In response to the steadfast support for homosexual marriage from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a DT thread-jockey named Hugh of Oxford offered the following gut reaction:

Even an illiterate peasant from Peru knows the difference between a pair of men and a husband and wife. Even a nomad in the Namib knows that marriage provides society with children and a future, and same-sex unions deprive society of that benefit and place a burden on it.

As so often with gut reactionaries, good instincts are liable to run out into sketchy assumptions at the slightest test.  A homosexual who regularly pops up to debate his special interest on the DT threads responded with “How?”.  Hugh did not answer.  But any Salterian could have, and one did:

Homosexuals - 1.5% of men and 0.5% of women - are not well-regarded among normal people.  The male homosexual act is especially reviled.  This is so for evolutionary reasons, and it cannot be changed - it might be papered over a little if that is the fashion.  But there is no real choice in the matter for anyone.

This negative feeling is not without consequences. One such is that homosexuals are not role models for normal people.  The effect of this on marriage, should homosexuals succeed in grabbing title to it, can only be negative.  Specifically, marriage will be cheapened and reduced to the status of a lifestyle choice.

But marriage is not a lifestyle choice but the naturally arising, optimum condition for raising healthy children.  It is, therefore, a genetic interest of our ethnic group and our race.

Homosexuals have the same genetic interests as normal people, so the productive course for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike is to increase the status of marriage and not decrease it.

The response to this line of argument was, rather surprisingly, not that genetic interest is voodoo, which was how mention of it was received a few years back, but that the perception among sexually whole people that marriage has been violated and made cheap by its homosexualisation is just conjecture.  The GI element may be becoming more workable in political discourse - something we used to say could never happen because of its abstruse nature.

by Alexander Baron

Anthony Hancock was no saint, let’s be clear about that, but by the same token he is a man to whom all true lovers of freedom owe a considerable debt. What follows is a warts and all portrait from a purely personal perspective.

His friends called him Tony, which as most of you will know was also the name of a famous though in my humble opinion not particularly funny comedian. I always called him AH, another and far more appropriate double entendre.

I began reading Revisionist and related literature in 1980; one of the first such publications I read was The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, which was published by Historical Review Press, the company started by the father and son team of Alan and Anthony Hancock. I didn’t meet the man though for another ten years, by which time I had moved back to London. Our first meeting was reasonably affable, especially as I had been given an introduction to him by a trusted third party, after that though, things were not so cordial, the reasons for which were due to not so much a misunderstanding as mischievousness by another third party.

This is where it gets rather complicated but I’ll keep it simple. At his Uckfield print works he employed on occasion someone I will call The Cameraman. Shortly before the London meeting organised by David Irving at which Fred Leuchter spoke, I did something totally innocuous which sent him into hysterics. I’ve related this in my book The Churchill Papers, but basically he decided to make me persona non grata with everyone on the so-called far right from then on. Among other things he conspired with Irving to send me a fake ticket for this meeting. This ticket was printed at Uckfield with the connivance of AH’s right hand man, Tom Acton. I know this because when I inquired about it prior to the hoax revealing itself, Acton sniggered. I thought AH was in on the joke, but as things turned out, he wasn’t.

READ MORE...

A response to the recent article at VDARE titled “John Derbyshire On Immigration, Liberty, and Mating Choices”:

Dear John,

mtDNA vs Y Chromosome geography demonstrates pretty conclusively that peaceful gene flow is primary a result of the geographic exchange of females.

What would happen if our “broken” immigration policy were “comprehensively reformed” to honor this apparently deeply ingrained aspect of human nature, and simply outlaw border crossings by males while leaving the borders open to females?

Its a wild and radical thought until, well, you THINK about it.

Sincerely,

James Bowery

The Chinese have cloned Hallstatt:

The Chinese have also perfected the art of taking virtually any cell from a mammal, converting it into the equivalent of a zygote and producing a healthy clone from it.

This presents a solution to the race replacement genocide of Europe:

The real reason most immigrants come to Europe to replace Europeans isn’t because they want to live in a place with a bunch of cute buildings.  The real reason they invade Europe (and its settlements elsewhere) is to fuck our women. 

So of course the thing the Chinese lack in their clone of Hallstatt are clones of Mensa-IQ blonde bombshells. 

They used to exist:

and not all of their DNA has been cremated, although it is being rapidly fucked out of existence, when it doesn’t simply end up on the cutting-room floor.

Now, I know what you’re thinking:

“Jim”, you think, “the Chinese aren’t the biggest problem in the ongoing erocidal aspect of Euroman’s race-replacement genocide.”

Yes, I know.

But the Chinese are nothing if not good merchant/manufacturers, and they’ll need the moral superiority of African MEN in places like the United Nations and Washington, D.C. to authorize the mass production of the Euro fuck-dolls these Black MEN so demand from their social status of moral superiority to Euro males (Euro males, as anyone in media, academia and government knows, don’t deserve to be called “men” due to their genetically dishonorable, if not closeted gay, character).  I can easily imagine a deal being struck whereby the Chinese mass-produce Hallstatts for Africa, fully loaded with two, three or even four fuck-dolls for every African MAN—in exchange for the moral authority of the Black MAN.  Then, through the miracle of the Industrial Learning Curve, that should bring the price down to the point that the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America can all afford to plaster their territories with these little bits of heaven.

Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies.  “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.

I might not contribute much to the thread myself.  The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens.  However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...

It appears from Mary’s description of Marc Stears’ influence and thoughts in respect to the English genocide by race-replacement, the euphemism for which is “immigration”, that the guiding political principle on the left is “the common good”.  So let us brefly examine the meaning of the words “common” and “good”.

Universalism, as one of the four principles of classical liberalism, is derived from the Paulian dispensation.  Paul simply reprocessed and re-focussed the Judaic notion of a chosen tribe distinct from, and superior to, the mass of humanity - a humanity fit only, indeed living only, for service to Jews.  This is the anti-universalism of Judaism, and in it the Jewish supremacy is delivered not through an evolutionary process of Jewish goodness, since Jews already have perfect souls, but through the “perfection” of the gentiles.

Perfection means pacification, which in turn means the destruction of all borders, boundaries, difference ... all cause of conflict with Jewry.  Gentile ethnicity is one such difference, and anything that leads towards its loss is “good” and anything that leads away from its loss is “bad”.

The Christian ethic of love never escaped this paradigm, and today we Europeans still suffer from the obviously false idea that “good” and “virtue” are somehow wrapped up in self-sacrifice, ie, the loss of ethnicity, which, in truth, is the loss of existence ... genocide.

Of course, this argument is compressed ... just skin and bones.  But you should be able to see that the loss of European ethnicity - our genocide - is not at all a good, not virtuous, and the whole of humanity, gentile and Jewish, has no claim on us in that regard.  We are not morally obligated to submerge ourselves in the bottomless seas of the Third World.  It is, equally obviously, also a lie that this is “good” for the greater number.  No genocide is ever good for humanity.  “Good” in respect to ethnicity is always the polar opposite - self-preservation.

In sum, the moral truth is that our good, in respect to immigration, resides in our self-preservation.  The very idea that we do good by admitting racial aliens who, in a matter of decades, will minoritise us and very rapidly marginalise us thereafter, is an evil contrivance from which our forefathers would have instinctually recoiled.  All those who moralise to the contrary today, whether as liberals or Christians or Jews, are doing evil.

The most predictable consequence of proposing the survival of the white race in public places like the DT threads is that those who consider such argument to be “racism”, “prejudice”, et al will pour their bile upon one’s head from the greatest possible height.  For many of them, that’s the gutter.  But occasionally one who affects to know better will come along, and offer the fruits of a superior education.

Over the last two or three days I’ve been assaulted, for want of a better word, by quite an educated fruit, an Irish homosexual with a bookshelf full of worthy analytical empiricism.  His mission was not simply to put the argument for our race’s survival beyond use, but to fatally wound the arguer.  The news that race-loyal white men are actually thinking about our existential crisis, and not just reacting conveniently as carriers of the mental disease of “racism ‘n hate”, required an immediate relegation of said thinkers back to the lumpen category.

So our anti-racist hero - his handle is 90Lew90 - set about deriding my arguments as “derivative”, “strawman”, “bullshit”, etc, while informing me that, contrary to my understanding of race and genetics, there is no race but the human race, and anyway “when you breed for pedigree, you have to get sperm from all over the world”.

He put his philosophical pedigree on the line twice, rather tragically.  He confused method with methodology, and then wrongly appealed to the Naturalistic Fallacy.  A few times he picked at terms I employed in the hope of demonstrating his superior understanding.  But mostly, of course, he just stamped his feet and shouted abuse, like the worst anti-racist.

The conversation sprawled over a large part of a very long thread and involved interventions from various friends and foes.  I am not entirely sure what lessons to draw from it.  Obviously, there is a lot of fear out there among anti-racists.  I recall reading an exchange between a couple of Guardianistas two or three years ago in which our oft-made and somewhat triumphal but true claim that they cannot win debates with us was airily dismissed.  I thought at the time that their confidence sounded very hollow, and they probably knew that there is something horribly strong and insurmountable in pro-white discourse.  Lew offers an extended insight into that hollowness.  At no time did he offer a positive argument for the dissolution of the white world, and each time his attacks on specifics were rebuffed he retreated.  In the end all that was left was the ad hominem.  In the end, all that will be left of anti-racism is a wholly visible white-hatred.

Lew had anticipated an entirely different outcome when he sallied forth, as his opening remarks in one of our exchanges (which I reproduce below) show.  I imagine that today he is, somewhere in his head, trying to rationalise his failure to himself, putting a spin on it, sharpening his axe for the next time.  But we are developing our ideas all the time.  The result for Lew will only ever be worse.  Morally and intellectually, it is already too late for anti-racism.

READ MORE...

David Lane’s famous formulation of the nationalist purpose is, though a very adequate imperative, not actually political.  Our people should have a secure existence.  Our children should have a secure future.  In the sense that these are necessities of racial life they do not constitute more than a statement of the obvious and a claim on Nature, though, of course, in a European age as grotesquely internationalist and anti-Natural as ours, they are also a bit of a shock to the liberal moral sensibility.

Still, the question is left hanging: what final politics, what system of ideas, what permanent political purpose do you, dear reader, want?  I mean, beyond the securing of our people’s existence and our children’s future.  Are you truly political in that sense?  Do you, for example, want a return to the Christian life?  That would qualify as an answer of sorts.  Do you want something along the lines of Bowden’s “life of glory”?  Or something else entirely?

If your political ambition does not end with the fourteen words - in essence, if you are not a Western liberal albeit with normal, non-Judaised racial instincts - I’d be interested to know what life you want our people to lead in the sunlit future.

by Karl LaForce

Laundry, Intimidation, and Divine Retribution. Wednesday 28 March 2012

My extensive travelling experience has taught me that when it comes to hotel laundry service there are only two types of hotels; those that let you do your laundry yourself, and those which charge too much for laundry service. Our hotel was the latter. As my travelling partner and I are both working-class people, we stuffed our clothes into a laundry bag, got the address of a few laundry mats off the Internet, and took off in search of clean clothes.

Our car had a GPS with an English-accent female voice (“whom” we had taken to calling Penny).  Penny led us to a packed street market with no car traffic and many vendors selling vegetables, fish, small grocery items and flowers. We parked our car at the closest spot we could find, about 500 meters from our destination. As we walked through the crowded street market, our education continued.

Here we found an immigrant stronghold. Immigrant-run tables were two to one for every Greek-run table. The press of the crowd led us to cross the street, walking on the sidewalk or the street as required. My travelling partner had often come to this market as a child. Walking on the pavement, we squeezed between a small refrigerated truck and what looked like an Indian run barber shop, my travelling partner had no more breathed the thought “how did these people get here”, when one explanation, at least, presented itself.

READ MORE...