put (jewish) in brackets to show it’s optional. You build the narrative with people in stages depending on the audience. Stage1: 1917-1933, Bolshevik holocaust, 40 million murdered, the German people have a rational fear, mainstream parties weak, German people voted for those nasty Nazis *despite* the Nazi leadership being crazy psychos not *because* they were crazy psychos. Stage2: Add that some of the most prominent communist leaders in Russia and Germany were actually jewish and that’s why the Nazi leadership got obsessed that Bolshevism was a jewish plot. Stage3: Actually it wasn’t just a few jewish leaders. The whole communist movement was heavily jewish - even Churchill mentioned it - but the Nazi leadership went from “a lot of jews are communist” to “all jews are communists.” Stage4: etc Stage5: etc The point is not to attack jews. The point is to undermine a politically harmful narrative without ever doing or saying anything outside of a culturally acceptable range until the point where your alternative narrative has become widespread enough to have changed the culturally acceptable range. 100
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:11 | #
That should fit in around about stage 6 in my alternative narrative.
By a strange coincidence if things carry on along the exact same trajectory they’re on now the exact same thing will happen in 50-ish years time in the states except it will be Mexicans doing it not Georgians. 101
Posted by Ronnie James Dio Flashed a Devils Horns Gesture. on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:23 | # We here at MR want the wogs out. A cursory glance at the EDL shows them to be ‘inclusive’.If this is tactic, or more likely actual policy, I don’t know, bur to me I fear ‘inclusivity’ as the Devil fears incense. 102
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:55 | # GW writes: “An advocacy group of the type we are discussing would be registered as a charity for tax reasons. It would have to raise funds by way of donations from the usual sources, which are institutional, corporate and personal. Small single-issue set-ups employing one worker, sometimes part-time, commonly operate for £80,000 to 125,000 pa. I would guess ours might need to cover operating costs in the area of £250,000 rising to £500,000 pa.” Is there any recent history of that kind of charitable money being available for national defense? Employers are bought off by cheap labor and filtered by integration laws. That means virtually anyone with enough money to hire someone is a traitor if not an enemy of the nation. The rest of the nationals are lucky to get on the dole as the economy erodes with the influx of immigrants and outsourcing of primary production. It seems you would be better off trying to figure out how to get things going with labor that is on the dole. 103
Posted by Jose Montana on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:36 | # Just a thought or two from the sidelines. People join groups or purchase products because association with them brings some positive value. White Nationalism is such a simple idea its main benefits are assumed - and that is the main leverage used against it by the MultiCult. Here are a few ideas: 1. Make babies and raise them in good values by home schooling or as close to that as you can get. In doing these things, you will contribute to the repopulation of our kind; stop “feeding the beast” with your energy psychic and labor; provide a living example of White Nationalism that will affect others that see it and who will emulate you in the fullness of time. Politics is a loser’s game just like Wall Street. If you don’t know who’s going to win before the polls open—it’s not you. In other words, it is a diversion, the greatest form of “entrapment”! Jose Montana (nom de guerre) 104
Posted by BGD on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:37 | # If there was to be a campaigning group to defend the rights of Britons would it be best set up as a completely forthright or stealth organisation? 105
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:33 | #
This style reminds me of a certain fellow who used to write for Robert Frenz. If that is you, welcome back as your input has been missed these past years. Your advice is concise and sage as always. 106
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:46 | # In his masterly work of the history of the Russian Revolution, ‘A People’s Tragedy’, Professor Orlando Figes shies away from the JQ except to note that “while most Jews were not Revolutionaries, most Revolutionaries were Jews”. 107
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:28 | # LJB: They say you are legally trained. This amazes me. I’ve read some of your posts here and there hoping to read of a parsed rationale. I would like to come across a discourse where some of the issues politically and socially we deal with are ratiocinated and ordered by a legal mind. Unfortunately, reading your various offerings, along with your linkage of myself to Stormfront….I must say the evidence is that you are a complete idiot. It is not unsurprising you pass yourself off as the scourge of the stormfront nazi’s. When the foolish search for a crusade, it is not unusual they seek one that provides clowns for amusement…and a grail fashioned from string-balloons. 108
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:21 | # Wandrin: You disagree, and I respect your disagreement because I agree with what you are saying. The idea I raise is the strategy and discipline required to win. The maturity and circumspection of statecraft and person to person psychology. This is an area I had hoped Lee J Barnes would be of aid….as legal training directs one to concentrate on the merits along with the utility of an argument, To a legally trained mind….it is the utility of the argument which is foremost. Unfortunately it appears he is but an egocentric fuckwit with little to add of any merit.
This was insightful. Because this is what Grimoire wants. The facts may be that the only way to deal with a Jewish or any other conspiracy of this type, is by another conspiracy - a conspiracy out in the open. I am not saying we copy strategy. I am saying we choose a course designed to win. The time I believe has come, for careful, rational and most of all honest assessment of what works and what does not. And the resulting synthesis be the one of what works for us, and against our enemies. The ‘Will to Power interprets values and meaning (an sich) into things. The struggle and opposition is no longer internal, but external. The man stands and knows his enemies, not to study their error and accuse, but to destroy and rebuild. 109
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:52 | # If eschewing the JQ is a sine qua non of successful political activism for nationalists, one might be forgiven for asking why our efforts have not yet been attended with some success, considering that studious avoidance of the topic has been the default position of so many for so long. 110
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:02 | # Posted by Al Ross on June 02, 2010, 04:52 AM | # Al, the fact we are now finally conversing knowledgeably and historically referent on the subject is success. This success is limited in scope, but it is an unstoppable and invincible success. There is the risk of becoming indolent with this limited success. Fixating upon it. This is unwise. There are more successes to yet to come. 111
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:03 | # Grimoire, My last post to you may have come across as too combative. Apologies if so as it wasn’t intentional. I tend to use this place for focusing my thoughts so there’s an element of thinking aloud involved.
I mostly agree with that. I do think there’s a group of people who get negatively obsessed with jews in the same way people can get obsessed with Freemasons or the Knights Templar and so i do think there are some “anti-semites” in the sense it is generally used but i agree that 95% of the time it’s just the word they use for any ethnic patriot who isn’t jewish. It’s partly a pedantic point but there is a practical side too as the second type may have their uses but they aren’t very helpful when talking to the mainstream public.
That’s pretty much my own view. There are multiple activist strategies which all have some value in my opinion and all physical activism has a propaganda effect built in. On top of that though there are pure propaganda activities of which the simplest is talking to people. In that regard i’ve been trying to collect a set of talking points that i can throw into conversation when appropriate which all revolve around trying to undermine the moral superiority of the multicult. The critical criteria for these talking points is they don’t break the rules of the multicult: - left-liberal politicians pretend that mass immigration is all about diversity and not being racist but really it’s about importing new voters for themselves - centre-right politicians pretend that mass immigration is all about diversity and not being racist but really it’s about importing cheap labour for the people who fund their political campaigns - the left-liberal media covers up violence against white people - all the Bob Whittaker / White Rabbit stuff - mass immigration is ethnic cleansing and inevitably leads to genocide - anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white etc - Bolshevik holocaust
- Green / optimum population - not land, food, water etc - cultural conflict - feminism/homosexuality vs islam, cultural attitudes to democracy, electoral fraud, taxation, nepotism, corruption, crime etc
Fair enough. I see the suppression of the truth about what came before WWII as a major achilles heel but i could be wrong. 112
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:19 | #
I think that’s the point in multiple ways. Media domination and the formation of the multicult has led to a all-powerful far-right cliche. Talking about the JQ to the mainstream brings up that cliche and people instantly switch off because they already know everything you’re going to say and will ever say because they believe the cliche. Not talking about the JQ helps a bit by allowing you to organise up to the glass ceiling determined by the cultural dominance of the multicult. However you can’t crack the multicult without understanding the JQ and how intertwined it is with the creation of the multicult. The trick then would seem to be how to talk about the JQ (as related to the multicult and EGI) without appearing to be talking about the JQ. I think that’s one of the things places like this should be for. Figuring out ways of attacking the multicult without breaking the rules of the multicult. I imagine the guy from MigrationWatch is an old-fashioned Conservative but a an ex-diplomat he’s a good example of how you can argue against them effectively without breaking their imposed rules. 113
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:21 | # Grimoire, the moral fitness of , say, nationalistic Germans to decide important issues like who, if any, may share their homeland and what constitutes their EGI is fatally compromised by the Jewish Holocaust nonsense which shackles a great people to a lucrative lie. 114
Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:55 | #
In Britain I don’t really think this is necessary. The people here are so clueless as to why they are experiencing what they are experiencing that anything beyond blaming our media and politicians would be superfluous and counter productive. The British people are not very politically minded and attribute everything to the world going mad. What can we do anyway? Blame everything, and I mean everything the people rail about on the politicians and the media. tell them that the politicians are selling them down the river, selling them out to immigration and their becoming a second class citizen and the media are in on it. Like our opponents keep on repeating it, and repeating it and as things worsen the scale will fall and enquiry will follow. How much worse it has got to get is anyone’s guess but get much worse it will. Tell them every time they see a non white face on that 50” wide-screen in the corner of their living room they are being told this is your future - get used to it. I’ve given up trying to figure out how long all this will take, but I see in my minds eye recollections of the Berlin wall being chipped away with anything to hand, penknives, boots, even bare fingernails if necessary. 115
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:54 | # From Lee Barnes: “British Nationalism, like the Liberal Multi-culturalists, has never sought to invite in ethnic minority people and encourage them to be British Nationalists. This has led to them being as exploited by the left and liberals and them being used as the mechanism to break down Britain into competing communities - whilst simultaneously denying only one group, the indigenous British people, the right to also organise as a community to protect our community interests in the Liberal Multi-cultural society. The EDL though are reaching out to ethnic minority people and seeking to Nationalise them, and hence to form a cohesive model of a Nationalist Multi-culturalism to replace the Liberal Multi-Cultural Model. This is also what the BNP must do.” ___ This could be somewhat appropriate for the US, Australia, NZ, SA, etc- places with genuine non-white aboriginals. It is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for Britain, for the simple reason that whites are the indigenes. You are being invaded, colonised and conquered by alien peoples as surely, if far less violently, as the various conquests of the Mongols. The big difference is that this time the destruction of your land is being aided and abetted by domestic race traitors (who, however, I believe, still represent a minority of the native Britons), the shortsighted greed of various commercial interests, and by the brainwashed passivity of the mass of the British people. Moreover, besides settling for too little, your suggestions might prove electorally fruitful in the short run, but are useless in the longer term. What you advocate is something very close to the idiotic liberal programme of ‘civic nationalism’. This site, as I have understood it, fights for, first, British (GW: I would go for ENGLISH) ethnonationalism, and ultimately, white racial nationalism (which in our time recognizes that all whites everywhere a) have more in common with each other than with any non-Europoids, and b) are facing very similar racial/national dimemmas). If I may paraphrase the great “Tail-Gunner” Joe McCarthy: “One non-white (in Britain) is one too many”. The goal of real nationalists is not to “integrate” or “nationalize” aliens into British society (which is certainly possible structurally, that is, sociologically and economically, though I doubt as an empirical matter that it is possible psychologically) ... but to EXPATRIATE them all away from Britain. Period. This, by the way, is the true and ultimate goal of White Nationalism. ALL non-whites/Europeans must be de-naturalized (stripped of citizenship or other legal status) and physically removed from European soil - forever. NO EXCEPTIONS! Europe then becomes again what it always was: the homeland of the white race. And in becoming so again, Western Civ will be preserved, or so I believe. Anyway, once the racial cleansing has occurred, then I will be in the forefront of demanding a very authoritarian ‘rationalist constructivist’ reconstruction or re-instantiation of European traditional High Culture (ie, after the National Revolution, Europoids aren’t going to be permitted to remain or become ‘indigenous degenerates’, jiiving to rap tunes, and admiring non-white cultures from afar). But the sine qua non of future white racial survival (and thus, I maintain, the survival of the 3000+ year old West) is the reacquisition of racial sovereignty; that is, racially homogeneous sovereign polities (as we had until the postwar period). 116
Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:17 | # I came across the following over at Auster’s VFR. It is a compilation of conversations held (over time) between L. Auster and a long time blogger at VFR Ken Hetchman. What do liberals want? Here’s a sample of opening gambit, I think you will find this thread most interesting.
117
Posted by BGD on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:03 | #
I think the disagreement Leon is just pragmatism (or fatalism / defeatism - take your pick). The population dynamics now seemingly so firmly entrenched that for many it is coming to the point of where it seems inconceivable of ever successfully reversing it. For some at least. That’s why the slow slide to civic nationalism seems to be happening in many quarters. Civic nationalism meaning assimilated multi-racial nationalism rather than the open border globalism as LJB recently defined it. To escape this horror, siren propaganda is what’s needed with a firm bedrock of truth and then hopefully we can build out from the BNP’s current position to find ways of reclaiming more of our land, perhaps instead of the Madagascar Solution we can have the Isle of Wight solution… 118
Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:31 | # Telegraph 02.06.2010. Britain is full up - Cameron must act to stem the tide of immigration.
119
Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Jun 2010 23:01 | # Re - above Britain is full up The tack seems to be Britain is full up and immigration is legitimate for discussion. Just a blip or will it gain traction among the elites? Britain’s population is soaring with no commensurate infrastructure being built, seems to be concentrating the mind. 120
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 07:57 | # It’s hard to get more mainstream than Benedict Brogan. Eventually this was bound to happen because England is so crowded. The financially better off half of the population can’t move to safety and go back to sleep again because almost everywhere they could move is still within range of danger. Also the great mass of invaders has been bottled up in the big cities like a waiting army ready to spread out into Conservative areas and turn them marginal. Again something they were bound to notice eventually. The question is this the start of something or a false dawn and if it’s the first cry of the start of realisation among mainstream conservatives will the tribe be able to smother it at birth. 121
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:09 | # O/T There’s a problem with the word capture thingy on James Bowery’s “Political Economy” thread. 122
Posted by EA Steve on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:17 | # If eschewing the JQ is a sine qua non of successful political activism for nationalists, one might be forgiven for asking why our efforts have not yet been attended with some success, considering that studious avoidance of the topic has been the default position of so many for so long. Very good question, Al Ross. I was partially converted on the Jewish Question, last week-after a couple national stories. Elena Kagan’s nomination as the 3rd Jew on the Supreme Court, and the proposal to make (Jew) Chuck Shumer Senate Majority Leader really alerted me to Jewish ethnic networking. Political Jews really scratch each others’ backs, and are hypocrites. Many of them tell us to be “diverse,” by promoting non-Whites over ourselves. Yet, when and where do they actually walk the walk, with us Gentiles. This is also evidenced by their double-standard on inter-marriage. I do still believe individual pro-White and ‘race-neutral’ Jews (already in the US) should be accepted or at least left alone. But, Jewish-American Political Power must be destroyed. Their ethnic political networks seek our destruction. I also think Political anti-Semitism will be a winner, as it is the American Ideology of the future. America will much resemble Nazi Germany, though from a Multi-Racial perspective. I cannot say with confidence that White Nationalism will revive, but I am certain Anti-Semitism in America will rival Nazi Germany’s. 123
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:28 | # Posted by BGD on June 02, 2010, 03:03 PM | # I second your point. I would just like to add something, for yourself and whoever wishes to consider the point: As to the Jews and their ilk, and to why I think it would be good to reframe our entire perception of the issue. Their power is a complete illusion, the illusion does have power, nonetheless it is a illusion that when you realize it is not a reality. the power disappears as quickly as the misperception popular illusion represents historic reality. It is misdirection. Smile at the conjurers and the trick has failed. Be patient and work hard and intelligently for victory. Never sacrifice the values we fight for- for short term gains. Do not expect victory to be handed to us on a plate on a sunny day. That is not who we are. Whether amidst storm or pitched battle on a sunny day…this is our victory and we shall have it. Remember this. 124
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:34 | # the preceding line should be” Do not believe in final victory - know it and act accpordingly 125
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:37 | # the preceding is important enough I will repost it again spelt correctly Do not believe in final victory - know it…. and act accordingly. 126
Posted by icr on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:26 | #
The problem is that virtually all the non-Jewish Americans of Eastern European descent under the age of 70 have become completely assimilated “generic” white Americans. Somehow (how was this accomplished?) being a non-Jewish white ethnic became a mark of shame-or at least extreme “uncoolness.” Italian-Americans get a partial exemption due (apparently) to the Hollywood promotion of the Mafia mystique. Paul Gottfried in his latest book, Encounters, p.113:
127
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:11 | # Grimoire,
I agree however there’s another side to it. The multicult uses Nazis and the holocaust to make white people feel guilty and that guilt is used to stop us defending ourselves against the immigration genocide. However it’s not enough for their purposes to just demonize the Nazi leadership. If the holocult is to be used as a psychological weapon against white rabbits in general then they have to demonize the German *people* as well. The guilt weapon works by trying to make white people feel they are uniquely and inherently evil, racist, anti-semitic etc. The Nazi leadership aren’t a big enough group to symbolize a whole race so the Nazis have to be an expression of the German people. From there the German people can be taken as an expression of white people at their worst and used by the multicult. So actually there are two critical periods for the multicult, the war itself, and the German people voting for Hitler in the years leading up to 1933. The voluntary election of Hitler is neccessary to make the Nazis an expression of the German psyche and by extension white people’s inner evil. For example ( from http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/05/welcome-home-to-slum-nation.html )
So i agree with your points about not talking about the holocaust. However i think talking about the Bolsheviks and the millions murdered between 1917 and 1933 as a reason (or the reason) for the German people voting for Hitler undercuts the reason the multicult is always trying to push - inherent white evil. The enemy always leaves it out of the official narrative for a reason. I think it should be put back in whenever the official narrative is mentioned which is all the time. Plus it’s *safe* to do because you don’t have to say anything nice about Nazis or bad about jews and it doesn’t break any of the rules of the multicult. 128
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:17 | # Repost of the quote from above to make the point clearer
129
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:19 | # scr, Shame, i think that kind of pressure group / campaign would have some interesting side effects. 130
Posted by Bill on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:13 | #
I suppose it was because my infant years were caught up in the maelstrom of the Second World War that I later became totally immersed in things appertaining. I read avidly, I soaked up the combined output of the British - US film industry on such matters. Fast forward to the recent future and imagine how my radar pinged when I first read a report that came (IMO) damn near blaming the white race for the failure to bomb the concentration camps of Hitler’s Germany. (Anyone else read them?) The inference begging the question was, did the absence of bombing the concentration camp/s (infrastructure?) signify that it was deliberate policy? Rewind briefly to my young days and I can recall asking myself the same question. TPTB certainly were aware of the existance and purpose of the camps, but seemingly did next to nothing in the way of targetting to destruction or hamper what was taking place. So whites had to join the list. 131
Posted by Bill on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:22 | # Re- Above. Why weren’t the concentration camps bombed? Thought I would just do a quick Google. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/04/why-the-allies-didn’t-bomb-the-death-camps-part-i/ I’ve only just skimmed above - I’ll go back and digest. 132
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:50 | # From the Britannica link:
I thought Weasel had been discredited these days? Is it right that these photos dont match the current layout of buildings at Auschwitz? 133
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:33 | #
Yes.
Motive. 134
Posted by Bill on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:59 | # Extraordinary conference EU parliament. Daniel Estulin talks about the Bilderburge group to an audience of EU members and press. Is this a wind up? Apparently Nigel Farage was unable to take part due to injuries recieved in plane crash. Three videos comprising http://www.youtube.com/europarl#p/u/1/ki8gXV88wng http://www.youtube.com/europarl#p/u/2/6cP49b2u6uI http://www.youtube.com/europarl#p/u/3/PmhiGy2VPmc HT Green Arrow 135
Posted by danielj on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:07 | # Italian-Americans get a partial exemption due (apparently) to the Hollywood promotion of the Mafia mystique. This is only so they can distract people from the fact that the Jewish mafia was incredibly large and ruthless. Just like the demonization of White ethnocentricity in any form distracts from the Jewish version of the phenomenon which is particularly intense. They love projecting their faults. 136
Posted by Armor on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:52 | #
It isn’t clear to me if you are being ironical or if you still believe in “the holocaust narrative”. 137
Posted by Armor on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:00 | # I hope no one ever suggested the Americans should have bombed Ukraine in order to put the kulaks out of their misery in 1932. 138
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:11 | # As everyone knows, Lurker is correct about Wiesel’s tall tales and that the exposure of old Yahweh’s Liar - in - Chief is comprehensive, as a perusal of this article’s extensive footnotes will confirm : 139
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:12 | # 140
Posted by EA Steve on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:43 | # DanielJ, I hear the Russian Jewish Mafia is more ruthless and radical than the Italian mafia is. But, you and I know why Hollywood doesn’t want to admit that! 141
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:05 | # Wandrin: No amount of objective data or dispassionate argument will penetrate the subjective cocoon of feigned hysteria. The man on the street recognizes that objectivity in these matters has been judged the base cause of the claimed suffering of millions. Objectivity in these matters ‘is’ of the same nature of crime as a Dr. Mengele and others, who also claimed objective reasons as reason for their alleged crimes. Objectivity in nationalist and ethnic matters are on the same ticket….thought crime of the same motive and nature as Mengele. Objectivity itself is the crime. Impeachable evidence exists today that ‘all’ of the historical documentation and evidence to support the popular narrative is doctored, misrepresented or false. It makes no difference. Objectivity itself is the crime. Recognize that the ‘means’ does not support the ‘ends’, at this time. There will be a time in the future when objective research and logical inference will no longer be proof of complicity in the original crime, nor will hysteria or a donkeys tears’ trump rational debate. That time is not now, as countless others far more dedicated than you or I have proved. Our goal must be to prepare a winning strategy oriented towards regaining national sovereignty… not making ourselves look stupid playing a rigged game in which we constantly lose by design…. something even the man in the street’s dog senses clearly Racial nationalists must recognize the game must change, and it is ‘we’ who must change it by refusing to play in the manner expected. Every skilled gambler knows you can sit at a rigged game and still win. A rigged game is a trap by design. It doesn’t deal you losing cards, a rigged game will in fact deal you winning cards…. to lead you into committing your resources, and then deals the losing cards. A skilled player is always aware of the signs of a trap, therefore he will play against the ‘bait’, not the dealer, maximize his winning potential, and at the right time, cut it loose and WALK away. 142
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:51 | # Grimoire, your strategy of “we will win by not losing” is a very sound one and mirrors the game plan of the 2009 World Backgammon Champion, Masayuki Mochizuki, who plays “not to win but to avoid defeat”. 143
Posted by Bill on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:03 | # We live in a world where the view of the left is pronounced through the filter of victim - oppressor. This view is now predominant throughout society. Who decides which category is assigned to whom and the reasoning behind how such conclusions are reached - remains largely a mystery to me. I only know, as Grimoire above so surgically lays bare - the game is rigged. 144
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:21 | # Armor
That’s obvious to a sane person but the people who say stuff like that are not sane. They’re trying to rationalize a moral justification for supporting the immigration-genocide of the entire white race. It’s about revenge and they need to justify why white Icelanders need to be wiped out just as much as Germans, British, French etc. And before anyone says “revenge for what?” A quote from a jewish writer concerning the Israel-flotilla events
Replace “the jewish state” with “jews” and you get their world-view. Just consider for a second that what constitutes a holocaust in their world-view may be different to yours and treat the word as a black box. Grimoire
I agree. I’m saying a good anti-multicult talking point is the Bolshevik holocaust between 1917 and 1933 and how the rise of Hitler was partly a reaction to it. This line counters the multicult line that the rise of Hitler was the result of a fit of inherent white ethnic madness.
I’m not debating that. As you say it is a stacked deck. I’m debating narrative - the story people believe. That story currently starts with white people suddenly going mad for no reason other than their inherent racist and anti-semitic demons. Give people a reason and it puts a pebble in the shoe of the official narrative. 145
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 06:14 | # I’m not debating that. As you say it is a stacked deck. I’m debating narrative - the story people believe. That story currently starts with white people suddenly going mad for no reason other than their inherent racist and anti-semitic demons. Give people a reason and it puts a pebble in the shoe of the official narrative. Wanderin: The first rule of conflict - never underestimate your opponent. A constructive approach may be to spend some time reading books on logic and debate - specifically dealing with irrational and scrupleless opposition. Then go to a hostile forum and start debates on the subject with the intention of not proving a point, but studying the psycho-dynamics noting strategy and tactics of both sides. Develop counters and test them. Learn to deflect and redirect irrational hostility. Learn to prolong the duration of the argument before being banned, or having your posts hijacked. I guarantee a interesting study. This type of intel is vastly more valuable than a few pebbles in the shoe of the official narrative. The official narrative has warehouses of shoes, and if it likes, will disappear and reappear without feet, or shoes. 146
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:46 | # Grimoire, We’ll have to agree to disagree. This particular talking point works, i use it whenever it can fit into the conversation, which is surprisingly often, but you probably do have to be a particular kind of person. 147
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:49 | #
This is something i do to test talking points and is very good advice. 148
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:53 | # The first rule of conflict - never underestimate your opponent. I think the first rule is always strike first. Most people can’t really take a strong blow straight to the nose. It is crippling. 149
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 01:14 | # Wandrin: his is something i do to test talking points and is very good advice. This is something I did for the latter half of last week at the BNP section of British Democracy Forums. Quite interesting. Not much intelligent debate going on there, but a couple of the guys who contacted me on the internal mail system were highly intelligent. These two both underperformed on the threads, in my view, but probably only because they are young and not yet in possession of all the pieces of the puzzle. It’s been my longstanding view that fora should be as open as possible to people with talent, even if they have not yet got the full gen. We have to open every door for them. They are the potential leaders of the next generation who must accomplish the long, hard task we only talk about. In general, I can’t say that my faith in political nationalism was restored, exactly, by the experience of debating with BDF members. Too many of them have penned themselves into odd little corners, which they defend very aggressively. Ferrets and sacks come to mind. But the entire party looks a bit like that. 150
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:01 | # Yes, the BNP is still in it’s elementary stages, yet to learn that words are sophisticated weapons and not rocks by the roadside. 151
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:00 | # GuessedWorker,
It’s potentially very valuable i think. In my case i see my “niche” as going after people who are at a lower level than that so i was using yahoo chat rooms until recently (as the chat program has gone wrong for some reason). If you think of people as being at certain levels: left-liberal I’d be focusing on the left-liberal to ukip/tea partier range and practise shifting my position for different people and using different arguments depending on who i was talking to. It’s very consciously dishonest so it wouldn’t suit everybody but i’m ok with it seeing as it’s a war of survival. It’s good practise finding ways of approaching the subject that don’t spook the brain-washed by breaking the rules of their multicult conditioning. I think that’s one of the problems of ethno-nationalism in general. People slowly self-radicalize to that point and then what? By going beyond the bounds of the multicult they’ve become heretics which makes it almost impossible for them to talk to non-radicalized people without spooking them and this makes it hard to increase the numbers. So some people who are suited to the task need to stealth and burrow back into the mainstream and nudge some mainstream people along a bit. The BDF thing sounds similar but at a higher level - trying to spread specific nationalist ideas rather than in my case very general anti-multicult ideas. I do think this is a very good way to spread the word. Join some online forum maybe related to something you’re interested in, fishing or computer games or whatever and then when political discussions come up or at least anything related to the multicult and immigration, have some talking points ready and throw them in. Though, come to mention it, obviously you were doing that fr ages at Cif so grandmother, eggs etc.
I think being heretics creates a laager mentality. Far-left (economic variant) groups were just the same. The successful left was the one that spent all it’s time undermining the dominant culture. 152
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:30 | # Wandrin, I note that you operate in the political context. That is probably right if one is trying to broach the race issue. It is difficult beyond the political field, among the mass of ordinaries. I’ve also had a long-time interest in races between things with four wheels that go quickly and then crash. So occasionally I visit the F1 forum at Autosport as well as comment on the threads to F1 articles in the mainstream press, always with one objective - to get people to stop referring to little Lewis Hamilton as English. There haven’t been any moderation issues. But only one person has ever reacted - and then they did not continue after I had responded. They will have lively discussions about whether Michael Schumacher was right to come back. “But that heavy stuff? Sheesh, give me a break.” It is not worth doing. The Independent, meanwhile, has found it so painful to have survivalist opinion expressed on their threads they are discriminating against anonymity by forcing commenters to open third-party ID accounts (Disqus, Twitter, Facebook, etc), and recognising only sign-ins through those. The CiF moderators, meanwhile, have become neurotically attuned to the sound of dissidence, and wash it off before the stain can spread. The successful left was the one that spent all it’s time undermining the dominant culture. And, from the CiF moderator’s point of view, fear of having the left’s dominant culture undermined is why. 153
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:15 | # GuessedWorker,
Yes. I think the multicult acts the same way as a religion. It blocks people doing what their instincts tell them to do. People are naturally ethno-centric but it’s suppressed by the multicult like AIDS suppresses the immune system. However if you attack it directly like your Lewis Hamilton example most people just clam up because they find blasphemy and heresy distressing. (In terms of my levels from the last post i’d maybe talk about the Lewis Hamilton thing if i was debating in some kind of nationalist vs ethno-nationalist context.) Say you were a Victorian writer who was opposed to the sexual morality of the dominant culture. You could write a book promoting your view or you could write a mocking satire about the hypocritical sexual behaviour of various priests and politicians. I think both methods would have the intended effect. The first book would promote an active resistance to the dominant culture. The second would weaken the dominant culture’s ability to suppress natural instincts. If you recall the recent case of the NI politician attacking homosexuality. The multicult countered in two ways. There was the direct attack calling her a homophobe etc and an indirect attack where they sent their scavengers to dig dirt, found out about an affair and then publicized it. They undermined her moral authority in tandem with a direct attack. I’m aiming at something similar - trying to undermine the multicult’s moral authority through pointing out, or simply accusing them of, hypocrisies and double standards around their own stated morality. In theory this should be easy as the multicult’s claim to the moral high ground comes from its claim to oppose racism and genocide when in fact the whole ideology is founded on genocidal anti-whte racism. There are no doubt many different ways of attempting this. The way that suits me is getting into mainstream conversations and when anything related to the multicult or immigration comes up i try and throw simple one line talking points into conversations all of which are aimed at undermining the moral authority of the multicult and its priests e.g the left want immigration for votes, the right wants immigration for cheap labour etc. None of them actually break the official rules of the multicult and most use the morality of the multicult in reverse e.g they call it anti-racism but in reality it’s anti-white racism. This kind of thing doesn’t suit everybody but i think some WN types should be doing it. To go back to my knife going through butter analogy half of WN activity should be focused on heating the knife (party, ideology, organisation, philosophy etc) and the other half should be focused on melting the butter (attacking the multicult religion) in whichever way suits them best. 154
Posted by Wilfrid Emanuel-Jones's Ghost on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:39 | # GW isn’t a resident of the ancient and loyal borough of Chippenham, perchance? 155
Posted by Angry Beard on Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:01 | # Geert Wilders and his freedom party did very well in the recent Dutch election, with Wilders being in the eviable and pivotal position of being ‘kingmaker’ or ‘powerbroker’ by default in parliament, commanding as he does the balance of power. 156
Posted by Bill on Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:51 | # GW Sunday, May 30, 2010 at 12:06 AM
Recently, Nick Griffin gave notice he will quit the stewardship of the BNP in 3 years time, the contest for his successor is afoot. Steady Eddie throws in his cap, the blue touch-paper is lit. http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/ Strangely, with a simultaneous announcement, a Griffin video announces that the ECHR are back on his case. Prison beckons - so be it! Is Griffin making his pitch, he is the saviour the only one who can save the BNP? Hmmm? http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/ It’s early days yet, but the BNP is irresistibly collapsing. The Emperor is perceived naked, does it matter who succeeds Griffin to become head honcho? I don’t think it does, the BNP is terminally holed. Is it a bad thing the BNP and its no smoke without fire negative baggage will disappear without trace? Again, I don’t think so. I know, I know, the opponents of nationalism will never let up on England, but when the electorate can convince themselves they are not Nazis (through association) then they will feel free to vote for their children and their children’s children. For when the Phoenix arises - it will still be all to play for. Always assuming that democracy is not suspended of course. Post a comment:
Next entry: Oil And Water Must Mix!!!
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 30 May 2010 04:16 | #
Paraphrasing Nietzsche, a man passes through four stations in realization / deification of ‘Being’.
First, the youthful, solipsistic appearance of the primal ‘will’ ...(The Birth of Tragedy). The ‘will’ wrestles with the idea or inductive evidence that ‘self’ is all that can ever be known. This is the “Will ” as theory, as feminine principal, (weiblicher prinpciple). This feminine principle Schopenhauer terms “the blind kernel of all being”. The will of hate
and love and constant struggle within.
Next; moral will - ‘reason turned practical’ as Kant writes. For Nietzsche, averring Christian moral Ideals or ‘Pessimism’ (Schopenhauer) this was a Dionysian steppe, or affirmation of the necessary unity of creation and destruction. ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’, is the antecedent of moral will. The book itself a fanciful allegory seen yet through the eye of the child. The child who faces fully life and death, all that is questionable and dark, and says ‘yes’ to it all - who passes beyond the moral problem, the metaphysical problem, the ontological problem, but rather approaches the core - the living problem of earth and blood.
Third; is The Will to Power. The ‘WTP’ interprets values and meaning (an sich) into things. The struggle and opposition is no longer internal, but external. The man stands and knows his enemies, not to study their error and accuse, but to destroy and rebuild. This is the Nachlass of the Overman