Hat-tip to Simon Darby for this one.  It’s a short review of Laura Fairrie’s The Battle for Barking by an Independent journalist named Rhiannon Harries who, I must say, I don’t know but Darby fingers as a “self-proclaimed anti-racist”.

The review itself is worthless, containing nothing more elevated than a few cheap, boorish jibes at the BNP.  Until we get to this arresting thought in the closing paragraph:

Everybody was at pains to stress that they weren’t racist and, on a fundamental level, I believed them. Immigration had simply become the prism through which local and national ills – namely unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing – were being refracted. Add to that a pervasive sense that those at the top simply didn’t care and the crude appeal of the BNP as a party “of the people” became clearer.

Given that we knew only too well that the programme would conclude in the satisfying trouncing of the BNP, I wondered why I felt a growing knot of anxiety in my stomach as I watched. Perhaps it was the realisation that, even if the BNP has been temporarily cauterised, we still have a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage.

Now, no doubt Miss Harries will claim that having “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage” simply means solving the problems of “unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing”.  But that doesn’t quite follow.  A professional journalist, which Miss Harries is, would just have written “we still have a long way to go before the economy lifts people out of unemployment and the local housebuilding programme provides them with decent homes, and in the process deprives the BNP of its most potent political arguments.”  That isn’t at all difficult to come up with.  Why, then, choose such an imprecise formula as “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation”?  Well, it isn’t imprecise if Miss Harries is actually referring to the “situation” of a still obtaining English majority, going “beyond” which is its demographic replacement.

The BNP has claimed consistently that large numbers of Africans were moved into the constituency, added to the electoral register, and got out to vote on election day.  In his blog Darby claims that “I have the electoral register to prove it.”  It must be said, there is much dispute about this even among nationalists.  But, plainly, a rapid process of demographic replacement in the borough is in train.  Labour knows its electoral value, knows how important Barking was and is to the BNP, and would do literally anything to defeat them.  Anti-racists are on record discussing white minoritisation in terms of the final defeat of “racism” and “fascism”.  Miss Harries’s meaning seems clear to me.  Even if she does not state that meaning publicly, she would appear to have got as close to it as she can, given that pushing us towards our grave is the hate that dare not speak its name.  For now.

All in favor indicate by responding “Aye”, opposed “No”.

Latest tally:

Aye 9
No 4

Described by the film company Dartmouth Films as “this unique observational documentary”, Laura Fairrie’s “True Lives - The Battle for Barking”, which aired on More 4 on Tuesday night, has been written about at some length elsewhere.  The Telegraph, The Independent and, particularly noxiously, The Guardian (twice) have all devoted space to it, along with several nationalist blogs.  In fact, as is usual with the BNP, the amount of political and journalistic attention the programme has received most probably contrasts with the viewing potential for a late-evening broadcast on a digital TV station.

I watched the programme yesterday on-line here.  Already aware that it was fairer and more politically neutral than other mainstream media coverage of and investigation into the party, I was nevertheless surprised by the tenderness of some of the portrayals - not of Nick Griffin and his (then) coterie but of the local party members and the ordinary people of the borough (the English ones).  Its title aside, which bowdlerised the BNP’s own much-derided genuflection to the Churchillian, the film treated of the sincerity and sentiment of these people with something very like compassion turning all the time to a wry recognition that their campaign was, like the people they love and try to aid, doomed.  Even the music score plucked these strings, and the whole, I felt, captured the perhaps inevitable unfulfillment and failure that is the lot of folk nationalism in the hard, shiny, Blue State Digital world of modern electoral politics.

But that’s all I want to say myself.  True to the spirit of the observational film-maker, I thought I would confine the rest of this post to the voices of some of those BNP supporters and sympathisers who have commented on the various “Battle For Barking” threads.  But I will begin with the words of Laura Fairrie herself:

READ MORE...

by The Narrator

We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide.  Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers.  But is this really the case?  Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism?  What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?

In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not.  What The America is not, is a nation.  What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state.  And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself.

One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years.

As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace.

READ MORE...

by I. Bismuth

November 10:  It should have been a productive morning. At nine o’clock I was due to chair a meeting of the Over-Whiteness Monitoring Panel, at ten to act as facilitator in a workshop on the standardization of difference celebration, and at eleven to give the Board of Governors my latest recommendations on the Hidden Attitudes Self-Accusation Guidelines. It should have gone all the more smoothly for taking place in the inspiring setting of the newest university building, the Tolerance Tower, fifteen storeys of hope not hate, its design by the leading architects Peter Schlemiel Associates meant to suggest the soaring tip of a gigantic assegai. However, Sunlit Uplands and society as a whole were robbed of those three hours of equality-promotion. A chilling incident was to propel the morning in quite another direction.

It was ten minutes to nine and I was about to enter the Tolerance Tower when my attention was caught by a long streak of studiousness topped off with a crest of startled hair. He had paused to contemplate the statue of Jambo Owambo that stands before the main entrance. There was something troubling about the angle at which he was holding his head that made me watch him. True, any admirer of the bronze statesman at close quarters must have an elevated chin, but it should not be elevated so as to suggest a 1930s propaganda poster and a hero fixing his gaze on the resurgent Aryan future (though admittedly this hero’s heroism was compromised by his resorting to styling gel).

Never one to rush to judgment, I waited for Gel-Head’s next move. And how unsavoury his next move turned out to be! After only a few curt seconds he grounded his gaze, and I was horrified to see him quit the presence and lope away in the direction of the library, setting his coiffure aquiver with each stride.

READ MORE...

Thanks to Alexander Baron for the link.

Now and again even left-of-centre commenters make useful observations.  Like this one in the Independent on Sunday:

So, how does the average British citizen regard the state? The first problem lies in the existence of that shadowy entity known to social historians as “them”. In their myriad guises, “they” can be positively protean, taking in everything from the tax authorities to park-keepers. To my father “they” were a malign and anti-meritocratic force at work to obstruct his and his family’s path through life.

... But if you get rid of “them”, what do you put in their place? Here you face another problem; the almost complete lack of civic awareness and communal spirit shown by a good 80 per cent of the population. Orwell himself once proposed that most of the patriotic flag-waving that takes place in this country was carried out by small minorities. The same is true of collective action. It is not even that we are all sturdy individualists, for whom collaboration is a kind of selling out, merely that, rather than having any deeply held opinions about how our relationship to the state might be better managed, we simply want to be left alone while, paradoxically, enjoying all the benefits that the state has to offer.

For “civic awareness and communal spirit” read “a sense of peoplehood and belonging”.  Then the second paragraph reads absolutely, depressingly true.  And truer than the general run of nationalist excuses as to why we have acquiesced while the political class has imposed its genocidal will on us.  The “them” of the Talmudic (or, anyway, millenarian) Jew, anyone?  The “them” of the greed-driven banker and the CEO of a mega-corporation?  Or of the eponymous guilt-ridden left-liberal of the cultural Establishment?  And then, somehow, in its turn MacDonald’s meta-thesis of innate individualism never quite convinces.  Out-group nepotism likewise.  But this idea of limited intellect and limited horizons, of an all-too-easy immersion in the mundane preoccupations of modern life, of mounting debt, of mounting material expectations, of fear of unemployment ... this hits home.  This is how life is for most people.  It used to be physically exhausting, dangerous, disease-ridden, destitute.  Somewhere in modernity’s struggle to do away with all that the relation between citizen and state was mislaid, and into the void slithered the Jewish niche-fillers and the greedy bankers and so on.  They are not where we, as dissidents and lovers of our people, have to take aim politically.  Rather, we have to find incentives for re-engagement that touch real lives.  And that’s not easy.

Although I, personally, have been feverishly working to prevent the Malthusian reckoning for nearly 3 decades, I have to recognize that conditions are increasingly favoring Søren Renner’s prophecy “Billions will die, we will win.”  There are militarily sophisticated optimists, such as John Robb who, based on fourth generation warfare theory, are holding out for a newly decentralized global economy that bypasses massive organizations.  However, these optimists don’t seem to understand that once you accept group authority over individuals, you doom yourself to mass warfare as these groups are, in essence, asexually reproducing organisms that don’t die as do sexually reproducing species, but merely compete with other asexual organisms in their ecological niche, and without limit, for mitotic resources.  These organisms will doom the planet unless a dramatic expansion of carrying capacity and reduction of ecological footprint are achieved soon.  I continue to work toward this end but pragmatism increasingly dictates evaluating Malthusian options. 

Civilization Takedown is the only Malthusian option that retains the human species.

Civilization itself can avoid mass warfare only by uniting the world in one mass organism which is inherently intolerant of individuals.  In this, civilization’s end-point is to eliminate the human species as we know it—at best, breeding for a eusocial species.  Mass warfare between these asexual species will increasingly become warfare against individuals—indeed against human sexuality (except in perverted expression)—within the mass organisms. 

The Indo-Europeans understood this but were progressively bogged down in India by the Dravidians—expressing in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, and in the Mideast thence Mediterranean by the Semites—expressing as Judeo-Christianity.  The last hold-outs of the culture of individual sovereignty were the Vikings.  Therefore, as the Malthusian crisis emerges, it becomes increasingly likely that some phenomenon like the Vikings will re-emerge.  A future post will provide a more viable Malthusian option, but for now I’ll settle for advising against the—ultimately unsuccessful—Viking strategy.  Below the fold is an incisive description of that era related in the chapter “The Revolt of the Vikings” of the book “Human History Viewed As Sovereign Individuals Versus Manipulated Masses” from the Valorian Society.

READ MORE...