by David Hamilton

Acts of War are often invasions of peaceful countries but the present incidence of Muslims raping young white girls must be considered an Act of War as it is carried out by a separate and homogenous community imported into our country by the deceit of the elites against the interests of the indigenous people.

Can anyone imagine the great Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston allowing aliens to gang rape our young girls? In 1850, for the assault on British subject Don Pacifico in Greece, a foreign country, he sent the navy and blockaded their ports Greece was under the joint protection of three powers: Russia and France protested against its coercion by the British fleet and the French ambassador temporarily left London. It was the cause of Palmerston’s declaration that British subjects ought everywhere to be protected by the strong arm of the British government against injustice and wrong; comparing the reach of the British Empire to that of the Roman Empire, in which a Roman citizen could walk the earth unmolested by any foreign power.

Lord Palmerston addressing the Commons

This was the famous, five-hour speech Civis Britannicus, in which he delivered himself of this sentiment:

“As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say, Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong.”

The low and worthless rulers we have now even cover up for aliens raping our young girls in our own towns and cities. Just compare girly Michael Gove with this great man. What an embarrassment! The sight of the elites on the BBC’s Question Time talking away this reality to cover it up was sickening.  They:

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

On October 26, 2010, the headline on page 31 of the London Evening Standard read Anti-gay bullies are taught a lesson or two. This propaganda piece is about a secondary school in North London that is said to have almost eradicated “homophobic bullying” after indoctrinating its pupils with “gay” history lessons. The catalyst for this cynical piece of political correctness gone mad is revealed as the discovery by music teacher Elly Barnes that some of her charges were using the word “gay” as a derogatory term. Perish the thought. So Miss Barnes, sorry, Ms Barnes, set about instigating a scheme to “educate and celebrate” being “gay”, and of course, who better to include in this unsubtle brainwashing exercise than Oscar Wilde, who is of course pictured in the article?

The standard homo line on this degenerate and sexual predator is that he was a victim of Victorian hypocrisy who was driven to ruin by the vengeful father of his “lover”, Lord Alfred Douglas. The slightest critical examination of the undisputed facts of this sordid affair expose this for utter cant, and reveal clearly that Wilde was the author of his own misfortune.

Why anyone should consider Wilde to be any sort of icon remains to be seen, least of all a “gay” one, because in spite of his penchant for both the company and debasement of younger men, he was not strictly speaking homosexual.

READ MORE...

by Karl LaForce

The story so far …

Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, Monday 17th January 2011, shortly after taking his oath of office at the Alabama Capitol:

“Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

Alabama governor and Baptist deacon Robert Bentley speaking to reporters after meeting “Jewish leaders” on Wednesday 19th January 2011:

If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry.  I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

Alabama governor Robert Bentley is just another genetic-European whose head and heart have been captured by a Jewish ideology.  There’s no shortage of Jewish ideologies, of course, or of captives.  There are probably somewhere around one hundred million white Americans in a similar condition.  Bentley is not at all an exception in terms of belief, not even among bible-belt state governors, though he is possibly ahead of most in the willingness, as a high ranking public official, to enlighten the public about the in-group status he believes Christians share.

As shown by his statements, he is not merely a victim of the fertility of Jewish macro-religious thought and modern-day Jewish ethnic activism but he busies himself promoting both victimhoods.

READ MORE...

“Populism” is a term that has always made me bristle due to its anti-yeomanry connotation.  The frequency of the term in books began exponentiating in the late 1950s (having first appeared upon the closing of the American frontier to homesteading):

A book originally published in 1962 titled “The Populist response to industrial America:  midwestern Populist thought” by Norman Pollack speaks to this bristling midwestern yeoman’s “discontent” through this illuminating passage concerning the term itself:

Ignoring what came before, proponents of this framework adopt the following line of reasoning:  Populism did not adjust to industrialism; hence, the movement occupied an untenable historical position.  And because it looked backward, its long-range solutions were, by definition, unrealistic.  This meant that by not comprehending the basis for its discontent, Populism was forced to search for simplistic explanations and, ultimately, scapegoats.  The result is a cumulatively deteriorating position; as protest becomes more emotinal, it bears less resemblance to reality.  The final image is that of a movement of opportunists, crackpots, and anti-Semites, whose perception of the world conforms to the dictates of a conspiracy theory of history.  The over-all consequence of this image is that Populism has been denied its traditional place as a democratic social force.  Rather, its significance for American history is altered so greatly that it has come to stand as the source for later proto-fascist groups, McCarthyism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism.  One senses the proportions of this denigration process when it is seen that the very term “populistic” has passed into the working vocabulary of many intellectuals as an epithet, signifying the traits just enumerated.

I lived through the corporatizaton (in truth the consequence of “industrialization”) of the last of the family farms in Iowa—my family among them—and can attest to the vicious role “intellectuals” played by failing to think deeply enough about the roots of our “discontent”—roots drawing from the agrarian foundations of civilization itself—on the one hand, and the offering up of corporatization as a kind of “inevitablism”, on the other.

UPDATE:  Extending the date of publication forward to the present, it is apparent that the demented screaming about “populism” peaked at about the same time that the potential fertility of white females was declining most rapidly due to the entry of baby boomer females into menopause.  If so, this would continue the trend in other such correlations, such as the peak in mortgage interest rates at the same time that boomer females were graduating from college and choosing between committing to being mothers and committing to a money-making career.  This bracketing of female boomer fertility makes sense if one’s goal is to first destroy the white population via its females and then contain the backlash as those females (about to be “downsized” out of their careers as corporate concubines) realized they had betrayed themselves, their ancestors and their racial interests.  With their power of youthful female fertility removed and their financial power removed as they were “downsized” out of their careers, their transition from useful idiots to the trash-heap of history would be complete without incident.

by Martin Hutchinson

A poll last week showed that 71% of Americans don’t want Congress to raise the debt ceiling from its current $14.3 trillion, a level that the total of outstanding debt is expected to hit in March. According to conventional pundits, this is extraordinarily irresponsible, leading to a U.S. default on its outstanding debt. Yet as with many ideas the Beltway pundits claim are irresponsible, when examined more closely the idea has some merits for ordinary people.

For a start, while the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing is in effect, with the Fed buying $75 billion of Treasuries each month, the debt limit does not need to be increased in respect of these purchases. Instead of buying Treasuries in large amounts, and printing money in order to do so, the Fed can simply hand the Treasury the money it prints and allow it to spend it as it wishes. That doesn’t actually require Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to back a truck up to the Treasury building and unload box after box of $100 bills – everything is done by book entry. (If it did mean that, and a provision was made that the Fed chairman himself had to schlep the boxes, we might finally have a proper control over money creation – of course the politicians would simply respond by nominating a professional weightlifter as Fed Chairman!)

This would not work for very long; within a year or two it would produce hyper-inflation, turning the U.S. into the 1923 Weimar Republic. It should be emphasized however that economically it represents no change in policy from the current one. In the old days, there would have been a difference in that the Treasury would under the current system have printed up $75 billion worth of beautifully engraved bonds per month, giving employment to worthy printers and engravers. In today’s book-entry world, even this minuscule economic difference would be lost. If current policies continue, the Weimar Republic’s fate lies ahead of us anyway.

A second alternative response to the debt ceiling, with a similar economic effect, would be to fund government spending through subprime mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since these would be guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, not technically part of the government, they would not count against the government’s debt ceiling. It might be objected that financing say a tank or a road through Fannie and Freddie would be outside their legal mandate, and that a tank in particular would be unlikely to make the mortgage payments.

READ MORE...

This explains.

The vote for the presidency of Front National was run yesterday, and the news is that Marine Le Pen has won with two-thirds of the vote.  The party is convening this weekend in Tours to place her father’s mantle on her shoulders.  A new chapter in the increasingly urgent struggle for a free and nationally-conscious France is beginning.

Marine’s election does two things.  Most obviously, it is a generational change.  It arrests the party’s post-2002 decline under her father, moving it on from the divisiveness of the French past, from all allusions to Vichy and Algiers, and from the sniping at the outrageous official genuflection before Jewry and the Holocaust narrative.  Marine’s unsuccessful opponent, Bruno Gollnisch, represented all that.  Marine is much more presentable and, as a lawyer and a working mother, a woman of modern-day France.  She will never find herself asked in the Cour de cassation whether she agreed:

that the organized extermination of European Jews by the Nazi regime ... constitutes an undeniable crime against humanity, and that it was carried out notably by using gas chambers in extermination camps?

... and have to reply, like Gollnisch, “Absolutely.”

More importantly, perhaps, Marine’s election aligns FN with the anti-Islamicisation strategy which has born electoral fruit elsewhere in Europe.  That, and not merely a desire to modernise, has dictated a break with the pro-Catholic policies of her father on women’s right, particularly with regard to divorce and abortion, and a new tolerance towards homosexuality.

In turn, this new moderation opens up the possibility of a role in a governing coalition with Sarkozy’s UMP, which is looking increasingly likely:

A TNS-Sofres poll released on Wednesday suggested 22 per cent of French people agreed with “the ideas” of the National Front, up from 18 per cent a year ago – while support from sympathisers of Mr Sarkozy’s UMP party has jumped 12 points to 32 per cent.

Equally worrying for the President, some 43 per cent of his UMP sympathisers approve forging electoral alliances with the FN according to the circumstances, the TNS-Sofres poll found.

Half of respondents said they believe France has too many immigrants, and just under half feel that Muslims have too many rights.

The poll suggests a higher number believe Miss Le Pen better represents a “patriotic right of traditional values” than her father.

In response, the Elysée and the UMP are seeking to engineer an anti-FN task-force for the 2012 election.  But, tellingly, it is to be comprised not of rightists, as per the little tough guy’s aggressive strategy of drawing-off FN support in 2007, but of centrists.  He can’t pull that trick twice.  Attack has given way to defence.

The great unknown with Marine’s strategy, of course, is whether nationalism as a revolutionary politics can weather such proximity to, and even participation in, power without losing itself.  It was noisily claimed by the Austrian centre-right that bringing Jorg Haider’s Freedom Party into government between 2000 and 2005 was the fastest way to destroy it.  Having lacked the bargaining power from the outset to obtain worthwhile concessions, the party duly split between populist and nationalist factions.  Both the resultant parties did quite well in the 2008 election, but it’s not a particularly encouraging example for FN.

But Marine has had time to position herself and the party, and may emerge from the 2012 election with a big enough bargaining chip to keep the party united and engaged.  At the very least it would be a fine thing to force the little Hungarian Jew into coalition with the hate object he thought he had destroyed by deception in 2007.

It should be apparent that societal collapse is an increasing part of the mainstream “conversation”.  I mean if Jared Diamond writes a book putting spin on something, you know that it’s in the mainstream “conversation” front and center.

Dispossessed nations are a special case in this “conversation” since their cognizant members not only have been predicting collapse for many years, but they have been eagerly anticipating collapse as an opportunity to recover their nations.  The general idea is that when the collapse comes, then national spirit will arise out of the chaos.  Sometimes this restoration is seen as contingent on there being appropriate leadership and sometimes it is seen as “inevitable”.  If “inevitable” then we can all take comfort despite the lack of anything approaching a viable nationalist organization anywhere in the West.  If leader-dependent then things get more interesting. 

I’m interested in the commentariat’s opinion on the likelihood of collapse.  If likely then I’m interested in the timing of its stages and the structure of those stages.  If leader-dependent (rather than inevitable) then I’m interested in what kind of leadership is necessary and how said leadership will achieve the position of leadership and then how they should lead during the stages of collapse.  If inevitable then I’m interested in what exactly is inevitable.