by Karl LaForce

The story so far …

Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, Monday 17th January 2011, shortly after taking his oath of office at the Alabama Capitol:

“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking to reporters after meeting “Jewish leaders” on Wednesday 19th January 2011:

If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry.  I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

Alabama governor Robert Bentley is just another genetic-European whose head and heart have been captured by a Jewish ideology.  There’s no shortage of Jewish ideologies, of course, or of captives.  There are probably somewhere around one hundred million white Americans in a similar condition.  Bentley is not at all an exception in terms of belief, not even among bible-belt state governors, though he is possibly ahead of most in the willingness, as a high ranking public official, to enlighten the public about the in-group status he believes Christians share.

As shown by his statements, he is not merely a victim of the fertility of Jewish macro-religious thought and modern-day Jewish ethnic activism but he busies himself promoting both victimhoods.

READ MORE...

“Populism” is a term that has always made me bristle due to its anti-yeomanry connotation.  The frequency of the term in books began exponentiating in the late 1950s (having first appeared upon the closing of the American frontier to homesteading):

A book originally published in 1962 titled “The Populist response to industrial America:  midwestern Populist thought” by Norman Pollack speaks to this bristling midwestern yeoman’s “discontent” through this illuminating passage concerning the term itself:

Ignoring what came before, proponents of this framework adopt the following line of reasoning:  Populism did not adjust to industrialism; hence, the movement occupied an untenable historical position.  And because it looked backward, its long-range solutions were, by definition, unrealistic.  This meant that by not comprehending the basis for its discontent, Populism was forced to search for simplistic explanations and, ultimately, scapegoats.  The result is a cumulatively deteriorating position; as protest becomes more emotinal, it bears less resemblance to reality.  The final image is that of a movement of opportunists, crackpots, and anti-Semites, whose perception of the world conforms to the dictates of a conspiracy theory of history.  The over-all consequence of this image is that Populism has been denied its traditional place as a democratic social force.  Rather, its significance for American history is altered so greatly that it has come to stand as the source for later proto-fascist groups, McCarthyism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism.  One senses the proportions of this denigration process when it is seen that the very term “populistic” has passed into the working vocabulary of many intellectuals as an epithet, signifying the traits just enumerated.

I lived through the corporatizaton (in truth the consequence of “industrialization”) of the last of the family farms in Iowa—my family among them—and can attest to the vicious role “intellectuals” played by failing to think deeply enough about the roots of our “discontent”—roots drawing from the agrarian foundations of civilization itself—on the one hand, and the offering up of corporatization as a kind of “inevitablism”, on the other.

UPDATE:  Extending the date of publication forward to the present, it is apparent that the demented screaming about “populism” peaked at about the same time that the potential fertility of white females was declining most rapidly due to the entry of baby boomer females into menopause.  If so, this would continue the trend in other such correlations, such as the peak in mortgage interest rates at the same time that boomer females were graduating from college and choosing between committing to being mothers and committing to a money-making career.  This bracketing of female boomer fertility makes sense if one’s goal is to first destroy the white population via its females and then contain the backlash as those females (about to be “downsized” out of their careers as corporate concubines) realized they had betrayed themselves, their ancestors and their racial interests.  With their power of youthful female fertility removed and their financial power removed as they were “downsized” out of their careers, their transition from useful idiots to the trash-heap of history would be complete without incident.

by Martin Hutchinson

A poll last week showed that 71% of Americans don’t want Congress to raise the debt ceiling from its current $14.3 trillion, a level that the total of outstanding debt is expected to hit in March. According to conventional pundits, this is extraordinarily irresponsible, leading to a U.S. default on its outstanding debt. Yet as with many ideas the Beltway pundits claim are irresponsible, when examined more closely the idea has some merits for ordinary people.

For a start, while the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing is in effect, with the Fed buying $75 billion of Treasuries each month, the debt limit does not need to be increased in respect of these purchases. Instead of buying Treasuries in large amounts, and printing money in order to do so, the Fed can simply hand the Treasury the money it prints and allow it to spend it as it wishes. That doesn’t actually require Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to back a truck up to the Treasury building and unload box after box of $100 bills – everything is done by book entry. (If it did mean that, and a provision was made that the Fed chairman himself had to schlep the boxes, we might finally have a proper control over money creation – of course the politicians would simply respond by nominating a professional weightlifter as Fed Chairman!)

This would not work for very long; within a year or two it would produce hyper-inflation, turning the U.S. into the 1923 Weimar Republic. It should be emphasized however that economically it represents no change in policy from the current one. In the old days, there would have been a difference in that the Treasury would under the current system have printed up $75 billion worth of beautifully engraved bonds per month, giving employment to worthy printers and engravers. In today’s book-entry world, even this minuscule economic difference would be lost. If current policies continue, the Weimar Republic’s fate lies ahead of us anyway.

A second alternative response to the debt ceiling, with a similar economic effect, would be to fund government spending through subprime mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since these would be guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, not technically part of the government, they would not count against the government’s debt ceiling. It might be objected that financing say a tank or a road through Fannie and Freddie would be outside their legal mandate, and that a tank in particular would be unlikely to make the mortgage payments.

READ MORE...

This explains.

The vote for the presidency of Front National was run yesterday, and the news is that Marine Le Pen has won with two-thirds of the vote.  The party is convening this weekend in Tours to place her father’s mantle on her shoulders.  A new chapter in the increasingly urgent struggle for a free and nationally-conscious France is beginning.

Marine’s election does two things.  Most obviously, it is a generational change.  It arrests the party’s post-2002 decline under her father, moving it on from the divisiveness of the French past, from all allusions to Vichy and Algiers, and from the sniping at the outrageous official genuflection before Jewry and the Holocaust narrative.  Marine’s unsuccessful opponent, Bruno Gollnisch, represented all that.  Marine is much more presentable and, as a lawyer and a working mother, a woman of modern-day France.  She will never find herself asked in the Cour de cassation whether she agreed:

that the organized extermination of European Jews by the Nazi regime ... constitutes an undeniable crime against humanity, and that it was carried out notably by using gas chambers in extermination camps?

... and have to reply, like Gollnisch, “Absolutely.”

More importantly, perhaps, Marine’s election aligns FN with the anti-Islamicisation strategy which has born electoral fruit elsewhere in Europe.  That, and not merely a desire to modernise, has dictated a break with the pro-Catholic policies of her father on women’s right, particularly with regard to divorce and abortion, and a new tolerance towards homosexuality.

In turn, this new moderation opens up the possibility of a role in a governing coalition with Sarkozy’s UMP, which is looking increasingly likely:

A TNS-Sofres poll released on Wednesday suggested 22 per cent of French people agreed with “the ideas” of the National Front, up from 18 per cent a year ago – while support from sympathisers of Mr Sarkozy’s UMP party has jumped 12 points to 32 per cent.

Equally worrying for the President, some 43 per cent of his UMP sympathisers approve forging electoral alliances with the FN according to the circumstances, the TNS-Sofres poll found.

Half of respondents said they believe France has too many immigrants, and just under half feel that Muslims have too many rights.

The poll suggests a higher number believe Miss Le Pen better represents a “patriotic right of traditional values” than her father.

In response, the Elysée and the UMP are seeking to engineer an anti-FN task-force for the 2012 election.  But, tellingly, it is to be comprised not of rightists, as per the little tough guy’s aggressive strategy of drawing-off FN support in 2007, but of centrists.  He can’t pull that trick twice.  Attack has given way to defence.

The great unknown with Marine’s strategy, of course, is whether nationalism as a revolutionary politics can weather such proximity to, and even participation in, power without losing itself.  It was noisily claimed by the Austrian centre-right that bringing Jorg Haider’s Freedom Party into government between 2000 and 2005 was the fastest way to destroy it.  Having lacked the bargaining power from the outset to obtain worthwhile concessions, the party duly split between populist and nationalist factions.  Both the resultant parties did quite well in the 2008 election, but it’s not a particularly encouraging example for FN.

But Marine has had time to position herself and the party, and may emerge from the 2012 election with a big enough bargaining chip to keep the party united and engaged.  At the very least it would be a fine thing to force the little Hungarian Jew into coalition with the hate object he thought he had destroyed by deception in 2007.

It should be apparent that societal collapse is an increasing part of the mainstream “conversation”.  I mean if Jared Diamond writes a book putting spin on something, you know that it’s in the mainstream “conversation” front and center.

Dispossessed nations are a special case in this “conversation” since their cognizant members not only have been predicting collapse for many years, but they have been eagerly anticipating collapse as an opportunity to recover their nations.  The general idea is that when the collapse comes, then national spirit will arise out of the chaos.  Sometimes this restoration is seen as contingent on there being appropriate leadership and sometimes it is seen as “inevitable”.  If “inevitable” then we can all take comfort despite the lack of anything approaching a viable nationalist organization anywhere in the West.  If leader-dependent then things get more interesting. 

I’m interested in the commentariat’s opinion on the likelihood of collapse.  If likely then I’m interested in the timing of its stages and the structure of those stages.  If leader-dependent (rather than inevitable) then I’m interested in what kind of leadership is necessary and how said leadership will achieve the position of leadership and then how they should lead during the stages of collapse.  If inevitable then I’m interested in what exactly is inevitable.

The two dominant racial stories currently on the Daily Mail website are the pursuit and stabbing of Nicholas Pearton in South London by six negro gang-members and the lift from The Times about the “tidal wave” of Muslim grooming of white girls in the North.  They are both very emotive stories.  They are both completely ignored by the left-wing press and the BBC.  Google has removed all links to the original Times story and the Daily Mail version.  It is completely clear that white lives do not mean anything to the people involved in those decisions.  What does matter is the progress of the MultiCult.  At all human costs, if those humans are white.

Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen.  They are white liberals.  The political malice and detachment from reality, the evident unwillingness to comprehend that but for honesty and responsibility among journalists like themselves these terrible events and thousands of others like them might never have happened ... all that belongs to the liberal mind.  My question is: how did that mind come to this vile and complicitous estate?  How did it arrive not just at the point where it is content that the lives of hundreds of young girls and their families be ruined and young boys be murdered, but where it actually chooses it as a preferred outcome?  Consistently, over a period of years?

I don’t have a real answer.  But here are what seem to me to be a few clues.

1. Psychologically, the willingness to submit strangers to harm is associated with an exaggerated respect for authority.  The Milgram experiments of the early 1960s demonstrated exactly this.  Liberalism in its philosophical conception was a retort to the power of the Catholic Church, and it retains the teleological essentials of religion.  Indeed, its ultimate meaning is the replacement of God with Man the Creator.  The liberal is a religious.  Would he not, then, invest his politics with religious authority, and find therein the need for a religious obedience?

2. The very essence of obedience is the objectification of one’s own role as an instrument of authority, rather than as a fully human being responsible for his own choices.  The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good, and if one day he is brought before due process that is exactly what he will plead.

3. We observe liberals projecting loathing onto others on a daily basis.  Projection is obviously a significant factor in the psychology of the liberal.  It is also very apparent to us that liberals, in their desire to demonstrate their doctrinal purity, can be extravagant in their denial of humanity to their own people, as well as their approbation of it in others.  How difficult can it be, then, for these people to view white children as objects of no account?

4. Not every person has the right psychological profile to inflict harm in this mechanical way upon other people.  It seems likely to me that part of that profile must involve a strong capacity for self-delusion.  We, of course, are well aware that the radical, self-authorial individualism which energises liberal politics is a fiction.  Yet I have encountered scores of ordinary, little liberalistic people who insist on their own peerless sovereign individualism.  They are fooling themselves, every one.

By contrast, nationalists have to hack their own truths out of the political rocks, and withstand the gale of ideological hatred while they do it.  They are genuinely independent of mind (as well as often quite eccentric).  They tend to argue a great deal with one another too - something liberals are not noted for.

That’s about it.  It aggravates my soul that there are people in this world who would conspire to remove news about negro youths and Pakistani males for the sake of white dispossession.  That they have the power to do it, too, is almost too much.  Sometime someone is going to have to pay.

UPDATE - THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MOSLEM CHILD GROOMING, BUT BEGINS TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE TERMS OF DEBATE

READ MORE...

Yesterday I had to drive my daughter the forty miles or so to her university halls in central London.  The journey took me through the southern outskirts of the London I used to know, and where I spent twenty of my first twenty-one years, and on through the dark heart of Africa.  It’s a journey I made in September too - for the same purpose - and, as then, I arrived at the river in a state of deep misgiving, even though I knew in my mind what I would find.

But it’s when one encounters Africa and Asia in person in the places one knew intimately as a child that the term “race-replacement” is revealed in its starkest and most uncompromising reality.  My secondary modern school had over six hundred white-skinned pupils between the ages of twelve and sixteen.  There were a handful of Jews among them, who I did not notice or pay attention to.  But there were no Africans or Asians at any time while I was there.  In six years of representative football, cricket and athletics matches with the other five secondary moderns in the district I came across one black lad.  My old stamping ground looks to be 25 to 30% vibrant now, though it’s much more than that, of course, as one travels northward up the London Road.

There is, though, something very evident that no one in the mainstream speaks about, and that’s the de facto racial segregation that forces itself onto one’s consciousness as the ribbons of shops and shoppers go by.  White couples, white friends, white families walk together.  They do not mix with other races.  Asians do the same.  Blacks do the same.  The In-Betweens who, in South London, are overwhelmingly the products of black male “cross cultural fertilisation”, would seem to disappear into the black groups.

There were vanishingly few multiracial groups visible on both journeys.  I don’t doubt that where social mixing across the races takes place it is negotiated without too much in the way of problems.  But a preference for social mixing, if it is there at all, is manifestly avoided when people go outdoors!  The anti-racist strategy, exercised as it is by the presumption, itself racist, of an original sin of white skin, appears to have failed - if, of course, we accept that its goal was panmixia rather than white suppression.

If it was just designed for suppression, it’s been a startling success:

READ MORE...