By David Hamilton

On Tommy Boyd’s talkRadio show of 17 February, Weyman Bennett described David Cameron as a supporter of the Marxist UAF! Are the Conservatives, we wonder,  still the patriotic party or a Con that pretends to support the nation but, when in power, will carry on with the work of the Labour Party? Bennett accused the BNP of violence but at 2008 Red White Blue, 33 arrests were recorded - including left wing thugs throwing rocks at children and elderly people. Yet no members or supporters of the BNP were arrested. What is Cameron doing with people like that if he is a Tory?

The Daily Mail of 22 January reported his speaking to think tank Demos, which is running The Progressive Conservatism Project to develop policies and ideas that are radical. Conservatives are now pursuing progressive goals like social justice, social mobility and an end to poverty, all of them once left-wing . How, they ask, can these be achieved through “conservative” means? They are turning the Conservative party into a neo-Marxist outfit like Nulab!

Cameron said his party wants to abolish child poverty and increase social mobility. He listed the aims of ‘progressive Conservatism’ as:-

1. Fair society
2. Green environment
3. Safety for citizens
4. Equal opportunity

... and said:

‘Yes, they are ends that we share with people in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and right across the mainstream political spectrum. But no, we do not agree about how best to achieve those ends.”

READ MORE...

Søren:  Good comment on Dies Irae BTW, but I was disappointed that you didn’t mention the Subject without Confines.
I hope it will appear later (because you said that in chat)!

me:  Well, I think I need to understand the notion a bit better to put it out as my own statement regarding subject/object, dialectic, etc.

Søren:  Yes.  Actually it will be better if you use that in a post of your own anyway…
You do have the Dugin essay right?

me:  I’ll look at it again if you link me to it.

Søren:  http://eurosiberia.wetpaint.com/page/SUBJECT+WITHOUT+CONFINES?t=anon

me:  Dugin writes: “Having lost its metaphysical legitimacy, the aggression became to be perceived as unlawful transgressing the integrity of what was proclaimed the supreme value in itself - a human individual, society, being etc. Hence follows all “natural right” tendency, which has been developed starting from the times of Rousseau. For the existential expansion discontinued being metaphysically justified, the victim put in its own claims to the “total security”, that is to the artificial and raised to the highest ethical imperative defense from aggression.”
me:  This is where things get dicey due to the fact that multicellular organisms are the ultimate “eusocial societies”, consisting, as they do, of billions of clones all working together as one subject.
This is why I tend to side with the Valorians when it comes to the ideal of single combat.
The Old Norse law was that any group of armed men was a super-organism that should be killed by any and all who witnessed it.
St. Olaf was known as “Olaf the Law Breaker” because he violated this law to become king and impose JudeoChristianity.
Dragons… Serpents…
Kill them.

Søren:  And we can bring that back once we live in a world of men who are fit for such a world, but imitating the future isn’t the way to midwife it.

me:  Of course not.  You missed my point about designating these superorganisms as “the enemy” which justified ALL to attack them.

Søren:  Assist me in midwifing the future.

me:  Hiding and swarming seems to have been the defense of the Old Norse and Goths.  Perhaps also the Dorians.

Søren:  Discourse is War. You don’t understand that all the way. It doesn’t mean “let’s only talk and whine and work in secret.” It means: anyone who says that discourse is one thing and war is another is using discourse to war against us.
This is the answer to Habermas.

me:  Well, it is certainly true that when the appeal of last resort is not single combat to the death, discourse loses its proper biological role.
Words become mere arms.

Søren:  My DSL line filter is banjaxed—every phone call cycles the connection.

me: There may be an extent to which dogs have played a part in this.

Søren:  Do you mean like cats and toxoplasmosis?

me:  Less parasitic and more symbiotic.  You know the old thing about “white men and their dogs”...  well ever notice how many negroid races have these huge nostrils?  Think about pheromones and smell.  Then think about hunting parties.
Subsaharan Africa has sufficient natural carrying capacity that they would form hunting parties with each other.  In Europe—not enough food to go around—so dogs teamed up with their masters.  The dogs had a superior sense of smell.  This reduced the evolutionary pressure on Euroman’s sense of smell and this, in turn, rendered him less able to discriminate kin from nonkin at an atavistic level.  It also rendered him more of an “individual” biologically.

Søren:  Is there evidence of differential osmic ability?  I’ve never heard that.

me: Its my hypothesis.

Søren: Put it on MR.

me:  Specifically, I hypothesize that when it comes to human pheromone discrimination, most probably the MHC-related smells, Euroman (or any people heavily dependent on dogs for hunting) will under-perform.

me:  Moreover, I suspect that the amygdala and other emotional centers that had been linked to pheromone discrimination, are now susceptible to word manipulation far more than in other races.
So words have “smells” such as “connotations” etc. that are used in discourse particularly when there is no single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing to clear the semantic decks for communication.  Words like “racism” etc. are essentially engineered human pheromones.

me: http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/elephants-smell-the-difference-between-human-ethnic-groups/
This makes racial epithets perhaps a more crucial aspect of our survival than many have thought—the “smell"of words may be more important than their meaning in an environment where we are not free to preemptively kill gangs nor are we free to challenge individuals to mortal combat in the law of the jungle.

by exPF

The biggest psychological revolution I see whites undergoing is this: a revoking of their trust. What Putnam observed statistically I observe anecdotally: the collapse of trust in newly diversified societies.

I experienced the transition from high-trust to low-trust when I moved from the all-white setting of my youth to a diversified international school. In my early teens I welcomed the non-white world with all the psychological disarmament a young kid could respectably muster. When one considers that this imperative had been insinuated into every television program I watched growing up, and the alternative viewpoint never even given so much as a respectful hearing, its clear: I was born to play this role.

So the gates were opened and my young sensibility thrown into a variegated world with literally no prior knowledge. That prior cultural knowledge about human groups had after all been declared the source of all immorality. We lived in a society which gleefully depicted murder, adultery and licentiousness on television, so all the old commandments were pretty much up for grabs; except that newly minted 11th commandment: Thou shalt love wogs as thyself.

Nobody told me that my world of familial love and kindness, more-or-less good manners, of joking with one another, trusting one another, being silly and having fun together … nobody told me that this world only extended so far. Its one thing to leave the house and be exposed to “the real world”, i.e. the white world of strangers, colleagues and acquaintances. I suppose that can be rough - you might get swindled, or get in a bar-fight. Mostly though, people will be indifferent, well-bred people will be largely affable to you.

Holy hell, contrast that with exposure to the non-white world! Of actually living with minorities in large numbers! Where every male who shows the wog resistance is marked for corporal punishment! Where every environment, everywhere, is fraught with some kind of ‘tension’. Where every slightly attractive white female becomes a target and prize of conquest.

READ MORE...

By David Hamilton

1. A WELCOME FOR IMMIGRANTS AND FOR ISLAM

In a question and answer session with a group European journalists, and published in November 2008 by French magazine Café Babel, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot (mail him here) lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass immigration, and how they are trying to destroy Europe.

Does Europe need immigration?

Yes. The demographic situation of Europe requires a migration which must be concerted.  The mission of Europe is also a will to facilitate exchanges between countries.  Immigration is at the same time an economic and moral requirement.

At the beginning of October, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told new immigrants at their reception ceremony, “Germany thanks you“. Do you conceive such an event on a European scale?

There are many symbolic acts of this kind which can be imagined for showing the immigrants that they have really a place.  We will probably consider this type of demonstration when we write the new directive on the conditions of reception for refugees.

[…]

The European immigration policy, however, does not fit with the logic of gratitude. Critical voices reproach you for building “Fortress Europe”.

We left one very sedentary period where the borders had become an obsession.  Today, the immigration pact which the French presidency has adopted is balanced.  There is a legitimate desire to refuse illegal immigration and, at the same time, a desire for Europe to be more dynamic in taking in immigrants.

You are known to be favourable to “open Europe but with very clear rules of the game”.  How does the current immigration policy accord with this spirit of openness?

First of all, in the legal regulation of migration with the Blue Card for skilled workers will be an entitlement to family reunion.  At the same time by circular migration it will perhaps make it possible for people to profit their compatriots from the knowledge that have acquired in Europe.

Isn’t it, however, about selective immigration if one uses immigrants in the markets in Europe like substitutes?

Therefore we wish to reinforce our knowledge of the needs of Member States for skilled workers and, at the same time, to monitor immigration in Africa to know what is possible or not in each African country - which, obviously, must retain the benefits of its own skilled workers.  This is why we regularise migration of skilled workers in particular, to prevent the plundering of African and Asian brains and human resources.

[…]

Islam is perceived by certain people as incompatible with the European values of democracy, peace and equality of the sexes.  How does the EU see these problems?

This manner of seeing Islam as antagonistic to European values is completely partial and erroneous.  Islam is a monotheist religion which, to me, appears compatible with our secular principles.  What is not, in fact, compatible is fundamentalisms - not only Islamic - which want to segregate and exclude other religions.  From the moment that pluralism is accepted by Islam, in any case in Europe, Islam is welcome.  What is true is that we will always fight against the fact that in the Islamic world Christian communities are not always given the respect they are due.  But that is specific to certain Islamic states, and is not a characteristic of Europe.  Europe is in favour of religious pluralism and, obviously, any Islam which wants to be present in Europe must accept this pluralism.

2. THE OBLIGATION TO INTER-BREED WITH BLACKS AND BROWNS

READ MORE...

I don’t do much in the way of copy ‘n paste posting.  But this story, following on the heels of the BNP’s fine showing in yesterday’s four council elections, is politically interesting.  It appears to represent something of a breakthrough in that government has admitted not only that racist attacks by foreigners are committed in our schools, but also that school, police and legal authorities try to look the other way.  In other words, they are institutionally racist.

Swindon school faces inquiry after brutal ‘racist’ attack by Asian teenagers

It has taken two years, a sustained lobbying campaign and an exhausting round of letter writing for Liz Webster to get some justice for her 17-year-old son.

In January Mrs Webster, 44, met schools secretary Ed Balls, who recommended an inquiry into the savage attack, on school premises, on Henry Webster by a group of Asian teenagers.

It was January 11, 2007, when Henry, then 15 and a ginger-haired star rugby player, popular with his class mates and with no history of being disciplined for poor behaviour, arrived at the tennis court at The Ridgeway School in Swindon to settle, “one on one”, an argument with a fellow pupil. Only it was a baying mob and not a single opponent waiting for him.

What happened next, witnessed by more than 100 pupils – and even filmed by one on a mobile phone – was an ambush so vicious that, at the subsequent court case, the judge described it as a ‘‘savage and sustained attack”.

It was, said Judge Carol Hagen when she passed sentence on 13 boys and young men who set upon Henry, a ‘‘miracle’’ that Henry had survived.

Though the 13 Asian teenagers and young men who attacked Henry – all members of a gang who called themselves the ‘‘Asian Invaders’’ – were given sentences of between eight months and eight years for grievous bodily harm and conspiracy to commit GBH, no independent inquiry into how Henry was brutally assaulted, while at school, in an attack that was described in court as ‘‘something out of a Quentin Tarantino film”.

During the trial, Judge Hagen was highly critical of the school, asking why there were no staff present in the tennis courts at the end of the school day, since it was known there had been trouble earlier in the day.

READ MORE...

By The Narrator

This is the final part of my anti-Universalist trilogy, earlier articles being Charity and the savage and The Unnecessary Faith

American Exceptionalism.  If you are unfamiliar with the phrase you’ll at least recognize it’s definition.  Essentially, it is the general belief amongst the declining demographic known as White American Patriots that everybody on planet Earth not only wants to be a White American Patriot, but can and should become White American Patriots.

This is the self delusional philosophy that the average (non-elite) White American conservative clings to in order to justify Imperial America’s foreign military adventurism. And, more importantly, to convince themselves that the massive non-White migration currently flooding America will end with Jamal, Ping, Pedro and Abdullah all speaking colloquial American English, loving John Wayne films, adoring Country music, voting Republican every four years and (magically) never making up more than 5% of small town America’s population.

As you might expect, they are completely insane.  Of all the hypocrisies in the world, theirs is uniquely obtuse in that they believe that everyone, everywhere, should voluntarily conform to an obligatory creed of self-reliant independence and rugged individuality.  They believe that only fools or terrorists wouldn’t aspire to be exactly like them.

Their most profound conviction is that people with convictions are obstacles to the state funded and government regulated consumerist lifestyle that props up the self-worshiping ideology of Individualism which they believe is inherent to all living beings.

READ MORE...