Watching for signs of public anti-fascism

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 00:04.

by DanielJ

I was reading Alex Kurtagic’s latest over at the Occidental Observer (Are Leftists Clever?) and came across this:

[A]nother anti-racist activist, writing in 2007, shows this is a stock phrase [the phrase “a vast majority” when it is used as a bludgeon against those opposed to public opinion on any given subject]:

“There should be a two-pronged attack on the fascists: dealing with their lies on the ground, and dealing with the social problems that lead to resentment and move people to vote for the BNP in a protest vote. We know the vast majority of people in this country abhor the racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideas of the party.”

I was struck suddenly by the strangeness of the term “protest vote.” Does anybody else find sinister and Orwellian the idea that a vote for the interests of one’s own people is assigned to “protest”? Isn’t all voting a form of assent or dissent? Well OK, voting intentions always have been substantially manufactured. We generally vote the way we are supposed to. Now, it seems that when we don’t, we merely demonstrate our unorthodoxy, and reveal our impenitence to our smiling - or not-so-smiling - khaki-clad, latte-drinking, platitude-spouting, conformity-enforcing, wannabe Torquemadas of the modern age.

Kurtagic’s anti-fa believes not just that there should be an attack carried out by the overwhelming or vast majority on “the fascists”, but that there could be such an attack. These “fascists”, who are already marginalized by virtue of their political eccentricity, could realistically be attacked by the numerical majority! After all, manufactured political violence is only a notch or two up on manufactured voting intentions, and we all know they’re real enough.

So that phrase “a vast majority” concerns me, as it concernes Kurtagic. It should rightfully concern any person espousing a minority viewpoint. Generally, when a small band of people assembles for the express purpose of attacking others or engaging in criminal activity we attach to the group a label: gang, bandits, syndicate, mafia, etc. However, in circumstances where the gang is comprised of an overwhelming majority of the populace, we attach to the conspirators the very dignified sounding appellation, the public, and their crimes are sanctioned, their opinions received as wisdom, and the blood they shed and tread on redeems. Where’s the crime there?

Historically, the multitude has proven itself to be the greatest and most harsh tyrant of all. It exercises near total control in its wildly arbitrary and indiscriminately vast decrees that encompass nearly every human activity, subjecting even the minutia of the lives of the people to its dominion, ever expanding its empire by the pressure of peerage, it rules us through a network of informants from whom we can never secure even the smallest sanctuary or modicum of peace.

Who watches the watcher’s watchers?

The public can be a petty and capricious bitch of a custodian. Woe to the man who casts his vote against the multitude! Who, after all, would protest the people save a lunatic?

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by danielj on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:41 | #

Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

‘Young people are thinking it’s acceptable, fashionable, necessary for them to protect themselves, to carry a knife,’ said Brown who called for parents and community leaders to help get across the message that carrying a knife put people at greater danger of violence than not carrying one. Just like we made guns unacceptable, we should make knives unacceptable.

‘You need, not just young people but parents and other people to say that knives in Britain, like guns, like bullying, like racism, all these things are unacceptable.’ [...]

‘There are certain boundaries in a decent society you don’t cross and these boundaries are cultural. In America it is acceptable for many people to carry guns, it’s not in Britain. We’ve got to make it as unacceptable to carry knives. Most decent people would want to do that and I think what you will see over the next few months is this sort of campaign, which is led not just by government but people in the country, to say “get knives off our streets”.’ [Rise up to curb knife culture, PM urges at book festival, Guardian, August 10, 2008].

Knives, guns, bullying and racism.

One of these things is not like the other!

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:17 | #

I can just see the party slogan, “We must act now to stop the proliferation of butter-knives!”

Of course, spoon + file = Knife,

...so good luck to the British authorities with cracking down on the spread of a technology that pre-dates the wheel in terms of fundamental craft.

They may want to go ahead and preemptively outlaw rocks and large clumps of dirt, while they’re at it.

That, at least, would be more politically correct than taking at look at exactly who is wielding knives for deadly purposes.

But I guess that would detract attention away from keeping an eye on all of those insidious Protest Voters.

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:24 | #

The Narrator: That, at least, would be more politically correct than taking at look at exactly who is wielding knives for deadly purposes.

You can look. But you can’t tell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8594097.stm

Rod Liddle’s Spectator blog first to be censured by PCC Spectator columnist Rod Liddle has become the first blogger to be censured by the Press Complaints Commission.

On the Spectator’s website, Mr Liddle wrote that the “overwhelming majority” of London’s violent crime was carried out by young, African-Caribbean men.

But the PCC ruled the former BBC Radio 4 Today editor’s words breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of its code.

It said the “significant ruling” showed publications’ websites would be held to the same standards as print editions.

A reader had complained after the article was published in December 2009.

Mr Liddle had written that “the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community”.

PCC director Stephen Abell said the Spectator had provided some evidence to back up Mr Liddle’s assertion.

But he added “it had not been able to demonstrate that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of crime in all the stated categories had been carried out by members of the African-Caribbean community”.

Mr Abell said the ruling was significant because it demonstrated that “the PCC expects the same standards in newspaper and magazine blogs that it would expect in comment pieces that appear in print editions”.

“There is plenty of room for robust opinions, views and commentary, but statements of fact must still be substantiated if and when they are disputed,” he said.

But in a sense, this is travelling in the opposite direction from Daniel’s piece. We are all assuming as usual that the anti-Nature nature of the Establishment’s neo-Marxist morality, as embodied in Britain, for example, in the violent UAF and the Jewish Searchlight, must be so patently evil, alien and offensive to the collective sensibility that it will be manfully resisted. Daniel, however, is working from the assumption - suspicion, really - that the collective sensibility is a deeply unreliable and brutish animal whose appetite for victims’ blood is by no means restrained by leisured modernity. One scent of sport and sensibility be damned.

A challenge to the standard nationalist assessment thought it certainly is, it’s something we would do well to ponder.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:05 | #

Are Leftists Clever? (—Kurtagic)

Of course not. Leftists are stupid. But for some reason, Kurtagic has an inferiority complex towards them.

In France, the media usually say that voting for the Front National is “a protest vote”. According to them, people who vote for Le Pen are stupid and confusedly angry. But in reality, they vote against immigration. In 2007, Sarkozy made people think that he opposed mass immigration and supported order and security. As a result, he got much of the vote that usually goes to Le Pen and was elected president. Many people had a try at Sarkozy because they knew that Le Pen would not win the election anyway. I think it shows that support for Front National has little to do with a clueless protest vote.

We know the vast majority of people in this country abhor the racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideas of the party. (—The media)

After the Swiss referendum that banned minarets on mosques, the French journalists even claimed that Switzerland had been shocked by the result of the vote!

The obvious contradiction is that the media will denounce “populism” on the one hand, and on the other hand will feel the need to say that most people agree with them. For example, they will blame Le Pen for being a “populist”, and will add that the Front National is an “extreme right” “fringe group” that has no real support among most people.

Logically, if the media really think that “populism” is something disgusting, then they should not claim that most people agree with them. They should make clear that they don’t care what people think.

Besides, most people disagree with the media. They have no wish to be race-replaced.

Historically, the multitude has proven itself to be the greatest and most harsh tyrant of all. (...) ever expanding its empire by the pressure of peerage, it rules us through a network of informants (—DanielJ)

I disagree with this. In a dictatorship, there will be informers, spies and traitors, as in North-Korea and former East-Germany, but it doesn’t mean that people agree with their government. People are moved to denounce their comrades for other reasons: money, jealousy, disappointed love, and so on. It has nothing to do with ideology, or peer-pressure. Peer-pressure can be oppressive (having to wear a tie and shave every morning!), but not as much as government tyranny.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:51 | #

Of course not. Leftists are stupid. But for some reason, Kurtagic has an inferiority complex towards them.

I think the leaders are clever but not wise. The followers are niether.

The obvious contradiction is that the media will denounce “populism” on the one hand, and on the other hand will feel the need to say that most people agree with them.

A very important point. Manufacturing consensus is a herding technique.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:33 | #

Kurtagic has an inferiority complex towards them.

He is overschooled.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:36 | #

Peer-pressure can be oppressive (having to wear a tie and shave every morning!), but not as much as government tyranny.

The populace is the means by which the elite tyrannize no?

Obama doesn’t exert direct pressure on me and Stalin didn’t single-handedly handle the populace either.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:41 | #

that the collective sensibility is a deeply unreliable and brutish animal whose appetite for victims’ blood is by no means restrained by leisured modernity. One scent of sport and sensibility be damned.

The drive for “absolution” is strong. Scapegoating isn’t just for desert nomads with stolen Egyptian goods.

Posted by Armor on Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:19 | #

“The populace is the means by which the elite tyrannize no?”

Only a small segment of the populace! I’d rather blame the phony elites than people in general because it is less depressing, and because I know that most people resent the anti-white policy, even though they are unlikely to rise up en masse.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:43 | #

I’d rather blame the phony elites than people in general because it is less depressing, and because I know that most people resent the anti-white policy, even though they are unlikely to rise up en masse.

Maybe in France. (You’re in France right?) Across the pond in America we have a different kind of pet tiger. We are very, very mixed. Most of my white friends have “black friends.” The MTV art is imitating the horrifyingly shocking reality that is Southern California. Even far away Vermont is right in the middle of the same degenerate Dada, but remains a slightly lagging indicator of racial and cultural decline.

However, I will acknowledge that our rapid demographic transformation is a very polarizing issue. Most of the converts I’ve made and people that were already allies are extremely zealous. They are, perhaps, as zealous as the antis but are biding their time.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:59 | #

Racialism is a mental illness

Racialism is instinct. That’s why blacks, hispanics, jews etc are all so racist - it’s natural.

Only massive amounts of non-stop social conditioning can suppress those natural instincts and that social conditioning has been directed at white rabbits for decades because jewish racists believe they’re the master race and want to rule the lesser races i.e everyone else.

They won’t succeed of course because even if they manage to complete their attempted genocide of white people they’ll eventually get whacked by mozzies or mexicans and have to run off to China or Japan or somewhere where they’ll start the whole process over again.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:01 | #

Previous post was a reply to something that’s since been deleted.

Posted by Drifter on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:28 | #

The people do not want liberty. The people seek collectivism, censorship, and the creation of social taboo:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/cjbl7/white_nationalists_are_trying_to_invade_reddit/c0sz0i7