Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:05 | #

GW

Wonderful. The French are just so stylish. If this was a British effort it would, no doubt, be a semi-literate football thug talking to camera.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:24 | #

Isn’t that terrific?  So simple and yet so stirring and optimistic.  I loved that line, “Don’t you understand what this means. We will not back down, we will not give in.”  Boy, what would I give to see the fat faces of France’s party elites getting the good news some time in the flesh.

Bloc Identitaire is holding a conference in Orange early next month.  They are expecting 600 attendees.  Their last conference in 2009 attracted 60.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:31 | #

And one other thing about the French, Graham: they are not afraid of intelligent politics.  The anti-intelligence of the Griffin Clique is a total joke by comparison.

Posted by daniel on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:34 | #

Of course I love this video…at least to begin..

However, I need to know more about “The May ‘68ers”, how much they deserve to be singled out for the wrath of Génération Identitaire; or whether that is just another way of re-directing attention to blame White men; or direct attention away from the responsibility of international capitalists….etc.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:24 | #

It’s just generational in the French context, I think ... a figure for the rejection of the liberal Establishment.  There is nothing wrong with young people rejecting the political Establishment.  You can’t expect them to be entirely free-thinking and Jew-aware.

There are some rather clunky and ideological aspects of the Bloc Identitaire platform, notable its noisy rejection of nationalism.  But that’s probably as much about trying to attract a constituency as about distinct principles.  The history of French reaction is one of much violence.  It is not like the history of nationalism in the English speaking world.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:34 | #

Daniel - lift the May ‘68 rock and I think you’ll find a lot of YKW scuttling out.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 01:01 | #

This comment of mine seems more relevant here, so I repost:

<blockquote>The biggest mistake Britain ever made was following the USA in its idiotic embrace of “diversity”. At least the Yanks had slaves whose descendants they had to deal with. What was the UK’s excuse for flooding its island home with foreign inferiors? Did the UK need immigrants? Of course not! There will never be peace and old-fashioned civility in Britain again until all nonwhites are forcibly removed from the country (and all domestic leftists marginalized if not executed). Whatever furthers the ability of the real people of England (do I need to say the white inhabitants?) to expel the invaders - breaking up the constituent nations, voting UKIP, mass vigilantism against Muslim and African criminals - must be pursued. England is literally a dying nation, murdered by the multicultural Left, which must be made to suffer for its treason. (Haller)

Haller, you never have been able to control yourself, have you?  Remember that story you told us about a drinking companion wanting to punch your head in for your broaching the subject of immigration in a way that infuriated him?  Your exhortations don’t sound any better in print, pal.  The funny thing is you’re aware of all this, aware of the need for incrementalism, yet…what takes place upstairs?  Any two-bit punk is capable of spewing out the venom above.  As far as I can tell its main effect is to strengthen the resolve of the liberal power structure.  What good is that?  So you registered your disapproval, bravo.  Your courageous defiance is noted.  But isn’t a little more than that required? (Silver)</blockquote>

It is actually quite important that the boundaries of ‘acceptable’ political rhetoric keep getting expanded. It is important for white preservationists to ‘vent’ as often as possible and as widely as possible. When I speak of incrementalist rhetoric and/or strategies I am referring to the political and intellectual classes. Politically, we must stop nonwhite immigration before we bother with anything else. This is so obvious that hordes of WNs fail to see it. Our physical dispossession is primarily a function of traitor-abetted mass colonization. I once had a multiculti traitor openly state this objective to me (long time ago - early 90s). He said his main political goal was to bring as many nonwhites into the US as possible. He didn’t care from where; Mexicans, blacks, Orientals - all the same and all good as far as he was concerned. When I asked him what inspired this treason, he gave me the typically insane white leftist spiel about how the USA could be a multicultural “model” for the planet, showing how all the peoples of the Earth could live harmoniously under one democratic government (and that the US was the place which would have the best chance of really becoming this First Universal Nation).

Anyway, nationalists certainly need to be shrewd in hewing to Graham Lister’s refrain about our not raising too high the psychological costs of accepting our message. So, yes, politically what we need, and what I have long advocated, is a strategy of gradual radicalization; that is, we need to speak as sweetly as necessary to bring majorities around to accepting the basic sine qua non idea of ending nonwhite immigration. The unbridled idiocy that some WNs exhibit in thinking that we can challenge Zionist financial and media hegemony more easily than we can end mass immigration is matched only by their stupidity in seemingly actually believing that the former is of greater importance than the latter. I don’t want to destroy Jewish media control (but how? how?) only to find myself living as an oppressed white minority in Southern African conditions. First things first. We must focus our energies on ending immigration. Just doing that, something far easier than almost any other aspect of the broad WN agenda (but as yet unaccomplished), would be a huge political as well as policy gain for nationalists. With that under our belts, new objectives can be pursued.

So you are correct that my rhetoric above would not be appropriate for a politician trying to reach ordinary whites. But it remains important to avoid reducing the nationalist agenda merely to immigration termination. Therefore, while ‘responsible’ parties must employ ‘responsible’ rhetoric, WNs must also seek to be the ‘hard edge’ of political discourse, constantly moving rightwards what is acceptable to say and advocate. If part of our job is to persuade voters, by means of all types of rhetoric (whatever fits particular audiences), of the need to end immigration, another part is to accustom those who are broadly with us in terms of formulating policies to deal with the problems created by multiracialism (eg, “support the police” in dealing with nonwhite criminality) to thinking about the specifically racial aspects of those problems. Conservatives shy away from this, even when anonymously commenting on the internet. Thus my comment above, posted at a mostly conservative UK police blog, is appropriate and might resonate with some there, helping to bolster their moral courage in coming to acknowledge the disaster of diversity.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 01:05 | #

Ditto (as a followup to the above comment):

Just to reiterate for any ‘newbies’ here:

My goals as a nationalist (really, a conservative nationalist) are:

1. Expulsion of all nonwhite citizens (preceded by stripping of citizenship) and non-diplomatic residents from European soils. This should be considered Goal #1 of WN. Beyond this, I am a standard American ‘fusionist’ conservative: Christian public morality + capitalist economy + limited, non-socialist/welfarist government + celebration of Occidental High Culture + strong national defense + traditional (retributive + restitutive) crime control methods.

2. For the New World, I am more liberal. I want the government to:

a. end nonwhite immigration
b. deport all (nonwhite) illegal aliens
c. seal our borders against further illegal immigration
d. increase the numbers of white immigrants
e. abolish affirmative action and First Nations special privileges
f.  restore traditional punitive models of crime control
g. restore the full right to bear arms in defense of person and property
h. craft a pro-white family/natalist/(and, ideally, eugenicist) tax policy
i.  make receipt of transfer money (welfare) or credits (food stamps) dependent on female acceptance of unremovable contraceptive implants
j.  pass nationwide anti-fraud Voter ID law
k. pass nationwide felon disenfranchisement law
l.  end all foreign aid
m.eliminate antiwhite propaganda in school textbooks
n. eliminate national holidays celebrating nonwhites.

Obviously this agenda is not meant to be that of a full political party or ideology (which for me would include many points related to military security, strengthening of property rights, removal of state interference in private business, etc). It focuses on the racial elements in the WN agenda as applied outside of Europe. The goal is not racial cleansing, but white empowerment.

In fact, the latter should be emphasized. WN goals are:

For Europe—-> RACIAL CLEANSING

For New World—-> WHITE EMPOWERMENT

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 01:20 | #

Wonderful video, btw. Thanks for posting.

I do think it could have been a little more straightforwardly anti-immigrant/multiculturalist, but then, I’m not very familiar with French laws or the facts on the ground. I do think that today’s white 20-somethings are far different in outlook (mostly for the worse) than my own generation of 40-somethings, which can still recall pre-“diversity” times (actually, my generation was the uneasy transitional one: as children, we grew up in mostly white communities and nations, but the transformation was well underway; by the time we reached young adulthood, we were living in a new, multikulti reality far different from that of our fathers). Perhaps this is the type and form of message that will resonate with them.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:19 | #

Self-defence. Very important.

For example it’s the young and the elderly who are overwhelmingly the victims of racist violence and - despite what the media says - racist violence is overwhelmingly anti-white. However you need a critical mass of people who know that is true from personal experience which obviously - if you have a completely dishonest media - can’t happen until things are pretty far gone.

Posted by daniel on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:12 | #

Posted by Lurker on October 15, 2012, 06:34 PM | #

Daniel - lift the May ‘68 rock and I think you’ll find a lot of YKW scuttling out.

I don’t doubt that. However, I still have questions. I don’t know how much in common the May 68ers have with American hippies. Nevertheless, I am convinced that hippie protests against Viet Nam and other pernicious motives from powers at the top were valid and organic White male motives. Whereas Jewish interests imposed Black Civil Rights and non-White immigration to violate White association; along with feminism and sexual revolution to bury and push aside the more basic concerns of White men in favor of feminism’s higher ambitions, particularly after the war was over.

Hippies were not articulate enough to sort these things out (the prominent ones were fools at best and more often than not seeing matters all wrong), but that is all the more reason why the Jewish interpretation and media representation of what their organic motives were about should not be accepted at face value.

What has prompted my suspicion again is this Dave McGowen series: inside the LC -  http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr106.html

It is a fun, entertaining, read by a conspiracy theorist who notes an uncanny number of America’s seminal hippies were children of US Military intelligence officers and coalesced in Laurel Canyon a little too coincidentally before the hippie movement took off, even in San Francisco. Beginning with Jim Morrison, whose father was a US Navy Admiral - not just any US Navy Admiral, but apparently the one in charge of the fleet in the Gulf of Tonken which was falsely claimed to be under attack by the Viet Cong; thereby providing an excuse for The US to get into the Viet Nam war. Frank Zappa’s father was a chemical weapons engineer. Steven Stills’ father was in military intelligence and on, etc. He amasses quite a list of prominent hippies in Laurel Canyon circa ‘65, ‘66 whose parents were in sync with the military industrial complex.

However, as one reads on, McGowen himself begins to seem a little suspicious. Not only in listing “suspicious” death after “suspicious” death. He seems overly eager to depict the hippie movement as being entirely fabricated as controlled opposition by the military industrial complex. There was “nothing organic about it”, that is, nothing organic about (White) men not wanting to be drafted into the Viet Nam war to die. That these things were all a distraction from “the legitimate movements of Black civil rights and feminism.”

He describes Buffalo Springfield’s “For What its Worth?” as inarticulate but the most prominent war protest song (the implication being, therefore, that the hippies motive was not sincerely about protesting the war). When in fact, that is neither specifically a war protest song nor the most prominent one. The most prominent war protest song would be “Feel Like I’m Fixin’ To Die Rag” as performed at Woodstock.

McGowen begins to insert anti racist sentiments in this twenty some odd episode saga of the hippie beginnings in Laurel Canyon.

Talking about hippie Peter Fonda’s (Easy Rider) military intelligence and Hollyood actor father, Henry Fonda, he describes how he would have been traumatized by having witnessed the horrible lynching of a Black man accused of raping a White girl (no mention of concern for the White girl).

He talks about how people with skin tone were not welcome in the Canyon, he bandies the word racism and of course, has nothing to say about Jewish power and influence. ..and more..

So, I’m getting the impression that this guy is somehow trying to discredit the legitimacy of White men defending their existence from being expendable.

My main question is why is McGowen doing this? I imagine that he is being coddled by the constraints of Jewish narrative to see certain things, viz. to blame White men, and not others.

In fact, McGowen’s framing of events has the hallmarks of his being under post hypnotic suggestion. He ignores the completely obvious and calls upon his readers to do so as well when it comes to Jewish influence and in a glaringly obvious instance of Black culpability:

Witness his description of the Hunter Meredith incident at Altamont. Anybody who has seen “Gimme Shelter” observes Mick Jagger carefully examining the stabbing death of Hunter Meredith (a black with a White girlfriend in the crowd), freeze framing the film where a gun can be clearly seen on Hunter Meredith, showing up against his bright green clothes.

Nevertheless, McGowen has this to say:

“Many of the accounts of the tragedy at Altamont include the demonstrably false claim that Hunter can unmistakably be seen drawing a gun just before being jumped and killed by the Angels (some accounts even have Hunter firing the alleged gun). The relevant frames from the film are included here for your review. What can certainly be fairly clearly seen is the large knife being brought down into Hunter’s back. But a gun being brandished by Mr. Hunter? If you can see one, then you either have far better eyes than I, or a far more active imagination. Or both.”

With this kind of monkey business gong on, including hypnosis to frame the narrative of just who the culpable and who are the powers that be, I need to proceed carefully with my support of Génération Identitaire; or more specifically, I need to be cautious in terms of who they are looking upon as the enemy.

The May 68ers may be wholly Jewish, wholly international capitalist, wholly pro immigration for all I know at this point… or there may have been some legitimate pro White concerns there that were co opted and redirected for Jewish interests. In the case of Génération Identitaire, I wonder if they are a movement that will be coddled to be conveniently right wing capitalist and anti Muslim only, all others OK provided that they “work hard.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:45 | #

What was the UK’s excuse for flooding its island home with foreign inferiors?

Cheap labour.

With such a competitor the English working-man has to struggle, with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country, who for this very reason requires less wages than any other. Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him. And these branches are many. All such as demand little or no skill are open to the Irish. For work which requires long training or regular, pertinacious application, the dissolute, unsteady, drunken Irishman is on too low a plane. To become a mechanic, a mill-hand, he would have to adopt the English civilisation, the English customs, become, in the main, an Englishman. But for all simple, less exact work, wherever it is a question more of strength than skill, the Irishman is as good as the Englishman. Such occupations are therefore especially overcrowded with Irishmen: hand-weavers, bricklayers, porters, jobbers, and such workers, count hordes of Irishmen among their number, and the pressure of this race has done much to depress wages and lower the working-class. And even if the Irish, who have forced their way into other occupations, should become more civilised, enough of the old habits would cling to them to have a strong, degrading influence upon their English companions in toil, especially in view of the general effect of being surrounded by the Irish. For when, in almost every great city, a fifth or a quarter of the workers are Irish, or children of Irish parents, who have grown up among Irish filth, no one can wonder if the life, habits, intelligence, moral status—in short, the whole character of the working-class assimilates a great part of the Irish characteristics. On the contrary, it is easy to understand how the degrading position of the English workers, engendered by our modern history, and its immediate consequences, has been still more degraded by the presence of Irish competition.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm

Since Grant’s admonition about manual labour and extinction goes unheeded, a Citizen’s dividend appears to effect a mitigation mechanism for the working class.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/citizens_dividends_to_capture_parliamentary_governments/

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:04 | #

WNs should derive more propaganda value from basic personal security concerns. This is what we don’t want our nations to become:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/08/prisoners_rule?page=full

I’m a great believer in advancing the racialist agenda through “traditional” appeals to fundamental issues, like security and economic opportunity and the costs of diversity. I continue not to think we need to be all that philosophically sophisticated to yet win the day (the big exception being the ethics of racial nationalism, which needs to be fully developed and then articulated).

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:28 | #

In the mean time, whilst the Génération Identitaire is barely beginning to develop, the May “68ers” are continuing apace with their obliteration of France.

French president pushing homework ban as part of ed reforms

“French President François Hollande has said he will end homework as part of a series of reforms to overhaul the country’s education system.

And the reason he wants to ban homework?

He doesn’t think it is fair that some kids get help from their parents at home while children who come from disadvantaged families don’t. It’s an issue that goes well beyond France, and has been part of the reason that some Americans oppose homework too.”

Read more>>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/10/15/french-president-pushing-homework-ban-as-part-of-ed-reforms/

I HATE THE F**KING LEFTISTS!!!

Posted by daniel on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:16 | #

I HATE THE F**KING LEFTISTS!!!

I don’t mind so much your hating “Leftists” so far as we are talking about the same thing.

All of my experience thus far shows that what people call the left, as it applies to Whites, is liberalism.

Posted by daniel on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:26 | #

That homework ban is strange, certainly a new one on me.

As far as it concerns native French, where does it serve the union of their interests?

I imagine that is not the aim. Therefore it is not French left.

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:52 | #

I don’t mind so much your hating “Leftists” so far as we are talking about the same thing.

When I speak of Leftists, I’m reffering to Cultural Marxists. Those Commie scum whose worldview evolved from the anti-capitalist/anti-Christian ideologies that were made manifest within the Frankfort School during the 1930s, then put into widespread practice during the 1960s.

Of course the term “liberal” has been hijacked by the left. Much of what is sold as “liberalism” today is actually Cultural Marxism in disguise. Hence, for sake of discussion, we must define our terms.

Jeffersonian Liberals are good! If you’re that, you earn a gold star.

Modern Liberals or progressives? NO SOUP FOR YOU!

——

For those new to Cultural Marxism:

Excerpt from CULTURAL MARXISM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkwgbQ_VarA&feature=related

—-

Herbert Marcuse on the Frankfurt School: Section 1 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pzfy2izu44&feature=related

Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:21 | #

A bit cheeky but i’ll risk it.

This was Kievskys (a big advocate for high value home schooling) initial response to the the French socialists proposed homework ban.

“All such measures have opposite of intended consequences. Smart and savvy parents will use Schaum’s and Khan Academy and used textbooks from amazon to assign better homework. as it is, public school homework is awful — its horrible twaddle designed to make students hate the very idea of learning. Dumb parents and their dumb kids will celebrate the end of homework as ushering in a new age free of competition, when in fact it is exacty the oopposite. let’s hope the liberals dont make their kids do homework, and the kids who grow up liberals will be even stupider, and the kids who don’t want to be stupid will rebel against liberalsm and egalitarianism and end up in our camp.”

Kievsky@MiR

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:16 | #

A small point: Has anyone here at MR noted that the great racial scientist Philippe Rushton has died? At only 68, that’s sad. Rightists generally seem not to live too long (Revilo Oliver was a wonderful exception).

Posted by daniels. on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:24 | #

I had noted Rushton’s passing:

Posted by daniel on October 05, 2012, 07:59 AM | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRduoxbH6HA&feature=relmfu

Posted by daniel on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:59 | #

Of course the term “liberal” has been hijacked by the left. Much of what is sold as “liberalism” today is actually Cultural Marxism in disguise.

Jeffersonian Liberals are good! If you’re that, you earn a gold star.

“Liberalism” may have been engrafted upon Cultural Marxist, Jewish Leftism, but ..

Hence, for sake of discussion, we must define our terms.

it is more the problem that Whites accept the mixture of these terms, leftism and liberalism.

A White left is about White group/national/regional interests and not about non-White group/national/regional interests.

About Jeffersonian liberalism being good, I am not so sure. Jefferson wrote Locke into the U.S. Constitution. That is liberal indeed, in a most radical way. As I have argued in many places, it ruptures White classification (organization) and leaves us vulnerable against enemies. I have recently heard a discussion which talked of Locke’s as being a philosophy which ascribed all learning as outward. Not being a Lockeatine scholar, I will take their word for it; but it makes sense, when considering his notion of tabula raisa. The rejoinder being that we do inherit genetics which we can examine and learn - we can take the ancient Greek advice to know thyself to a large extent - and understand our genetic proclivities. This would be a view favored at Majority Rights and it is not wrong. However, what a more social orientation would hope to add is that these genetics are born of and involved in social systems which should involve accountability and some constraints - on both those who are “better” and those who are “worse.” Naturally, the concern of Whites is that their systemic interests not be transgressed - that is what I am calling the White left.

It is not arguing for equality, rather it is arguing that we are not the same, a qualitative distinction which we apply within the group and toward other races as well.

It allows for private property, free enterprise, wealth, different individual or community ways of life, religions and a modicum of safety net, all provided they do not transgress the interests and the lands of Whites.

One place where Jefferson strikes me as less rigid and more worthy as an exemplar was in his self designation as an epicurean - that philosophy seems to hold much for the scientifically oriented.

Kievsky, as far as your valuing of competition, take those Whites who do not want to compete with other Whites but would rather cooperate with them and kill them! They are inferior scum of the earth!

Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:54 | #

Another video where Europeans/white bitch and moan but don’t do anything who themselves are the worst offenders when it comes to Europe and European affiliated countries relations with one another.

The French are probably as wimpy as the English who let minorities dominate and embarrass them during the London riots forcing them to undress. Lol!

At least this one is of better quality than the usually YouTube video of clips from films like 300 with music and text overlay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR18LRbOwpU

Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:06 | #

jamesUK would of course take on an armed London street gang single-handedly.

The gangs left the streets when the football ‘firms’ went out to take them on jamesUK.

But i’m sure you already know that.

Any excuse for a pop eh? From the safety of the Highlands.

Prick.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:40 | #

It’s not about Jefferson’s liberalism or Locke’s philosophy. It was/is about homogeneity.

…But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/notes-on-virginia-8.html

Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:42 | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRRIm8hYfBo

The EDL Exposed: By Nick Griffin

A very, very interesting watch.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:55 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 16, 2012, 07:40 PM | #

“They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

Desmond, good point. It is a telling comment from Jefferson. Rather conservative at that, showing that he fully respected the need for a homogeneous population.

Therefore, his would be a sort of liberalism among group members which would be tempered by their common background. Paradigmatic conservatism (conservative borders, rather free individual liberties within) fine.

However, in terms of how things have played out (quite the opposite of what he advised in that passage), it is indeed, The Constitution that has mattered as an influence, not Jefferson’s preference for a homogeneous society; not even his explicit statement that the blacks and Whites cannot live together under the same government.

What is meaningful as a problem now is the mechanism of Lockeatine, civil individual rights, which is a liberal, anti-classification technology indeed (problematic for several reasons by itself to begin), as it was imbued in The US Constitution by Jefferson, and then distorted by the messianic (such as the abolitionist, religious sorts of the US North), and later of course, perverted by Jewish interests.

However, in terms of intent, agreed, that statement would vindicate Jefferson significantly.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:43 | #

What is meaningful as a problem now is the mechanism of Lockeatine, civil individual rights,

There are no civil individual rights entrenched in the US Constitution. Title VII protects group rights, so it is difficult to accept the argument that such rights descend from Locke through Jefferson in a vehicle dubbed liberalism.

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

Posted by daniel on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:18 | #

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

First of all, this “Civil Rights Act” was written and promoted by Jews.

Secondly, it has been implemented by Jews (through legislature, courts, media, etc), and as such it is experienced as a violation of freedom of White association; and a violation of White freedom from association with non-Whites.

Third, and most important, it is explicitly saying that one cannot discriminate - i.e. form associations and non-associations on the basis of race (classifications) - therefore, one can only hope to fall back on the reductio ad absurdum of the Cartesian/Lockeatine empirical notion of civil individual rights. That leaves one largely at the mercy of Jewish group interests and those they empower in legislature, courts, politics, media, finance, business and religion.

Posted by daniel on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:52 | #

...and academia.

Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:05 | #

@uKn_Leo

jamesUK would of course take on an armed London street gang single-handedly.

I sure as hell would not have let them publicly undress me.

If the situation happened to me it might have went down something like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbiDBZDeD0M

The gangs left the streets when the football ‘firms’ went out to take them on jamesUK.

But i’m sure you already know that.

Any excuse for a pop eh? From the safety of the Highlands.

News to me.  Funny that I have never heard of this or seen any pictures or videos. I’m sure its true after all we know how brave those beer guzzling, big bellied, tattooed English/British nationalists are.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:50 | #

It’s not Locke’s notion of individual rights that “leaves one largely at the mercy of Jewish group interests and those they empower ” but the protection of group over individual rights. Hardly a notion Locke promoted. However such an assertion, coming from you, is not suprising.

n/a writes: “As for actual minorities living in Anglo-Saxon countries, it’s to be expected that they will behave this way. Members of the ethnic core should be aware of this dynamic before allowing themselves to be too influenced by these types.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:08 | #

James,

I’ve removed the images from your comment @ 30.  We do not go in for self-loathing here.

It was in Eltham that the local white community mounted a successful self-defence exercise.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:34 | #

@jamesUK

“I sure as hell would not have let them publicly undress me.

If the situation happened to me it might have went down something like this.”

It doesn’t quite work like that when it’s 10/20+ vs 1. I hope you never get to find that out.

All of Londons football firms were ready to hit the streets as in Eltham. The gangs were threatened via social media and the riot subsided (i’m not claiming that was necessarily the only reason the riots ended when they did).

The police cannot protect us in those circumstances. There will be more rioting of increased intensity and severity. We may well appreciate the networks of nationalist football hooligans that exist when that time comes. Oh, and luckily we have jamesUK on our side too. I’m sure he is a bit, ahem, ‘tasty’.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:25 | #

....

Posted by daniel on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:38 | #

....

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 17, 2012, 05:50 PM | #

It’s not Locke’s notion of individual rights that “leaves one largely at the mercy of Jewish group interests and those they empower ” but the protection of group over individual rights. Hardly a notion Locke promoted. However such an assertion, coming from you, is not suprising.

You are something of a contrarian, Desmond; and that is not altogether bad.

In these counter assertions you are normally describing the mirror image of what amounts to essentially the same thing as I am saying. I wish that you could see it as I do, that our aims might be complementary if not similar.

However, in this case, I did not say that Locke promoted group interests, he did just the opposite; I guess that you are inclined to misrepresent what I’ve said 180 degrees its opposite. What I said was that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which you cited, was actually Jewish authored and promoted. I said that perverted the notion of individual rights and yes, unlike Lockeatine individual rights, it raised non-White group interests over White individual or group rights.

Lockeatine rights might be workable in a homogeneous Anglo Saxon population, and as far as I am concerned you are welcome to practice it in The UK and Anglo Saxon states elsewhere in the world. But also as far as I am concerned, it would still represent a highly flawed civil and social underpinning.

Prior to that Jewish perversion of “civil rights”, the empirically based notion of Lockeatine individual rights still left White patterns of life susceptible as it truncated evolutionary and life-span developmental processes, accountability, qualitative differences, ecological disbursements and considerations, etc.

It is a shame to have what I’ve actually said ignored.

These are important matters to clarify, and conservative motives in defending obsolete traditions are not serving our interests..

Posted by daniels. on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:19 | #

...Prior to that Jewish perversion of “civil rights”, the empirically based notion of Lockeatine individual rights still left White patterns of life susceptible as it truncated evolutionary and life-span developmental processes, accountability, qualitative differences, ecological disbursements and considerations, ...

...social relations, social indebtedness, shared resources, joint construction..

...varying but complementary abilities..

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:23 | #

Nothing to say re my comment #8? Disappointing.

I really wish we’d start developing an actual policy-oriented ideology, rather than fixating on either the hopelessness of the situation, or outlandish proposals.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:50 | #

I’ve copied and pasted a few paragraphs from Robert Bork’s book Slouching Towards Gomorrah in which he clearly speaks about the dogged commitments and the general essence of “modern liberalism”; that being, radical egalitarianism and radical individualism.

Modern liberalism may not be quite the correct name for what I have in mind. I use the phrase to mean the latest stage of the liberalism that has been growing in the West for at least two and a half centuries, and probably longer. Nor does this suggest that I think liberalism was always a bad idea. So long as it was tempered by opposing authorities and traditions, it was a splendid idea. It is the collapse of those tempering forces that has brought us to a triumphant modern liberalism with all the cultural and social degradation that follows in its wake. If you do not think “modern liberalism” an appropriate name, substitute “radical liberalism” or “sentimental liberalism” or even, save us, post- liberalism.” Whatever name is used, most readers will recognize the species. The defining characteristics of modern liberalism are radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than of opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification). These may seem an odd pair, for individualism means liberty and liberty produces inequality, while equality of outcomes means coercion and coercion destroys liberty. If they are to operate simultaneously, radical egalitarianism and radical individualism, where they would compete, must be kept apart, must operate in different areas of life. That is precisely what we see in today’s culture.

Modern liberalism is very different in content from the liberalism of, say, the 1940s or 1950s, and certainly different from the liberalism of the last century. The sentiments and beliefs that drive it, however, are the same: the ideals of liberty and equality. These ideals produced the great political, social, and cultural achievements of Western civilization, but no ideal, however worthy, can be pressed forever without turning into something else, turning in fact into its opposite. This is what is happening now. Not a single American institution, from popular music to higher education to science, has remained untouched.

[...]

Radical egalitarianism reigns in areas of life and society where superior achievement is possible and would be rewarded but for coercion towards a state of equality. Quotas, affirmative action, and the more extreme versions of feminism are the most obvious examples but, as will be seen, radical egalitarianism is damaging much else in our culture. Radical individualism is demanded when there is no danger that achievement will produce inequality and people wish to be unhindered in the pursuit of pleasure. This finds expression especially in the areas of sexuality and the popular arts.

Sometimes the impulses of radical individualism and radical egalitarianism cooperate. Both, for example, are antagonistic to society’s traditional morality-the individualist because his pleasure can be maximized only by freedom from authority, the egalitarian because he resents any distinction among people or forms of behavior that suggests superiority in one or the other. When egalitarianism reinforces individualism, denying the possibility that one culture or moral view can be superior to another, the result is cultural and moral chaos, both prominent and destructive features of our time.

Radical egalitarianism necessarily presses us towards collectivism because a powerful state is required to suppress the differences that freedom produces. That raises the sinister and seemingly paradoxical possibility that radical individualism is the handmaiden of collectivist tyranny. This individualism, it is quite apparent in our time, attacks the authority of family, church, and private association. The family is said to be oppressive, the fount of our miseries. It is denied that the church may legitimately insist upon what it regards as moral behavior in its members. Private associations are routinely denied the autonomy to define their membership for themselves. The upshot is that these institutions, which stand between the state and the individual, are progressively weakened and their functions increasingly dictated or taken over by the state. The individual becomes less of a member of powerful private institutions and more a member of an unstructured mass that is vulnerable to the collectivist coercion of the state. Thus does radical individualism prepare the way for its opposite.

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:08 | #

@Guessedworker

I know this will be censored and won’t get published but here goes anyway.

I’ve removed the images from your comment @ 30.  We do not go in for self-loathing here.

Well it’s about time you had critical a review of what is considered nationalist or white nationalist groups in Europe as frankly they run into two pathetic categories.

1) The wimpy armchair activists that whine about “white genocide” and how they are being dominated by minorities that don’t lift a finger to do anything.

2) The active people on the street, the crass monkeys you she waving Stormfront symbols, shouting and wearing bomber jackets with shaven heads.

Look at the nationalist/white nationalist leadership in Europe and especially America who are so bad they might as well have been created by the ADL/SPLC some of which like Rockwell and Linder actually dress up as cartoon Nazis. Lol!

Posted by daniels. on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:07 | #

Linder actually dress up as cartoon Nazi

In the name of accuracy, I’m pretty sure Linder hasn’t ever dressed in NS garb.

That is Bill White in the bottom photo.

To dress up in NS regalia was Rockwell’s thing, which he apparently cooked up from his advertising and marketing background.

He would use it as a publicity stunt in the days prior to the internet when it was difficult for a White Nationalist voice to rise above the din and otherwise gain attention.

I believe it was his strategy to gain attention and audience, then surprise people even more by presenting quite rational arguments.

Rockwell could be funny, too.

There was an occasion where a rabbi was promoting desegregation and integration. So, Rockwell got a bunch of guys, dressed them up NS style and had a sit in at his synagogue. “You want desegregation and integration, lets have desegregation and integration.”

His answer to the love bus:

“[url=“http://www.google.pl/imgres?um=1&hl=pl&sa=N&biw=1024&bih=608&tbm=isch&tbnid=oEo_n-pmOuJOUM:&imgrefurl=http://www.historybyzim.com/2012/10/hate-bus-1961/&docid=n_Uuq5zj8TvdhM&imgurl=http://www.historybyzim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hate-Bus-1961.jpg&w=1247&h=904&ei=hhaAUKbUN9L24QSI8IFw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=727&vpy=157&dur=970&hovh=130&hovw=201&tx=139&ty=84&sig=105920470291555108292&page=1&tbnh=130&tbnw=201&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:77
“]The Hate Bus[/url]” LOL

...............

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:20 | #

@daniels.

In the name of accuracy, I’m pretty sure Linder hasn’t ever dressed in NS garb.

That is Bill White in the bottom photo

Yes you’re right it is Bill White. I thought it was Linder in some pictures they look alike so when I typed in Linder in Google Image Search that image came up.

Pretty funny Howard Stern video of him interviewing Glenn Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOH-ghbTZQg

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:55 | #

Is this just an isolated case of a friendly neighborhood “Good Humor Man” going rogue? Or is something stirring in Kansas.

Hitler Icecream truck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzrWtFCXvhY

HEH!

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:29 | #

They’ve occupied the premises of a Mosque construction site in Poitiers.

http://europenews.dk/de/node/60074

Posted by Hail on Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:13 | #

30% of the babies born in France today are Non-White

Posted by Lynn on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:35 | #

The fact that we in Britain only have unstylish “semi-literate football thugs” speaking out, is more to do with the complete moral cowardice of you pathetic, do-nothing, middle-class “intellectuals”. I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, and I will probably have to keep on saying it: You men are pathetic!

Posted by Lynn on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:51 | #

Just on another note, jamesUK is a complete fraud and a liar. He recently commented on the democracy forum that he attended the TBG/Quarterly Review conference in London at the weekend; at that several people walked out in disgust at Sean Gabb’s talk. I was there sitting at the back, and can attest that this is blatantly untrue. I also know the majority of the attendees and I know for a fact that jamesuk did not attend. Again, he’s a lair.

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:06 | #

@Lynn

The fact that we in Britain only have unstylish “semi-literate football thugs” speaking out, is more to do with the complete moral cowardice of you pathetic, do-nothing, middle-class “intellectuals”. I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, and I will probably have to keep on saying it: You men are pathetic!

Might explain this then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVIknPTnDuI

Just on another note, jamesUK is a complete fraud and a liar. He recently commented on the democracy forum that he attended the TBG/Quarterly Review conference in London at the weekend; at that several people walked out in disgust at Sean Gabb’s talk. I was there sitting at the back, and can attest that this is blatantly untrue. I also know the majority of the attendees and I know for a fact that jamesuk did not attend. Again, he’s a lair.

What are you talking about?

a) I don’t know what democrtacy forum is.

b) I haven’t been to London in about 15 years.

So whoever this other jamesUK guy is if he post under that name is not me.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 02:44 | #

There is a jamesUK who posts at Democracy Forum.

I haven’t read many of his comments there but he doesn’t come across as a shit stirring asshole.

So maybe it isn’t you after all.

Posted by daniels. on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:19 | #

I’d also like to address one of Haller’s frequent contentions: that the immigration issue is the immediate matter to address.

Well and good, but I don’t know how it can be accomplished directly through normal bureaucratic, legal, political means.

It is a crucial matter to be dealt with but it seems we’ve got even more fundamental issues of changing the rules and the rule makers first.

Fortunately, however, that ties seamlessly with our organizing, separating, and dis-empowering those who would impose non-Europeans upon us. Taking a stance against immigration imposed upon us is corollary.

Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudiced. It is hurting and it is killing people.

Whereas anti-racism is anti-classification, an evil, destroying in one generation evolution and ways which have been achieved through millennia, the re-institution of classificatory bounds would allow qualitative processes of development to unfold as they are protected from the necessity of rigid defense at all times.

Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudiced (against qualitative ecological disbursements and developmental processes within the life-span and in evolution). It is hurting and it is killing people.

Theoria vs Praxis, as Aristotle correctly drew the distinction, is one between matters (Theoria) and methods (Techne) best used to investigate more lineally causative phenomenon - the non human physical realm, especially the hard sciences are better served by the plodding, rigorous approaches of theoria and technology; as opposed to the social realm (Praxis), which, while it may indeed be informed of scientific method, is normally too complex and engaged in agentive, social interaction and responses for that method, and therefore requires practical, socially negotiated judgments (Phronesis). For example, rape and pedophilia may be natural, scientifically demonstrable proclivities, inclinations among percentages of the population and yet we establish social prohibitions despite their being a scientific fact. With that, just as Black man White woman miscegenation may be a proclivity and an inclination among some, we as White nationalists may (and should) recognize it as a crime at least equal to pedophilia and rape – a violation of our nation and religion. That is to say, we accept not pedophilia, rape, nor Black man White woman miscegenation as valid.

@Lynn
The fact that we in Britain only have unstylish “semi-literate football thugs” speaking out, is more to do with the complete moral cowardice of you pathetic, do-nothing, middle-class “intellectuals”. I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again, and I will probably have to keep on saying it: You men are pathetic!

Might explain this then. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVIknPTnDuI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlZla1AXig&NR=1&feature=endscreen

As an example of changing the rule structure, and those who make it, we must recognize these miscegenating women as committing violations of equal magnitude to rapists or pedophiles. Those who facilitate them are occupying the positions of pimps of our daughters, potential wives and mothers. They are violators of our sacred evolution.

At a minimum, they are to be banished to live with Negroes and the consequences of their ways.

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:28 | #

@uKn_Leo

There is a jamesUK who posts at Democracy Forum.

I haven’t read many of his comments there but he doesn’t come across as a shit stirring asshole.

So maybe it isn’t you after all.

Do you have a link to this democracy forum?

I only used the jamesUK name because another poster was also using james although I think he used a capital J to differentiate between my comments and his in the MR comment sections plus it helps differentiate the viewpoint of the commentator if you know where he comes from because American commentators seem to think that Jews and Israel are at the heart of everything that Israel at least is pretty negligible in the main issues effecting Europe with the exception of a possible Iran war.

Frankly it is US that is spending billions and pushing for a pro-Israel foreign policy in the Mid East with Britain as a side kick.
European powers like France and Germany were not on the bandwagon in supporting the Iraq war and those countries that did join the US with the exception of Britain overall contribution both in Iraq and Afghanistan has been pretty marginal.

The Libyan war was orchestrated and lead by Britain and France with NATO and the US joining in later once the war was in full swing who Gadaffi despite his flaws as part of agreements with Europe did try to stop African immigrants coming into Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia3kRC8hVWM&t=3m19s

Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:01 | #

Here:

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/forum.php

Posted by Dude @ Lynn on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:09 | #

Lynn

I was there too, and a couple of people did leave the room during the talk and huddle outside, one of them (to be subtle) was the man with the billiard cue after making a few ostentatious snorts. I was closer to the front and so this may have been noticeable to me but not to you. I rather got the feeling, this was because he is happy have his nose poking into the government tent, giving advice that he did not agree with SG’s suggestions regarding power being fed up to supranational bodies away from national democratic structures and the fact that we should decapitate (figuratively) the political class fed by the government teat. Whether those two positions in some way contradict themselves is a different matter. Plus the conspiratorial and cold-blooded delivery of the speech that found an appreciative audience. By the way, these TBG speeches have now been put up on YouTube.

I wonder, did you find the content interesting or helpful?

Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:57 | #

Dude @ Lynn

By the way, these TBG speeches have now been put up on YouTube.

Could you post the links?

Posted by Dude @JamesUk on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:45 | #

JamesUK, here : http://www.youtube.com/user/TradBritGroup

Posted by LH on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:17 | #

The video is no longer on-line!

Please reload it again!!

Posted by anonymous on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 03:24 | #

Well it’s about time you had critical a review of what is considered nationalist or white nationalist groups in Europe as frankly they run into two pathetic categories.
1) The wimpy armchair activists that whine about “white genocide” and…. don’t lift a finger to do anything.
2) The active people on the street, the crass monkeys you see waving Stormfront symbols..

The only ones I take seriously are the ones who marry and have more than 2 children.
If they don’t breed. NOTHING else is going to matter.

Have lots of children.
Teach them the Bible.
Teach them to shoot.

That’s the answer.  The ONLY answer.

Posted by jk on Sun, 18 May 2014 22:13 | #

As a casual observer from across the pond, I think these guys are great. It is very reassuring to see young European people standing up for themselves in the midst of all that liberal globalist atmosphere. Good for you kids. Good for you.