So, you think the Citizen’s Dividend is politically impractical?  You won’t hunt down and terminate the leadership of the BNP and the EU New Right until those parties have leadership that will immediately support the Citizen’s Dividend?

Fine… 

Fine…

What fine kidneys you have!

by Bo Sears, director, ResistingDefamation

A disturbing meme was recently re-introduced to the debate on the future of our people by Prof Kevin MacDonald.  A hero to many among the diverse white American peoples, he claimed that we lack the capacity or opportunity to make our case for a particular white political or social identity.  His statement was dated 8/20/09 and appeared on The Occidental Observer in an essay titled, Fundraising Appeal: Why support The Occidental Observer.

Western societies have become cauldrons of competing ethnic groups where only one group — White people of European descent — cannot be heard. Where only one group cannot even articulate its interests. Where only one group seems to think that self-destruction and abdication of political power are moral imperatives.

Whilst it is true that The Occidental Observer has done a good job and earned its financial support from European Americans or Euro-Americans, not every syllable Prof MacDonald or The Occidental Observer is helpful or even true.  The above three-sentence statement is a case in point.  There are so many errors and flawed assumptions in it that unpacking the statement is no easy matter.  But it’s not impossible.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

The UAF should be classed as a terrorist organisation. People who support them like David Cameron and Sir Teddy Taylor must be denounced as supporters of terrorism.  The UAF modus operandum is to frighten and intimidate people away from certain political parties and from holding certain views, these views being always spoken of negatively, not as protecting the interests of one’s own people but in a nightmare scenario of old-fashioned imagery and imagined violence.  The only reason UAF is not classified as a terrorist organisation is that it is used by the state to intimidate rival elites.

The Battle of Birmingham of 8th August 2009 has changed people’s understanding of race relations and how the elites manipulate the public’s perceptions, because although it became clear that in this Battle innocent “white” people were physically attacked just for being white yet, the Establishment media tried to slot it into their standard propaganda that the guilty parties were “far-right” thugs.  The guilty parties were, in fact, their pets Muslims and Blacks racially attacking “Whites.”

A letter in the Birmingham post from a protester who was appalled at UAF incited violence gives the inside story:

“Dear Editor, I would like to start by apologising to the people of Birmingham for the events of Saturday evening which I am highly ashamed to have been a part of. However, as a moderate who took part in the UAF protest I would like to set the record straight.

I, like the vast majority of people in Birmingham love the fact that our city is so diverse and vibrant. I felt that this was worth defending, especially from a bunch of trouble makers many of whom were from outside the city.

Unfortunately it turned out the UAF were no more interested in our community than the racists many of us turned out to oppose!

The young Muslims who rampaged through the city streets were incited to violence by UAF activists. I was near the front of the rally in Rotunda Square and I saw how they worked and I saw how it got out of hand.

The UAF should have switched rhetoric when they saw that the young Muslims were getting restless and angry. Instead what they did was get increasingly aggressive speakers to talk about ‘smashing the BNP’ (who not directly involved with the protest) whilst sending agitators into the crowd, with megaphones, to whip up anger there.

Only a few members of the Socialist Workers party, some trade unionists and a few moderate Muslim blokes who had been recruited as marshals on the day, remained to help the Police calm the riot.

I would like to commend the West Midlands Police Force for their sensitive handling of the protest and us protesters during what was a very difficult situation.

However, the ten or so members of the Muslim community who stayed with the protest whilst it was settled are the true unsung heroes of the sad event.

I never got to know their names, however, I am very proud to have worked with them in defusing the tensions that built up between rioters and Police. A true example of why our city is great.

As to the UAF well, I don’t mind announcing that I will never join one of their protests again. Once again I can only say how sorry I am that it all got so out of hand. If we had known how it would turn out then I’m sure a lot of protesters would have stayed home.
The UAF has achieved nothing except to create racial tensions were non existed before.
Yours in penance,

Josh Allen, Bournville

READ MORE...

I invited and received from Prozium a response on the subject of the utility of Michael O’Meara’s TOQ article on the mythicisation of a white American republic.  Here, I am just going to make a very few remarks about the reply and set down a few principles to clarify the terms of debate.  I will not be posting on this subject a third time, except to comment on the thread if required.

My previous post argued that mythicisation had not been employed to move public will in either of the two historically most recent attempts at nation-building by Europeans (Manifest Destiny and lebensraum).  Prozium disagrees but offers very little beyond post-facto romanticisations to indicate what inhabited the minds of the people of the time.  His sole concrete attempt to demonstrate a mythicisation process at work in Manifest Destiny is Thomas Jefferson’s dream “of an empire of liberty in Transappalachia and the Louisiana Territory.”  Let us be clear that Jefferson’s plan did not constitute myth, and very likely had no influence whatsoever over the men and women who walked and rode westward all those years later.  It probably had some incremental role in the politics of expansion.  But I think it would be a hell of a stretch to make more of it than that.

Prozium’s other justifications for the mythic cause (DW Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, and “Gone with the Wind” and “Roots”) are just puzzling to me.  They testify to the appetites of cinema and TV audiences in their respective eras.  But I have no idea what they are doing in this particular conversation, standing as they do at decades remove from the event in question.  Further, they demonstrate a resounding lack of interest in what myth is, and is not.

So let’s think about that, because until we know what myth is there is very little point in batting opinions back and forth.

READ MORE...

The following video graphically demonstrates the consequence of ignoring total fertility rate.  It does not make any strong arguments for a course of action, but merely calls for action.  The course of action is the next layer of taboo after breaking the sound barrier of merely talking about the consequences of differential fertility rates.

by David Hamilton
                               
The contribution of the British judiciary to the attack on our people and way of life has two main planks: undermining us through the culture and promoting Muslim extremism.  Here are some of the judges and the judgements that have made the law an instrument in the war against our culture, traditions and mores.

Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference, of all things, that she supported gay adoption, the legal recognition gay partnerships, enhanced legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit, and the removal of fault from divorce law.  This is an ideological statement and shows that there will be no impartiality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes about.  She has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and will take sides in any case.

Lord Judge’s predecessor, Lord Bingham, expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities.  It is, he said:

“intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... [it] should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”

Well, I don’t know about that, but he was admitting that he is a radical who is against us.  For him, we the majority are always wrong but the minorities never are.

In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives.  Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt.  She was a leading family judge.  Lord Bingham, in answering a question, responded that the law needed to “keep in touch with changing social attitudes.”  In one case heard in his court Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family. His opinion that “family” need mean neither marriage nor blood relationship shows beyond any doubt that the judiciary is seeking to reform families for the New Utopia.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against local planning law must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.”  This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are required to obey.  That was a court legally encouraging law breaking.

Human rights law is the reforming judiciary’s principal weapon.  The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the propostrous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that gender at birth was what he/she now claimed it was and agreed by a panel of experts. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.  Therefore their birth certificate is now deemed a lie!

READ MORE...

Oath Keepers is an interesting military take-off on the evangelical Promise Keepers.  The subtext of this conflation is basically: “Women tend to be faithless to men whose promises are no good, so if you don’t want to be cuckolded by your wife, you better keep your oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

I have received an urgent request from one of the producers of The Agenda, a Press TV weekly current affairs programme broadcast worldwide by Sky.  On Thursday 13th August, at 2.30pm in London they will be recording a programme titled “The spread of the far right in Europe and economic climate”.  It will be a studio discussion among a four-man panel overseen by Yvonne Ridley, which is a name to conjure with.  They are seeking a serious contribution from our side.

I imagine the show will have a Muslim-centric, Al Jezeera feel to it.  The usual hostility may be in the offing.  Still, I would be tempted to accept the invitation myself, if only to make sure that the argument for our people’s survival is expressed in my own terms for a change.  However, I am on family duty this week and cannot get up to town for the day.  That said, MR is a broad church, and there are highly competent and trustworthy people on our slate and in our commentariat who might like to engage in this exercise.  Please contact me through the button under the header if you are interested.

You will need to be quick about it, though.