Posted by DanielS on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 12:02 | #

Kumiko, you perform a great service in this article and..

I’m going to extend the discourse analysis so that I, and the White American audience, might take to heart the point more clearly - i.e, of contradictory language games that liberal media outlets such as The Guardian and The Huffington posts will deploy at their convenience.

The abstract contradiction:

1) The Pilgrims migrated to America to seek freedom from persecution and the freedom to practice their religion.

2) The migration to native American lands by the Pilgrims, to extend their pursuit of their puritanical religious fanaticism, led to their and their legacy genociding the American Indians.

Migrants to Europe are analogous to the Pilgrims.

Which one are the migrants to Europe like? 1) The persecuted Pilgrims who sought freedom from persecution and freedom to practice their region? Or 2) The persecuting Pilgrims, whose puritanical religious fanaticism entailed genocide of the native host peoples?

Clearly, The Guardian and The Huffington Post, being the liberal organs that they are, will say, at their rhetorical convenience, that the non-Whites are like the persecuted Pilgrims when they are migrating to native European lands; and that Whites are like the persecuting Pilgrims when they are moving to non-European lands.

As you observe, with the Internet making archival corroboration readily available to so many concerned parties, people are facilitated in their capacity to verify discourse over time which will expose the likes of The Guardian in their facile and nefarious contradictions. Thus, in order to keep up their egregious deception that much longer, they must now resort to closing their comments section. As you say:

They had forgotten that some audiences are more sophisticated than others, and that in a completely globalised communication environment in which the internet ‘remembers everything’, their attempts to fabricate a false reality to support their political positions in different temporal and geographical contexts will always be exposed. There will always be some commenter who will ask “Why did they say this thing here, but then this other thing over here? It’s contradictory! It makes no sense at all!”

Again, the reason that I have chosen to abstract the discourse analysis a little further, as I have above, is to help White Americans in particular to see the point, your point, of helping people to organize, understand and hold institutions like The Guardian accountable for these facile and convenient liberal contradictions as they work, time and again, in motivation to destroy human ecological bounds.

Your example says:

For example, if a news organisation, such as perhaps the Guardian, or the Huffington Post, writes articles in its North America edition that try to induce feelings of guilt and paralysis among the Americans of European descent by taking the position that the Pilgrims who landed in North America on the Mayflower were actually a collection of religious fundamentalists who ended up carrying out genocide and were subsequently hated and reviled by the Amerindians, then that is an anti-Pilgrim line they can take. It’s based on reality so a person could indeed say it. But they would have to be consistent about it.

Though your point is important and valid for any ethno-nationalism, any human ecology trying to hold up to the ruptures of liberalism, the reason why I believe that White Americans might lose sight of your valuable point is because they might find it hard to hear above the din of its similarity to gratuitous guilt tripping that they are sick and tired of and which they have only begun to learn how to combat in rhetorical, verbal, logical terms now that the Internet has broken the hegemony of liberal/YKW media. They might be unnecessarily put off of a discourse analysis that they need and would otherwise be eager to employ.

There does not need to be any downplaying of the destruction to the Amerindians, nor the precise culpability of the Pilgrims, though unqualified suggestions of the Pilgrims’ intent, as such, would be similar to the kind of shrill PC guilt tipping that White Americans are sick-of and turned-off by.

However, that is a negative way of looking at your example. That you are able to sincerely assimilate that liberal defense of Amerindians, and criticism of the Pilgrims, may serve all the more effectively to put a dagger in the heart of liberalism, as you are showing yourself both truly empathetic to non-Whites and generally concerned for truth and the side of justice - i.e., not only extending concern for the well being of non-Whites - as liberals/YKW are.

You go on to say:

A problem emerges for that newspaper if it should happen to mysteriously become pro-Pilgrim in a Middle East and North African context, where the Islamist reactionary ‘refugees’ who are fleeing from the Middle East and North Africa to find ‘a new life’ in Europe, are presented as being beyond reproach because of their similarity to the American Pilgrims.

That is where the more abstract handling may have served not only a White American audience better, but also help all patriots as the metaphors here become confusing.

I understand your eagerness to help audiences understand the deadly destruction of Muslims, their diaspora and what they see as their mandate. I also understand that you have the challenge of having to overcome the bizarre hypocrisy of liberal advocacy of Muslims - that is why you expose the contradictory language game with this example - and that after liberals per se, you are up against a second great challenge when trying to get people to understand the dangers and destruction of Muslims - that Jews have made this issue didactic with their subjective concern for the issue, their using, deploying and destroying other people and nations (including The USA, Britain, Germany, France and more) to their ends, of fighting Islam for their Jewish interests, has caused White nationalists to back off in skepticism of anything that smacks of the neo-con “war on terror” and other conflict with Muslims - White Americans especially would tend to be skeptical that Muslims should be a native concern to themselves.

White Americans are also the ones who perhaps most of all need to be disabused of these language games wielded in confusions by liberals or made didactic by Jews [i.e., for the Muslim issue having been looked-at through such obnoxiously subjective Jewish interests as in “the war on terror” and Zionist interests, whether Jewish or Christian], as they can be exasperated of the issues, put off and not wanting to be bothered by more guilt trips by others.

Because you need to reach that audience, it is all the more reason to connect with them emphatically by showing at least some abstract neutrality in the example so that they can feel more relaxed about their own objective participation, free to do so as they are not put on the subjective defensive against an example laced with non-White guilt tripping and anti-Muslim fervor.

With a little less coloration on the anti Muslim and anti Pilgrim side in that example, Whites, White Americans in particular, could be more receptive to the abstract point, an excellent point all around, and less prone to defensively gravitate to subjective counter arguments: “Muslims and migrants/migration are not the real problems” ...“Pilgrims/White migrants were not so bad, Indians were the crazy and murderous ones,” etc.

You follow by saying:

American Pilgrims who are suddenly recast as noble heroes fleeing from a supposedly repressive Europe to find ‘a new life’ in the Americas. ‘Pilgrims fleeing repression’ is also a narrative based on reality. But its moral content and implied policy prescriptions are 180 degrees opposite to that of the aforementioned anti-Pilgrim narrative.

The post is still excellent, and the abstract example of contradiction that you’ve brought to bear is crucial. That is why I wanted to discuss this one section for the sake of those who might unfortunately be less receptive to the message only for the way the example was colored.

Again, that is not to say that there are not advantages to presenting it that way.

I also want to contextualize this comment with the fact that not only have you made this outstanding post, but you have also just made two new posts that are totally amazing - truly epoch - the one called Donald Trump staring into the abyss and the other on Martin Schulz. They are just the latest in a number of amazing posts that I believe everyone needs to read.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 16:49 | #

The democratisation of opinion-forming, though weak and fragile, has nevertheless proved distinctly troubling for all those elitists and ideologues who are rather too familiar with getting what they want through the domination of the political channels.  It is critical for them to maintain ideological purity, or the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in “the project”, whatever that may be, will eventually become public knowledge.  Which would make them feel too too queasy.

In my meagre little efforts to change the discourse on race and nationalism I have been rewarded with little Jimmy Kirkup writing a DT opinion piece sneering at “race-replacement” - such an offensively true term - in the same breath as “kippers” and “conspiracy theorists”.  The little band of highly-censorious but intellectually feeble anti-racist attack dogs who specialise in throwing the usual hate-words around have now got hold of the term and are trying, without any luck, to ridicule it.  One or two of them have even had a little go at emulating my socratic method of investigating their horribly impoverished moral and intellectual underpinnings, but that, too, is proving to be beyond them.  They cannot defend their claims.  All they and the rest of the liberal Establishment ever had was the power to dictate and the power to silence.  Now they are desperately trying to protect what remains of the former by way of the latter.

Newspaper threads, meanwhile, are deemed important enough for state bodies to engage in activism.  It is an inevitable development of the old game of public misinformation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html

EU to set up euro-election ‘troll patrol’ to tackle Eurosceptic surge

The European Parliament is to spend almost £2 million on press monitoring and trawling Eurosceptic debates on the internet for “trolls” with whom to debate in the run-up and during euro-elections next year amid fears that hostility to the EU is growing.

The Daily Telegraph has seen confidential spending proposals and internal documents planning an unprecedented propaganda blitz ahead of and during European elections in June 2014.

Key to a new strategy will be “public opinion monitoring tools” to “identify at an early stage whether debates of political nature among followers in social media and blogs have the potential to attract media and citizens’ interest”.
Spending on “qualitative media analysis” is to be increased by £1.7 million and while most of the money is to be found in existing budgets an additional £787,000 will be need to be raised next year despite calls for EU spending to reflect national austerity.

“Particular attention needs to be paid to the countries that have experienced a surge in Euroscepticism,” said a confidential document agreed last year.

“Parliament’s institutional communicators must have the ability to monitor public conversation and sentiment on the ground and in real time, to understand ‘trending topics’ and have the capacity to react quickly, in a targeted and relevant manner, to join in and influence the conversation, for example, by providing facts and figures to deconstructing myths.”

Training for parliament officials begins later this month.

Posted by ultimate verdict for ethno-nationalism on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 13:08 | #

While it is true that making the discourse analysis of liberal contradictions so plain (along with being more neutral) is less sneaky and will therefore give liberals and their proponents a better chance to prepare and anticipate ethno-nationalist moves, it is also the case that our proponents can be better equipped by a clear enunciation of the contradictions in somewhat more abstract terms. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme, it is better to err in this direction because liberalism is based on the false premises of universalism and boundless expansion without negative consequence and it will sooner or later be confronted with ecological consequences, human and otherwise - a premise of ecology and accountability that ethno-nationalism is grounded-in - we are grounded in assimilation of nature’s necessary corrections and therefore any approximation of an open debate will come down with a verdict on our side - be that judgement of human or nature’s corrective verdict.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 05:04 | #

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

Calmly as Napoleon defying his Marshals, England’s hostile political elite unmade that ancient nation.

Posted by (((Jonathan Portas))) economic theory of migration on Sat, 12 Mar 2016 05:48 | #

(((Jonathan Portes))) has peddled the “economic theory” to Guardian readers that the British economy needs immigrants.

Now he is saying that those who oppose his economic theory and see disloyal parties behind it are “conspiracy theorists.”

Unfortunately, it was the anti-White, pro-immigration Jews in New Labour who controlled policy. Jonathan Portes is one example. Barbara Roche is another. I wrote about her in “We Hate UKIP: Turning Britain into a Roche Motel.” Now she’s turned up in Tom Bower’s book:

Sinister Minister: Barbara Roche

The most incredible revelations [about New Labour’s conspiracy] concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK.

Britain has been been turned into a Roche motel because Jews feel more comfortable in an atomized society. It’s as simple as that. After all, if mass immigration goes wrong for Jews, Jonathan and Barbara can always seek refuge in Israel, which keeps its borders firmly closed to Third-World enrichment and doesn’t let hostile outsiders take control of its politics, media and universities.

But the prospect of their departure raises a disturbing question. Would Britain survive the loss of its most altruistic ethnic minority? Well, we didn’t do too badly after Edward I expelled Jews en masse in 1290. I suspect we could manage again if the worst happens and Barbara has to pack her bags for Tel Aviv.

Posted by H.P. Lovecraft on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 02:32 | #

To paraphrase H.P. Lovecraft:

the most risible thing in the world is the inability of the Guardian to correlate its own contents.

             

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:17 | #

Tobias Langden’s March 11 Occidental Observer article is very poor indeed, and completely misses the nature of Judaism as a world-making paradigm. The comment thread is no better.

One would have thought that misinformational journalism like this could not find its way onto the page at OO.

Posted by mick on Thu, 06 Oct 2016 04:24 | #

You want propaganda? Then try posting the against argument for following issues in the Guardian and your comment will be removed immediately:

1. homosexual marriage
2. Islamic immigration into Christian countries
3. third world immigration of huge numbers into first world
4. CEO and Executive remuneration and the mechanism by which the fraud is perpetuated

The Guardian claims that it airs free speech. What it really does is groom the public and refuse to offer a balanced view. THIS IS NOT FREE SPEECH.  And then management refuses to respond to complaints about the abuses happening at moderator level.

Avoid the Guardian if you want free speech. This outlet is a propaganda outlet and every bit as bad as the mainstream media which is owned/controlled by the big end of town to further its interests.

What chances do average people have?