|
|
|
Who were the winners and losers of 2010? Apologies for the Anglo-centric slant. As ever. So, then, in no particular order ... WINNERS Geert Wilders The anarchist left Right-wing talk radio Margaret Hodge and the Barking Labour Party Nick Griffin Arizona Goldman Sachs Thilo Sarrazin Swiss democracy The Taliban English Defence League LOSERS The BNP Multiculturalism California The Pres The Euro The Miliband who won The climate change lobby White South Africans The taxpayer Ireland Who did I miss? Comments:2
Posted by pug on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:58 | # Swiss democracy also won automatic booting of foreign criminals. Anti-immigrant and anti-Holocaustian discourse is now against EU law. The race-replacement genocide of Europeans is ongoing; the repudiation of multiculturalism—disregarding that it’s, shell-game like, in explicit favour of the next, scarier lode star, “integration”—counts for nothing if forbidden the political say in the matter, arrangements which our managerial elites have a de rigueur way of pulling. 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:01 | # Griffo recently said this:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/race-gestapo-lose-bid-kill-british-national-party That is precisely the meme he needs to keep hammering home in his MSM appearances in order to maximize ethnic consciousness in the UK. If he has a brain in his friggin’ head he will keep doing it in the realization that that is the only way to ultimately break the glass ceiling of the electability of nationalist candidates. Are you listen, Barnesy, you nutter? 4
Posted by Geoff Davies on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 04:09 | # The White British were the biggest losers as their genocide was advanced. I am sorry to inform you captain but the case did not force them to anything of the sort. Nothing like that was mentioned as it was soley about contempt of court. But what has been brought on us is that Ethno-Nationalism and Racial Nationalism as political ideologies in Britain are now illegal. If you set up a ethno or racial nationalist party the EHRC can take the party to court and take if its constitution breaches the precedent set at Griffo’s EHRC cases it can take the assets and imprison the leadership for contempt. The EHRC got the judgement it wanted as John Wadham confirmed. Griffin’s stupidity over the clause in the constitution brought that on us. The Constitution is a legal document and not only states the rules but what they intend to do. Its wise to have a small, inoffensive one but Griffo had a massive one drawn up which also gave himself dictatorial power at a cost of between £25 and £40,000 of members money. It was drawn up by solicitor Jane Phillips who also acts for the Steadfast Trust. He gave the state the legal precedent it needed to criminalise racial nationalism and ethno-nationalism. Thanks to Griffin the nationalist struggle has ended with the victory of the system. During the greatest need for the indigenous British people Griffin has used the last decade to enrich himself and betray the British people. He is the worst traitor in British history and is protected from investigation of the finances by the police and the fraud squad themselves. 5
Posted by Resisting Defamation on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 04:20 | # One of the winners in 2010 is the growing acceptance that an essential arm of white liberation is a solid, white-centric anti-defamation movement. Concepts and techniques to this end that were greeted with ridicule in 2007 are now seen everywhere. Latinos in California continue to argue that terms like “illegal immigrant” are malicious, but still try to hit us, for example, with “gringo” and the Spanish-language “anglo,” but the understanding that the diverse white American children have a right to a decent sense of self-respect is growing amongst our people. Possibly the leading victory was in June 2008 when our local daily paper was ordered by its corporate HQ to cease using lily-white, white trash, cracker, and so on. Negative stereotypes are still constant, but under attack. And the tools to attackback are available to anyone who takes MR seriously. 6
Posted by Filthy, Debased Krauts on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 04:24 | #
Whether de jure or de facto, the Krauts can’t help but be the leading force and first nation in Europe. There will be no end of it until they adopt the only political form the English could possibly approve for them: pastoral pacifism. The Amish do it, and they are after all Krauts, so why not? 7
Posted by 501(c)(3) tax exempt microcommunities on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 04:32 | #
No. The only way to save the White race from extinction is to open up your own machine shop. 8
Posted by Ivan Drago on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:31 | # ... who, by surviving (though, of course, losing in) the EHRC’s legal attack, has won the battle for political nationalism in Britain, and put himself quite beyond challenge. Excuse my ignorance, GW, but what exactly did Griffin win in that case? Why were his enemies have in saying the BNP was in contempt of the court ruling, and what basis did the court have for saying he wasn’t in contempt? The impression I got was that they now have to let Chinese, subcontinental Indians, and Blacks into their party. That still holds, right? It just doesn’t seem like much of a victory to me, but maybe I’m missing something. 9
Posted by Ivan Drago on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:34 | # Hunter will explain, I feel sure. This is sarcastic, but is the general point to be taken seriously? Do you really think right wing talk radio was a winner in 2010? How big a winner? 10
Posted by Bill on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:55 | #
Why the Internet of course. Winner or what? This question will loom large with future historians. 11
Posted by jrackell@hotmail.com on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:56 | #
Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus Okay. I’m being a smarty pants. Never heard of him until I read this, Belarus—No Country for Sold Men. Great article of a man rubbing all the wrong people the right way for maximum discomfort. 12
Posted by Andrew Neather on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:15 | # GW, 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:52 | # The true-born Irishman will call her many things, no doubt Andrew, but she is, of course, Ireland’s economic mother, and there is no denying that. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:38 | # Unmentioned: winners: gold bugs, American Republicans (duh - how’d they get missed?), China, North Korea, Iran losers: Germany (forced to pay for Euro-parasites), Australia (another crappy Left govt), CA Republicans 15
Posted by danielj on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:40 | # The true-born Irishman will call her many things, no doubt Andrew, but she is, of course, Ireland’s economic mother, and there is no denying that. Just like Canada and America! 16
Posted by Eeyore on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:58 | #
I wonder, then, if she’s not a global whore, which makes Mammon a mere mamzer. 17
Posted by kaewn on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:04 | # Can’t you morons make sensible conversation? We have to save our countries not bicker. 18
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:32 | # kaewn, The above is not bickering. It’s comic relief. Gallows humor, if you will. Our jobs may not be to save our countries, but to witness their passing. The White race may be the collective analog of Christ, willfully dying for the sake of humanity. What could be a more desirable death for a Christian people? If this is true, I can only hope that the entire metaphor will be realized, and we will be resurrected on the third day. 19
Posted by WB on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:18 | # I would have listed Christmas as a loser too, after its unrelenting suppression and replacement with ‘holidays’ ‘fest’ or ‘val.’ I would also list Jews as a winner for the above, and also for the ability to be as racist and religiously hateful as they like in public without any consequence whatsoever. Take this Jewish ‘actor’ – Daniel Hoffmann-Gill - who works for the BBC: “Happy birth of a Jew day who was killed by pagans and followed by dumb shaygetz and shiksa. X” <a >Link</a> As we are fully aware, both of the latter are extremely offensive racist hate terms by Jews for non-Jews, with “shiksa” being the Yiddish racist term for all non-Jewish women meaning ‘whore’ or ‘abomination’ – with the equally offensive non-Jewish male racist term equivalent of “shaygetz” having an identical meaning. Both words have evolved from the Hebrew word “sheketz” (šeqe? “blemish”) meaning the flesh of an animal deemed taboo by the Torah. If we were to say the reverse equivalent about Jews, or indeed any other group, we would not only be quickly removed from license payers money, but would most likely be in court too. Not so for this guy though. 20
Posted by calvin on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:33 | # Winner: GW. Fought the good fight for another year! Thanks mate! 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:27 | # Calvin, Thanks. I mailed you a few weeks ago, and received no reply. Would you kindly mail me through the contact button under the header. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 00:28 | # Ivan,
According to Lee Barnes - hardly a neutral source - he lost his party any possibility of keeping ethno-nationalism alive in Britain by, basically, laying everything out unnecessarily in the party Constitution where it could be attacked by the Equalities & Human Rights Commission. Which is exactly what happened. Yes, the party must allow in non-whites. No, there is not going to be a flood of them. The whole court issue could have been avoided, and the party’s unity and finances preserved. However, Griffin chose his day in court, despite being told he could not win. Since the final round, at which the EHRC sought to have him jailed for contempt, proved a victory, he has emerged in total control of political nationalism, with virtually all the competent people who might have opposed his will having left to press for party reform or been expelled. He is a winner within his own terms. He has total control. But his party is a shadow of its former self. 24
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:11 | # I’m at a loss for sarcasm. Thanks, GW. Captcha = respect93 25
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:32 | # Yes, the party must allow in non-whites. No, there is going to be a flood of them. (GW) Please elaborate. You expect a lot of nonwhites to join the BNP? Why? Can’t political parties restrict their memberships? 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:14 | # When Jimmy runs out of sarcasm it’s time to change the subject. Leon, It transpired that the expanded BNP Constitution ran foul potentially of the 1976 Race Relations Act, in that political parties are covered by its anti-discrimination provisions, and the BNP’s whites only membership criteria may have been in breach. That was what the EHRC sought to clarify at law. They won their case. As a result, the party has been forced to re-write its constitution so that the discrimination is removed. The nett effect of this is to render British ethno-nationalism politically illegal as regards membership. Discriminatory party policy has not been addressed by the present action, and I’m unsure whether the new Equalities Act, which came into force this year, replacing the 1976 Act, allows it or not. If Lee reads this perhaps he will offer a clarification on that. 27
Posted by danielj on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:49 | # Can’t you morons make sensible conversation? We have to save our countries not bicker. A revolution without bickering is a revolution not worth having… 28
Posted by Geoff on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 08:52 | # There re honest and excellent people in the BNP and they deserve better than Traitor Griffin. 29
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:37 | #
Fuck me Chaos - you must be about the only idiot left on the whole planet who takes anything seriously that Griffin says. Mugs like you are a total embarrassment. The existence of the English as an ethnic and national group was recognised in case law over a decade ago. The fact idiots like you peddle this nonsense is simply as you are too thick to understand the real world, as opposed to the asinine propaganda pumped out by Griffin to keep him in power and profit. 30
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:45 | # GW and Geoff Davies are both 100 % correct. The EHRC were after a legal precedent that allowed them to destroy the entire racial political struggle in one go. Griffin gave them that victory. I and others told Griffin how to avoid the legal case and how to retain our principles without fighting this case in the first place. He ignored us as he wanted to use the case to create a constitution that keeps him in power until he chooses to leave. The result was the BNP lost tens of thousands of pounds that could have been used to fight elections, Griffin used the case to award himself powers in a stalinist constitution that would have made Mao blush with shame and now Trevor Phillips and John Wadhams now run entire the nationalist political movement - as if you have a party constitution they say is illegal then they will seize the party assets and throw you into prison. Griffin won. Nationalism lost. That was what the plan was - to keep Griffin in power and destroy nationalism. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:47 | # Lee, 1. I’ve scripted your comment so it is readable. It’s not difficult. The buttons above the comment window are there for precisely that purpose, and I do urge you to use them so those of your comments which employ quotes are readily understood. 2. Can you please quote the precedent in law for recognition of the English as an ethnic group? 3. What is the status of discriminatory party policy under current equality law? 32
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:54 | # The English Racial Group – Identity and the Law The English are a nation; a people bound together by common origins, culture and history. Institutions of the establishment try to undermine this fact by defining and using terms deceptively. This article seeks to provide you with the truth of who the English are by law and what rights the English are entitled to. § Institutions tend to define ethnic and minority in a way that excludes Europeans, and encourages the idea which holds that non-Europeans are more deserving than Europeans – the later they say are responsible for all the discrimination and hardship in the world. Clearly a racist assumption. § Nation being often used to mean three things, a) a state e.g. the UK, b) the citizens of a state e.g. the British people and c) a nation as an ethnic group, sharing a communal identity founded on a shared history, culture and ancestry, e.g. the English, Kurds, Apaches or Palestinians. § A state is a geopolitical entity, a legal entity controlled by a government. The first description (a) of a nation is wrong. § England, Scotland and Wales are countries; they are not states or nations in any sense of the word. § The Race Relations Act (RR Act) applies to every person provided he or she has a racial identity or identities under the Act. § In official documents, for example, ‘Black’ is given to mean ‘African’ or ‘African Caribbean.’ However White is not given a secondary meaning. This strips the indigenous British, especially the ‘White Working Class’ of any racial identity other than skin colour. § If a person has only a Skin Colour racial group identity they have no benefits under the RR Act. A person who has a Race, Ethnic or National Origin racial group identity has the greatest number of benefits under the RR Act. § The courts have held that there is a race called ‘African’ however government solicitors have argued that there is no such thing as the European race. A blatant inconsistency. § The House of Lords high court has held that ‘national origin,’ as used in the Race Relations Act did not mean citizenship, it meant of a nation, a racial community. § Ethnic Origin and National Origin are two versions of the same type of racial group. One refers to racial origins in an ethnic group the other to racial origins in a nation. § One’s ethnic or national origins do not lie in biologically determined groups in the same way one’s race does but they lie in a group that has an identity from a shared history, culture and ancestry. The RR Act recognises that people have racial identities derived from their ethnic group or their nation. § Both a nation and ethnic group have the same legal status under the Act however this is not obvious if you relied on the Commission for Racial Equality or the Census form to explain the legal status of each group. § Most so-called ethnic groups named on ethnic monitoring forms have not been recognised by the courts as ethnic groups. The Jews, Romany Gypsies and Sikhs have been found by the courts to satisfy the legal test for an ethnic group but they are not included on the forms. § These forms were created by the Office of National Statistics and promoted by the Commission for Racial Equality for administrative and political/ideological purposes. § Due to this the courts became the only venue through which peoples like the Sikhs and English can obtain a legal ethnic group or nation status. The courts idea of what is an ethnic group bears no resemblance to the idea promoted by the Commission for Racial Equality. § The courts have held that ethnic groups are differently discernable from the way nations are discernable but both are nonetheless racial and both identities have equal status in law. § The English became legally recognised as a racial group in the case Souster v. BBC Scotland. Mr. Souster, a journalist, claimed that his contract was not renewed because he was English. The case for race discrimination came eventually before the Court of Sessions (appeal). § BBC Scotland argued that all those with a British state nationality were one nation; therefore it was not possible to discriminate between an Englishman and a Scotsman by reason of their national origin. This depended on the nation meaning state. It also depended on the implied argument that everyone with UK citizenship could be divided into English, Scottish etc. § The Court of Sessions decided that the English and Scottish were racial groups in their own rights because they each had separate racial origins. It felt that since the legislation was written in terms of ethnic or national origin, an ethnic group and a nation were of the same legal status under the Act. As a result the Court established that the English were discernable as a nation and that Mr. Souster was a member of the English nation. § Lord Cameron of Lochbroom gave the leading judgement, ‘These passages reveal that… it was the intention of Government in 1965 to make the Act all embracing as regards racial discrimination and to include the…English.’ § The Scottish Court of Session, the House of Lords and the English Court of Appeal have repeatedly held that the word ‘national’ under the Act does not refer to ones place of birth or one’s state nationality. To be a member of the English racial group it is necessary to be a member of the English nation – a member of the English community. § Not all the people living or born in England are of the English nation and not all of the English nation lives in England. § The English are a racial group because collectively the English have a racial origin that lies within a group of people that have the characteristics of a nation. § It is open at any time for any member for the English community to bring a claim in the courts on the basis that he or she has an English ethnic origin racial group identity. § The law requires that monitoring be undertaken according to racial group, which would include the English. The Commission for Racial Equality has continued to interpret the law to mean monitor by reference to the government’s approved ethnic groups rather than courts racial group classifications. The Census and ‘ethnic’ monitoring forms take advantage of widespread ignorance of the meaning of terms. § The 2007 Census included the English as an ethnic group. This marked a watershed moment towards the English being included on ethnic monitoring forms and being treated properly under the Race Relations Act. § The Law Society, The Bar Council Pro Bono Unit, Essex University and The Office of National Statistics have now all recognised that the English are an ethnic group. § The term ‘Ethnic English’ is used to distinguish those who are English by reason of their ‘ethnic or national origin’ from those who are English only by reason of the Office of National Statistics and Commission for Racial Equality creating the label ‘English national identity’ for them. § Since 2001 a great deal has been done to promote the deceptive concept of a single inclusive ‘English national identity.’ The promoters are those who would prefer only one non-racial and inclusive meaning to the word English. They favour this because, a) it is inclusive, b) it gives no recognition or rights in law, c) it can be used to undermine the RR Act rights of the indigenous English in law. § The term ‘national identity’ has no legal definition. The ONS has stated, ‘it means whatever people think it means.’ It is likely the phrase ‘national’ in ‘national identity’ means country identity and certainly does not mean racial identity. This is supported by the fact that the national identity question had replaced, ‘What is your country of birth?’ question in the 2007 Census. § The ONS has included the concept of English national identity in the 2007 Test Census for England and the CRE has recommended that national identity appear on ethnic monitoring forms. It is interesting to see since 2001 nothing has been done to promote an awareness of the indigenous English as a racial group. § The most disadvantaged of the English community, the ‘White Working Class’ (who have been shown to be the most deprived and lowest achievers in the UK), who are most in need of the protection of the RR Act have suffered most from the promotion of the idea of a inclusive ‘English national identity.’ § The social problems of the English that have their roots in a loss of identity and lack of communal bonding (decultralisation) will not be helped by continuing to refer to the English working class as white. § It is not racist to deplore the use of ‘English National Identity.’ If all racial groups in England can claim to be English by virtue of national identity, and if the English succumb to pressure to accept such groups then the members of what is currently recognised as the English racial group will loose the benefits of the RR Act before they have begun to enjoy them. The real racist and haters of diversity are those who insist there should be only one inclusive civic and non-racial English identity. Such people want to make the English legally invisible and politically powerless. § Who are the English for the purposes of the Race Relations Act? ‘The English of England are all those persons resident in England who actually or by belief are the descendants of the peoples who first created themselves as the English, those peoples being the pre-1066 population of the geographic area known as England, together with all other persons who have over the centuries since 1066 whether by integration or by merger or by amalgamation or by adoption become part of the said descendants such that they are not recognised by themselves or by the said descendants or by the Laws of England or by any part or emanation of the UK state as being members of a group distinct or distinguishable or discernable or separate in any manner whatsoever from the said descendants.’ § Neither the existence of a racial group nor its members are identified in law by the use of DNA tests. In addition there is no evidence that any section of the English community has adopted such an idea. § The courts has set out the following tests for membership of a racial group for the purposes of the RR Act: a) One is actually of the English group or rationally believes one is, b) Others of the same group accept you are. (e.g. others do not think you are a member of another similar type racial group), c) One is not also a member of another similar type racial group by virtue of the application of the tests at (a) and (b). § A racial group can have within itself many different criteria for acceptance, all legally are valid. E.g. the Jewish racial group. § Governments, politicians, the media, the Commission for Education, Schools and Universities mostly all deny the legal definition of the English as a racial group. They rely on the ignorance of the English of their status, rights and privileges under the Race Relations Act and hope to deny the English an increased sense of communal belonging and a restored sense of identity. However anyone who asserts outside a courtroom that the indigenous peoples of England have an exclusive racial identity can be and are more often than not vilified. For simply telling the truth this article, for example, will be attacked by some with a political agenda as racist. § There is increasing pressure for the English to assert that the word English has only one meaning. This is an English identity designed to include anyone born or lawfully entitled to be resident in England to the exclusion of all other English identities. Gordon Brown is an obvious example of this pressure with his mantra that a person can be, ‘Pakistani, Cornish, English and British.’ § If you are the common, though not necessarily the only ancestors of the indigenous people of England any attempts to make you accept a single meaning to the word English to the exclusion of all others, is an attempt to get you to give up your rights as an English person under the RR Act. Rights that the 1965 Parliament intended you to enjoy. § As the English are predicted to become a minority in our own homeland within a few decades is its important to start using those rights as a step towards ensuring that our community’s descendants will still have a place as the English in England long after we are gone. § This guide is intended to help you to start enjoying and defending that which our communal ancestors created for us, that which belongs to us all and which is for none to give away or diminish an exclusive legally protected English community identity. 33
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:28 | # Re point 3. The law makes it illegal to have a political party whose constitution is directly / indirectly illegal. One of the solutions, and one I gave to Griffin, is simple. You insert a statement in the party constitution that says ’ The definition of indigenous used in this constitution does not relate to race, racial origins, skin colour, ethnicity or any other unlawful criteria as defined under the Race Relations Act or the Equality Act. The definition of Indigenous is self defining in that any individual who wishes to define themselves as indigenous is able to do so. ‘ This means the party could have retained its principles, its existing constitution and remained legal and avoided the court case and not wasted tens of thousands of pounds on the case. If any individual who was of non-indigenous heritage who wished to join the party and fund its operations, and funded the work of the BNP to assist the indigenous British people, then they were welcome to do so. I am sure not many people of African heritage would have chosen to define themselves as Indigenous British, do you. Instead Griffin lost the case, changed the constitution to remove references to the indigenous British people and so the BNP is now a civic nationalist party. 34
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:19 | #
I agree that this is the legal effect. The question is how it will play out in the party’s policies and activism. I can’t believe that the party will just go on acting as if it was still ethno-nationalist. For one thing, anti-nationalists will certainly now focus on what the BNP says and does, and the BNP will need to become aware of that focus. I can foresee a steady civicising of the public language, a “political correction”. Wadham will not have the BNP where he wants them until this has come to pass. 35
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:47 | # Winner: EPIC BEARD MAN Loser: Negro that messed with Epic Beard Man
36
Posted by Hail on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:42 | #
I think you mean, The Republican Party. “Republicans” would imply six- or seven-in-10 white Americans, who—as usual—lose. 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:35 | # That is correct. I did mean the GOP, not ordinary white Americans, who have been the world’s perennial losers since 1945. Of course, I mean “losers” in both senses: our ethnonational interests are always placed behind every other group on the planet (including other whites, the sole exception being African whites), and we are too foolish and cowardly to do something about this persecution and dispossession, when it is eminently in our power to do so. 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:13 | # GW and John Lee Barnes, Thank you for the clarifications. It is too bad that Griffin is either so selfish, or, conversely, easily duped. If ethnonationalism is now illegal in Britain, however, might this perhaps at least have the salutary effect of transforming the BNP into a more single issue anti-immigration (protest vote) party, as I have recommended? Can the BNP still advocate zero immigration of nonwhites, or must it oppose all immigration? Could it use coded language by opposing all non-EU immigration? Britain and Europe are descending into a new form of tyranny: “diversitism”. (The US is as well, but we seem to have greater freedom to choose our destiny, however much racialists may dislike having to acknowledge that fact.) It is now clear that only violent revolution from below (doubtless initiated in the beginning by homegrown ‘terrorists’, if there are any such patriot-fanatics remaining) and more general civil war can prevent Britain’s foreign ethnocultural submersion and de facto conquest. However, any ultimately successful revolution requires that the ongoing elite/NWO strategy of settling foreign colonists in Britain be neutralized now, or the real British may come to lack the physical numbers actually to win their war of national liberation (especially if various NWO elites in other Western nations attempt jointly to quell any anti-diversitist revolutions - a distinct possibility). Thus, stopping immigration, as I have long argued, and not worrying about free trade, or the Jews, or any other issue, is paramount for ultimate ethnonationalist victory. Stopping immigration, perhaps like preserving the pound, is going to require a “single-issue” approach. If the BNP rebrands itself as solely an anti-immigration vote, it is not impossible to imagine it eventually, after considerable public educational efforts detailing all the problems associated with immigration (and not only or even mainly focusing on race-replacement), garnering 3% or even 5% of the national vote. That would be enough for the Tories to want to neutralize this rising force by actually moving to end all non-EU immigration. Once the hemorrhaging has been stanched, then strategizing for national liberation becomes worthwhile. 39
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:40 | #
This is extremely profound. Let me see if I can re-phrase it in a way that is accessible to the masses: First we seize control of the system, then we launch a revolution! Excellent. Let this henceforth be known as the Stanch Republican Mantra 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:35 | # The EHRC were after a legal precedent that allowed them to destroy the entire racial political struggle in one go. Griffin gave them that victory. If five years from now Griffin is still able to make statements such as I quoted above then “the entire racial political struggle” can hardly be said to be lost in that it will be actively carried on in the context of the political process. The law makes it illegal to have a political party whose constitution is directly / indirectly illegal. The law proscribes what the law proscribes and dammit does it every proscribe it. Thanks for clearly that up in your inimitably tautological fashion, Barnesy. One of the solutions, and one I gave to Griffin, is simple. You insert a statement in the party constitution that says ‘ The definition of indigenous used in this constitution does not relate to race, racial origins, skin colour, ethnicity or any other unlawful criteria as defined under the Race Relations Act or the Equality Act. The definition of Indigenous is self defining in that any individual who wishes to define themselves as indigenous is able to do so. ‘ So under your proposed “solution” non-Whites would still be eligible for party membership. Just the thing which you breathlessly claim spells the death of “the entire racial political struggle”. LOL. But how much of a solution would it really have been? From your own source:
If the intent was to continue discriminating per membership against non-Whites under the pretext of plausible deniability it was legally a non-starter as the legal precedent you yourself cite clearly does strive for an objective discernment of racial group membership, using modifiers such as “is actually” and “rationally believes” one is a member of a given racial group. So, if it could be proven to the satisfaction of a court that a non-White was in fact a non-White and was discriminated against on that basis the BNP would be vulnerable to the resultant legal repercussions. I am sure not many people of African heritage would have chosen to define themselves as Indigenous British, do you. Um, if they wanted to join the party badly enough I’m sure they could just say they were “Indigenous”. Your “solution” would never have been anything of the kind in deterring non-Whites from joining the party if they really had their minds set on it. And something tells me even now not many niggers and shit-skins will be inclined to join a party clearly operating out of racist motivations unless they really, really want to. Prediction: five years hence the party membership will not consist of more than 15% non-Whites. so the BNP is now a civic nationalist party. If the party has non-White members in good standing and Griffin keeps getting away with ethno-nationalist rhetoric and striving politically for ethno-nationalist goals then that is bollocks. 41
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 02:46 | # BIGGEST WINNER: CHINA Who are helping bailout EU countries developing there own maglev rail network now the best in the world and created the world most advanced super computer while giving the finger to the US/British Empire. All the hail the Han Chinese people for there great accomplishments and ingenuity. BIGGEST LOSER: IRAN At the launched of there civilian nuclear plant they are hit with an Israeli super virus knocking it offline for at least 2 years. Ouch! Has The McLaughlin Group had its end of the year award program yet? I missed it last year. 42
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 03:49 | # WINNER: Niggers. Another year and still able to chase da White wimmins. LOSERS: Niggers. They are still niggers. 43
Posted by Hail on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:47 | #
Several weeks after airing you can see them online: http://www.mclaughlin.com/library.htm 44
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:24 | # @Captainchaos If you don’t like black people then why are you dressed up as a wigger?
45
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:53 | # JamesUK is probably a non - White and is too dumb to know that the Chinese stole the high speed train technology from joint venture partners like Siemens and Bombardier. Japan’s Kawasaki also suffered in this regard but as the Japs themselves stole much technology from the West I have no sympathy for them. 46
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:17 | # COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR FOR VILE LANGUAGE AND LOATHSOME CONTENT 47
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:42 | # As an advocate for white ethno-communalism, I am intelligent enough to realise that in order to love ones own people - one does not need to hate others. Our genocide has been primarily caused by morons who use such language that alienates the majority of our own people. Thats why the voters do not vote for nationalist parties - as they equate nationalism with hate. Instead of talking about pride, the morons scream about hate. This hate of others has led the mass of society to hate the cause of white racial nationalism. That sort of language has led to our genocide, as the more the haters scream their hate - the more they repulse the mass of society away from the nationalist movement. A hater is a fool with a big mouth who alienates the majority. A thinker rejects hate, and seeks progress by appealing to the masses. 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:48 | # I concur with Lee on the language issue. It is immensely damaging. If we cannot speak like responsible people we will forever be presented as political vermin. It’s made worse in CC’s case since he is a competent person and can actually think and write well, when he is not led by the need to justify NS. He is deliberately pushing the boundaries, and I wish he would stop. 49
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:42 | # I hate that broad category of white people who feel good about themselves when they engage in activities which will eventually result in the extinction of my race, the white race. Those are the people I hate. They are the vermin. They know what they’re doing yet continue to contribute to the overarching genocidal campaign against whites whilst doing so for their own self satisfaction. These people are truly the lowest of the low thus are fully deserving of our hate and disgust. White liberals are verminous asshats. FEH!!! 50
Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:54 | # Oh, bother… I commented on the wrong thread. 51
Posted by Frank on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:13 | # LJB, Culture comes before politics. Griffin speaking “ethno-nationalist rhetoric and striving politically for ethno-nationalist goals” should have a positive impact. It sounds like he had no choice or nearly no choice because you seem to believe he could have fought this via defining “indigenous” as regarding identity. - Regardless, are you still a dreamer of what Englishmen could become biologically? That makes you a very different sort of “nationalist” really. I’ve liked Griffin’s appeal to traditional Britain - he seems very human and down to Earth (as true nationalists are), though I’m viewing him overseas. - On other issues, reading Englishmen respond as you folks do here is for an American like looking into the past. We used to respond and play this game just as you all are now. We lost. America was 80% English at its political founding with the rest coming almost entirely from northwest Europe. Y’all like to include blacks for a false debate point win, but they weren’t viewed as citizens and couldn’t vote etc. We were a very homogenous state, and we were taken down via mass eastern and southern European immigration and via the same culture war tactics used against you now. The left has a playbook it follows now. It’s learned from history, and I hope the right or pseudo-right, or whatever forces directly or indirectly serve the British nations, has studied history too. 52
Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:34 | # Note: I am not the real Pooh Bear, although I find it appropriate that he merited an honorable mention in the roundup of this year’s winners, if only for running the gauntlet while minding the gap. 53
Posted by johnUK on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:24 | # @Al Ross It was initially based on German technology but China has improved on it and patented their own Maglev technology perfecting it which now has the highest land speed rail system in the world. Jap did not steal Maglev technology they created their own rail system that differs from Germany’s. And no I am NOT non-white. 54
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:19 | #
Nonsense.
All very reasonable language, n’est-ce pas? The response:
However, it is Guessedworker’s house and his desires, vis-a-vis language, must be respected. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:03 | # That’s some self-portrait you’ve got there, JUK. Or is it one of the doubtless many vanity photos Hunter Wallace has in stock? Whatever the case, you had best go back to your rubber room before you injure yourself. 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:00 | # I’ll do my level best to address the meat of your point, Barnesy. And I can only think it is this:
Well stated. A masterpiece [of] clarity, eloquence and verbal economy. I not going to bat for Griffin per se. I am merely giving credit where I deem it due. He is now advocating explicitly for the native peoples of the United Kingdom: the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish. Griffin is a fixture on the British nationalist scene for the foreseeable future and it is not likely he will go away. So it is better he does the right thing now, at last, than not. How could you think otherwise unless it is you who indeed are hand in glove with UAF? Moreover, I think the announced death of ethno-nationalism in the UK is at this point premature. It has been dealt a blow, surely. But not dead yet, in my opinion. What, you want British ethno-nationalism to have experienced its death knell merely as justification for your hatred of Griffin? If that be the case, then you are in a bad way, Barnesy. As to your other projects, essentially community organizing: These are good and could potentially bear fruit given competent organization. If you wish to do it successfully, you will have to accept a degree of humility commensurate with your (limited) talents in order to work with people who have what it takes to pull it off. You say whilst in the BNP you sat at the “top table”. Well, that must have been the kiddie table if you were allowed to sit at it. One spoke in the wheel, Barnesy. That is how you will make a go of it. 57
Posted by Ivan Drago on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:16 | # The response: What sophistry and rot. That wasn’t the typical response at the time at all, even from Jews. And clearly this part of your unsourced quote…“he dismissed the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans”...was from long after the statement in question was made. It’s important to understand that a lot of Jews blame the 1924 immigration act for the fact that so many Jews in Eastern Europe ended up bottled up in Eastern Europe, where they were killed. Therefore, it clearly wasn’t the rhetoric of the immigration act supporters which sets Jews to feeling moral outrage, but rather the actions of the Nazis which they feel were enabled by the immigration act. 58
Posted by Ivan Drago on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:19 | # We were a very homogenous state, and we were taken down via mass eastern and southern European immigration and via the same culture war tactics used against you now. America didn’t become that much less homogenous because of the eastern and southern European immigration. And to compare it to what’s happening to England now is laughable, as if Russians and Italians are the same thing as Pakistanis. There’s no comparison whatsoever and even you know it. 59
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:42 | # “The actions of the Nazis” were the logical responses to this : http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html 60
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:34 | # GW,
Do you mean by implication that Barnesy cannot? Never mind. As your pseudo-legal council I advice you not to answer that question. One day I’m sure you will be able to break that obdurate rascal Barnesy into accepting the bit and saddle. Until that fine and surely anti-climactic day, much patience will be required. That is, assuming the poor man can even walk after the thrashing I’ve given him.
Probably true. 61
Posted by anonymous on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:01 | # Letter urges Israeli girls to avoid dating Arabs
62
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:55 | # ” That is, assuming the poor man can even walk after the thrashing I’ve given him. “
The Hollywood Nazi Act is just so crass and passe CC old chap. No one is fooled - only reds or morons think and speak as you do. You are obviously not a moron. So that leaves only RED. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:50 | #
Even, CC, when the culprit squeaks by, give or take a “they”, with the excuse that he was, er, apeing ghetto language (“da White wimmins”). Let’s stick to content. And if you feel an irrestistible urge coming on to break the bounds, go to Alex’s place. That’s what it’s for. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:12 | # GW, Sensationalism is one of the tools I use to, indeed as you say, “break down the barriers” of psychological resistance to our message. Even with people who more or less already agree with us, but just need that final nudge over the line to begin really considering our position, some stern language and pyrotechnics is often needed. I get smart people who can potentially be of use to come to this site. I got Dasein, Haller, Gudmund, and Frank. Of course that Scottish nutjob JamesUK also eventually found his way to the racialist blogosphere in the wake of my taking a baseball bat to the kneecaps of Takimag - but that is not my fault, it is the law of unintended consequences’ fault. Or perhaps it is the fault of British genes. I’ll let you come to your own conclusion. 65
Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:45 | #
Does that actually work? Were the people you mention affected by your swearing, or did they come to the site despite it? It would be good to hear from them. Anyway, for 9 out of 10 people (if not more) saying ‘nigger’ is what the costume racists they see on telly say. It would be more of a shock to them if you argued what you argue without using that language. Basically, I have no idea what LJB is on about mostly (I suspect he doesn’t either half the time). He just seems like he’s trying to be cuddly, rainbow and unicorns nationalist or something (‘look at those wonderful white kids playing’). Regardless, he is right about the fact that using ‘nigger’, etc. is the image the enemy presents of WNs. It’s like Svigor says: WNs on tv are never just WNs - they always have extra flaws. Just WN can be appealing, WN with potty language isn’t. We should really not mimic the image being created in enemy propaganda. 66
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:26 | #
I hoist the flag up the flagpole, pick a fight, and dispatch with the opponent. The more thoughtful fence-sitters observe for perhaps the first time anti-racism, or color-blind CONservatism, or what have you, being vigorously and effectively contested. This piques their curiosity. And they come here to learn more about the position I am defending. It works.
LOL. 67
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:51 | # I remain curious about the questions I asked above: If ethnonationalism is now illegal in Britain, however, might this perhaps at least have the salutary effect of transforming the BNP into a more single issue anti-immigration (protest vote) party, as I have recommended? Can the BNP still advocate zero immigration of nonwhites, or must it oppose all immigration? Could it use coded language by opposing all non-EU immigration? 68
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:11 | # On language and related matters, I have not always been as circumspect as I might, but I do have a suggestion for the site admin. You should establish some ground rules for discourse (no obscenities, epithets, irrelevant advertisements ... or excessive unseriousness). Ad hominem attacks are often appropriate, and do keep things lively, however - but they should be piercing and if possible witty (and not merely expressions of dislike). The question is, what is the primary purpose of MR: to act as a forum for the intelligent exchange of otherwise frequently verboten ideas and information pertaining to the EGI of the white race, or to act as a safety valve for personal rants, ‘opinionating’, and online ‘goofing’ that would not be tolerated in many other venues? There is obviously a core community here that appreciates an opportunity to discuss these issues (as opposed to merely posting commentary that does not immediately appear online, as at amren.com). But that community is quietly sliding away, as the site becomes infected with the unserious and the frankly stupid. The problem is that serious comments, ones worthy of extended consideration or even vituperation - but not disregarding - get lost in threads filled with nonsense. It might appear that a firmer editorial hand would threaten to shrink the readership. It would, but only for a short time. Eventually, by getting rid of the idiots and goofballs neither MR nor the racialist community need, you would eventually attract the kind of discussants I suspect you really want. 69
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:50 | # CC’s no false flag. I thought he was at first too though - it’s shocking sometimes that he’s not a false flag. His approach is, imo, worst-possible at times. He didn’t influence me racially, but he did reg. WWII. I probably did follow CC here too, not that I’m anything special after my few tired points are made. The online Kraut brigades have been making the long, slow march through the blogosphere in general reg. WWII, and it’s working. Plus, Buchanan’s book had a large impact among paleos. It’s surprising given how strict the thought-police are in Europe that Buchanan still has a career in the US after that book. Really, it’s amazing Buchanan gets away with all he does. He goes the extra mile to sell his points, which we of course never do. Buchanan reaches millions, and he makes the right points, going just as far as he may. I also admire the K. MacDonald, Brimelow, Beck, TPC, and the EconomyInCrisis folks and others who fill the right niches. Many out there fighting will never be appreciated too. I often run into these little guys who duke it out at bigger GOP sites and such - they care nothing for being appreciated and if anything wish to remain anonymous. It’s amazing. If people simply become racially oriented, the rest will follow. That’s my belief. I don’t agree with CC’s hard right approach. If you’re going hard right, you act you don’t talk about it. At most you write a book like Covington’s, which I can’t say yet whether I like or not (haven’t read). I respect CC; I’m not saying that to be condescending. I just don’t agree with him here. 70
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:27 | # You don’t need to use the n-word to get people to see blacks for what they are. Just post articles of all the crime they commit, and post police statistics (e.g. Color of Crime). Also, post articles on black nations (e.g. Haiti and Zimbabwe) and black racism in SA. And post articles on Jewish racism against blacks, Chinese racism, etc. And post on Chinese imperialism and Asian economic protectionism (gasp they’re cheating). Allow readers to connect dots on their own. Similarly post articles on how screwed up liberals are. The sell outs who defend this crap are of 3 sorts: scum, fanatics, and the bizarre (e.g. pedophiles). Oh, and of course those who simply hate the English (e.g. non-Brits). Point this out to people. And point out heritage and familiarise people with England and its flesh and blood people and history and such, which is vital lest they turn into one of the eugenics liberals. And encourage people to live with honour and get married and otherwise live a healthy life. Slurs don’t work in the current environment imo. 71
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:30 | # You don’t need to use the n-word to get people to see blacks for what they are. Just post articles of all the crime they commit, and post police statistics (e.g. Color of Crime). Also, post articles on black nations (e.g. Haiti and Zimbabwe) and black racism in SA. That is using the “n” word! 72
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:36 | # MR is just a fucking blog! We’re all a bunch of really smart dudes and some of us happen to vulgar. A few of us are racialist Christians and some of us are really, really, aggressive atheists. Every once and a while somebody comes in and demands censorship of some variety of another but the only censorship that achieves anything (censorship of ideas) will never occur. That is to say, I don’t care how polite Al Ross is, he is still Al Ross and I still despise him. (Just kidding Al) If you don’t get what I’m saying, consider the lyrics to a song which was quite popular last year:
Firstly, the name of the band is “Finger 11” which is a reference to a dick. No censorship though because it is a “polite” euphemism. Secondly, the song is about fucking some broad in a club. No censorship though because there is no profanity. 73
Posted by johnUK on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:47 | # @Frank Chinese racism and imperialism WTF planet are you on? I don’t see China invading other countries, launching wars, committing genocide, running a global drugs, sex and terrorist network, separatist movements worldwide including inside China and establish a totalitarian democratic global Empire of Full Spectrum Dominance of land, sea, air including space and information technology. 74
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:07 | # You don’t hear about it because the Chinese learned from the West’s mistakes. Also, look at Tibet, Singapore, Malaysia, and the large minorities developing in parts of America, Canada, and Australia. These minorities will remain loyal to China. They are sizable. When America falls, new powers will rise in its wake. Likely, they’ll be harsher than America was. The populist right and populist left have long opposed America’s foreign involvements, btw. 75
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:13 | # Daniel, many blacks think violence is justified in retaliation for the n-word. And if you’re ever found guilty of a crime against a black, the n-word could find you guilty of, gasp, a “hate crime”, which is somehow worse. Many whites whom you wish to target will flee at hearing the n-word. I never use it, though I no longer fuss as much at those who do. 76
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:18 | # Bombarding people with real stories and crime stats surely works better than using the n-word. You can also present them with problems of racial diversity, e.g. Jews and East Asians acting differently from native Brits. No one in Britain seems brave enough to mention Jews though it seems. In the US their power is overwhelming, but in Britain things must be different. 77
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:39 | # many blacks think violence is justified in retaliation for the n-word. It is. And if you’re ever found guilty of a crime against a black, the n-word could find you guilty of, gasp, a “hate crime”, which is somehow worse. Don’t say it to niggers. Not to their faces anyway. Many whites whom you wish to target will flee at hearing the n-word. Which is why I adapt to my audience. Bombarding people with real stories and crime stats surely works better than using the n-word. Sometimes. But, I fail to see the difference. It’s shorthand. 78
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:42 | # Even Jesus, within the context of His discussion with the Samaritan woman, didn’t balk at referring to people as dogs which is surely as equivalent to or worse than referring to someone as a nigger. 79
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:44 | # I thought you followed me here Frank? I’m crushed! 80
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:51 | #
Perhaps GW could enlighten me as to what he means by “they”. 81
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:57 | # Perhaps GW could enlighten me as to what he means by “they”. Filthy Krauts! Duh… 82
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:00 | # Even some of the cavemen white devils who read MR will cringe at the word or decide this place is “too extreme”. Crackers are strange like that. 83
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:09 | # Yes… But subtract them from the amount of folk that will flee just by an understanding of our constant reference to the criminality of “African Americans” or “Jamaican Englishmen” or knife wielding “youths” and I think one will be left with pretty much the same number. Regardless, the issue for me is never, “Is it practical?” but rather, “Is it right.” Spades are spades in my opinion and justifiedly receive their moniker. 84
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:27 | # Even when crackers think “our” publicity sucks they respond to it. “We” apparently have done a good job. The Kraut brigades march on. 85
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:52 | #
Try again Ivan.
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review Kevin MacDonald Department of Psychology California State University-Long Beach Long Beach, CA 90840-0901 86
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:06 | #
Obviously not what the Americans in 1924 felt. “We are determined that they [Slav, Jew or Italian] shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]
Decade Total White 1790 Stock Percentage
What does it matter who displaces you? Extinction is extinction whether Russian or Pakistani. 87
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:52 | #
Are you referring to negroes, CC? 88
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:07 | # NumbersUSA chart showing Yearly Total 1970 Stock Percentage. History repeats itself. And the same could happen to England. 89
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:24 | # In America, we sure don’t have a “native American” category. We have “white” and “black”. The areas that remain “American” are the areas no one wants to move to. Almost no where is there a will to survive. Even the Amish adopt Mexican babies, though thankfully their lifestyle is so harsh (for moderns) that only a true Amish would stick around. In Canada I read of an island that’s still very Scottish. It’s anthem however is very PC. Clearly there’s no will to live there either. The only areas that endure are sucked by brain drain and unwanted by outsiders. Richard Weaver:
90
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:43 | # I would point at our understanding of Christianity as partly the cause of this weakness, though there are plenty of other causes as well to be sure. You can’t find a reason other than faith for the Amish to a adopt a Mexican child. The Amish don’t seem to seek out adoptions often, but they will adopt if a baby’s left on their step. There was some example or other in the past. Jews etc. would be racist towards a new Mexican, but white Christians of course overcome the sentiment and so mix out… And as CC has noted, the Amish will not defend their territory. 91
Posted by alex zeka on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:08 | #
Precisely. Frank discussion of Black criminality, etc. is shocking and does throw people out of their comfort zone. What it doesn’t do is play into the TV caricature of a WN. It actually intrigues people: wow, a WN, who is nothing like what I expect WNs to be. CC, I’d rather hear from the people you’ve attracted. Was potty language what interested them? I assume not, largely because it wasn’t for me, but I’m willing to hear from them. And yes, I’ve spent too much time trying to work out what LJB is in favor of, and now I’ve decided he doesn’t know himself. 92
Posted by danielj on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:25 | # Even the Amish adopt Mexican babies Really? Any links to substantiate this? That is incredible! 93
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:49 | # Daniej: Think about it. How else could Shaker furniture have evolved into the more laid back Mission style? 94
Posted by johnUK on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:56 | # @Frank Chinese like Russian expats group neglecting the near abroad are hostile to native homeland of China. Look at Wikileaks staff just under half are Chinese set up to launch info warfare against China. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22437 The Chinese immigrant communities in the US and Europe are pro-Tibetan and anti-Chinese. We control China by controlling and supporting all the minority groups in the country. As for Africa LOL! Hell we have been paying Africans and other regions of the world slave labour wages and worse for decades. At least China is building infrastructure projects. 95
Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:36 | # Daniel, there is a link. I’ll try to find it. Faust might know of it if I can’t find it. He’s not on much lately though. The event as I recall was a baby was left on a doorstep or something like that. The couple didn’t seek out an adoption. 96
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 03:45 | # John, think of physics class and potential energy. China is a large boulder perched precariously 100 meters above your head. 1. It is not a Christian country. Reg. minorities in China, that is divide-and-conquer. It’s what’s used against Americans too, and the Europeans are similarly vulnerable to it thanks to all their diversity. The English and Celts can barely resist fighting let alone the Jews and new third worlders. Reg. Chinese and loyalty to the Chinese government, they’d side with the government were there a conflict involving China and another state. Chinese are ultimately Chinese. They don’t think of themselves as “Brits” or “Aussies” or whatever if living within a large community. And that’s fine though. EGI doesn’t sit well with me, and I’ll take a pure-blood Chinaman over a half-Irish half-Chinese mongrel. I like the Chinese and East Asians in general. I’m just concerned about this potential energy of the Chinese Empire. My saying they’re potentially less altruistic doesn’t mean I hate them. I simply believe that Europeans misbehaved under Colonialism, and Europeans are likely the best behaved in the world. The Chinese will be much worse, though other groups would be even worse. 97
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 03:48 | # Reg. Tibet, more Han Chinese live there now than Tibetans. Do “Free Tibet” folks wish for over half the population to be forcibly removed, a larger scale of how the Japanese were removed from Korea? That’s a very radical proposal. Blood is thicker than water. The Chinese will be inclined to serve their race even if tending to oppose the Chinese state currently, according to your claim. 98
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 14:59 | # ” I hoist the flag up the flagpole, pick a fight, and dispatch with the opponent. The more thoughtful fence-sitters observe for perhaps the first time anti-racism, or color-blind CONservatism, or what have you, being vigorously and effectively contested. This piques their curiosity. And they come here to learn more about the position I am defending. It works. “
People dont debate with morons. They just ignore and despise them. Hollywood Nazis are like so 1980’s. 99
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:32 | # LJB, CC makes intelligent comments though. He grasps ideas that others fail to, and he has a noble spirit. If you follow his goals, he legitimately cares for his people. Too many “WN” seem to be sociopaths, but he’s not one. CC appears like a monster but isn’t; while those in charge of the US act in the reverse. I’ll take a rough saint over a perfumed devil any day. He’s a German. I can understand the draw NS has on him. I’m a Southerner, and I’ve heard you bad mouth the South before. Such is politically beneficial for an Englishman, so I can understand it; but there is more to history than you’ve read about. And it is NOT immoral to honour one’s ancestors. Such might be a political roadblock to some impotent white nationalism that seeks to unite us all into some sort of global empire, but honourable nationalists should give their ancestors their due. Since England fought the Germans, obviously the English will record history as being in the right. How could an Englishman ever be wrong? Poppycock! Likewise, the German will record his own history, even if such is illegal. 100
Posted by AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhh!!!! on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:17 | #
Really? Other than the obvious trolls, name names. Give five examples of those who you think are sociopaths. I’m getting sick and tired of the “I’m wiser than you” types running around these sites passing judgement on unnamed others. Please, let’s not misconstrue peoples’ venting as sociopathic behavior. It’s understandable why people occasionally throw around the “n” bomb when discussing racial issues. Not to do so would indicate mental unhealthiness. P.S. Please don’t cite Hunter Wallace as a sociopath. Clearly he isn’t. 101
Posted by danielj on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:34 | # CC has a job. A down-to-earth, nine to five, blue collar job if I’m not mistaken! Has Lee John Barnes ever held down a real job? I’d be more inclined to consider lack of career stability as a sociopathic trait before I considered being a “potty mouth” to be. 102
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:00 | # I’m not going to label people as sociopaths and create a large group angry at me. I’m unaware of a reason I should be critical of Prozium / Fade / Wallace. If anything I’m only wary of his choosing “Hunter Wallace” as a name since I don’t like Pierce. Some of the values professed by certain WN are inhuman. Agree or disagree as you like. Many of the radical lefties are similarly inhuman. 103
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:04 | # “I’m getting sick and tired of the “I’m wiser than you” types running around these sites passing judgement on unnamed others. “ I’d rather be one of these than a fuzzy “I don’t have any values or goals” sort. I am certainly guilty of thinking I’m wiser than others at times, but surely I’m not all that bad overall. 104
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:29 | #
Funny that, Barnesy, they debate with you.
I’m not important. What is important is that you begin to really pay attention to what is said at MR. As far as I am aware, this is the only racialist blog that actually attempts to arrive at viable means by which we can save our race from genetic extinguishment. The rest merely diagnose the problem and when pressed throw up their hands for want of any inkling of a cure. There are several bloggers here from the UK who possess all that talents you and your former BNP cohorts lack that would be willing to help you formulate ways to actually accomplish some of your community organizing goals. But for that to be a fruitful enterprise, you’ve first got to swallow your stubborn pride, accept your painfully obvious limitations, and listen. 105
Posted by johnUK on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:12 | # @Frank Reg. Tibet, more Han Chinese live there now than Tibetans. True Chinese part colonised it but it is due to many factors. 1) With the CIA they tried to establish anti-Chinese Colony there to destabilise China which even today is part of RAND corporations Xinjing Project with that and the Muslim republic of Xinjing to encircle China. 2) Large number of Tibetans emigrated abroad and all the skilled labourers are Han Chinese. 3) Dalai Lama and Tibet under his rule was not peace on earth more like hell on earth a Kleptocratic dictatorship much worse than under Mao’s Communism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7t2Ztb92mE 4) Now it turns out thanks to Wikileaks the Dalai Lama ran compulsory child orphanages military schools and has a paramilitary army. http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/photos/dalai-lama-wikileaks-shame/ 106
Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:36 | #
Am I crazy, or does his analysis confirm the U.S. government’s 15-million unemployed figure? He finds 15 million “missing jobs” but then simply writes that he found 30 million! Am I missing something? The “underemployed” may well be another ~15 million, from what I’ve heard. But he makes no reference to that. 107
Posted by Karos Loron on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:58 | # The biggest loser without a doubt is ‘Hunter Wallace’! Have you seen his yellow-shirted picture?!?! LOL! He has abandoned White Nationalism and returned to the kosher conserativism from which he came. Wallace has degenerated so far that he watched negro football! He actually spends his time watching negroes in tights running around at high speeds! Sounds gay. Wallace is so far gone that he thinks that a negro-packed football team is a portent of things to come!
108
Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:14 | # With all the talk of deletions and editings of posts recently, I hope the troll-post directly above gets a…close look. 109
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:46 | # I like Hunter Wallace. Decent man; first rate writer; conveys thought provoking ideas. I think he’s doing a fine job at Occidental Dissent. That said I think it’s entirely inappropriate for someone to come over on this site and attempt to assassinate his character. It is especially offensive when it’s done in such a childish manner. Hint: I doubt any serious person gives a flying fig if HW watches football. What matters to them is if his ideas/methods/proposals etc. can be applied effectively in the real world. Can they realistically make a difference? That’s the issue. Got it?!? 110
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:23 | # I have deleted a couple of these HW comments. Not acceptable. Will the person responsible stand down, please. You made your point some time ago, and you are descending into worthless abuse now. That is not welcome here. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 8)
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Alan Beddoes on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:18 | #
As for the EDL being winners. They must be because they get more attention from the state than than Nick Griffin ever has but he is now widely thought to be a state asset or just protected by the police. This is how the police persecute Tommy Robinson of the EDL.
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1632/Tommy-Robinson-Announces-Hes-a-Marked-Man-Marked-by-UK-Police-State.aspx