Saturday, 12 January 2013

A recent set of arguments I made




The reason for this article is to share a recent comment battle about our plight. Well, I say it was a battle - but I suppose you can only have a real battle when you get properly challenged and engaged by people who can counter-act your points and questions!

In this particular case, none of my questions or points were actually answered. Instead, I received a dialogue back of how they wanted things to be instead - and how generally vile and nasty I am for holding my views and positions. No surprise there, then.

That may well be their view, but why not show me to be wrong and not valid in what I say? It was made out that I was a 'moron' and too stupid to understand complexities, etc. Well if I am a moron and too stupid to understand things, then it should not have been so hard for them to actually answer my questions and discuss the points I was raising, should it?

At one point I was even told to "go jump in a lake" - which has to be the most babyish comment back to me I have ever received on what is supposed to be an articulate and intellectual discussion blog. For I was not arguing on some student room forum or 'cut and thrust' political site.

I guess that some people cannot handle another persons point of view in a rational way, so they reach for the name-calling and stereotypes instead.The usual screams that I was a "Nazi" and part of the "White Supremacist Brigade" were present, plus some other weird opinions and fabrications that are part of a manufactured stereotype image of anybody who is white and racially conscious.

Without rewriting the whole article and the context of it, in a nut shell, it was relating to the racial disparity when it comes to voting in America - and the suggestion that 'whites' may have to start looking out for their own interests too.

(The commentators I challenged did not really address the deeper nature and implications of main article either, they were more interested in sweeping the issue away and talking about how it is not tactical or practical to get into 'all that kind of stuff').

I will copy what I wrote here, and interject the nature of their responses here so as to make sense of my own replies. 


First came my comment to the actual article that was posted. I have abridged it here:

The latter part about breaking up the United States, or re-defining the borders to suit a new structure, is one of the most interesting development ideas.

The socialists and the Marxists, the general stereotype ‘pinko liberals’ (or whatever the right collectivism is) can then have a free choice to cross the border and live in their experiment, rather than try and inflict it on a new society which has been smart enough to reject it for their own future interests.

It has already been discussed at length on various other sites how the American party should not start to pander to ethnic minority voters, and instead cut their material to suit the white voters. I think that is right, not that I think such a (so far cowardly and duplicitous) party should survive. They should crash and burn like the Conservative party here in Britain should crash and burn for their treachery and uselessness.

I am sure you will have seen the recent memos and articles in the Telegraph here, regarding the Conservative party and its need to pander to ethnic minority groups and other speciality groups in order for the party to survive. They too are riding the disaster train.

The Conservatives have been utterly useless in “conserving” anything. William Hague at the time of the Conservative Conference was interviewed and gloated about how they were now more “socially inclusive” than Labour, how the Conservatives always “adapted with the times” {an admission that they have LOST the battles and had to change tact} for the last 200 years or so, and rhymed off a stream of liberal rhetoric.

UKIP are essentially the Conservatives of the 1970s. They still do not “get it” when it comes to the matter of what a nation truly is, and the matter of identity. They will ultimately be just as wet and useless, ever playing “catch up” to the “progressive” agenda.

America and Britain need a political, ideological and societal revolution that would take care of the indigenous people of Britain and the founding demographic of America as we have known it.

The basic fact of the matter is – no matter how ‘repulsive’ people find it – that there are a substantial proportion of people in this country (and America) who are NOT happy with the way things are going.

Are they to have to say? Who is going to stand up for their rights and their survival as a group? None of the main parties do this. Demographically in this country, the ones who OBJECT to what is happening to this country, are too spread out and thus too marginalised to properly get their voices heard.

The choices of party they can vote for are pretty slim, and not always that brilliant when it comes to how they operate or present themselves. Voter apathy kicks in too, as well as the “wasted vote” thing, where they would rather vote for the traitorous Conservatives than let Labour back in. It is a tragedy, and shows we do not effectively have a democracy.

So what are indigenous whites who care about the survival of their nation and people supposed to do? I can tell you, it gets many people extremely bitter and angry. They have been backed into a corner with no options available to them.

London is no longer a truly English city, Luton is not either, Leicester is ‘gone’ as well. Birmingham and Manchester are next, at around 58% and 53% white. They will be lost to the indigenous demographic within the next ten years. As will a whole range of other places.

It may make some “anti-racists” (anti-whites) laugh, but there is already discussion about the ethnically English having to relocate to establish a civilisation in a new land. There are already concepts of pioneering areas and localities in the meantime which aim to stave off the onslaught and effectively become pockets of resistance, because they want their people to survive.

It can take two to three decades to set such things up, and that is all the time we have left as a majority group, 25 to 28 years. Only a fraction of those are not anti-whites (or are not racial nihilists through apathy). That is why they are starting to talk about our options now. That is how bad it is getting.

The successive governments of both parties have inflicted ethnocide against the original and definable inhabitants.There is no other outcome to what they have unleashed.

How well is “libertarianism” {you speak of} taking hold with the imported Somalis, Pakistanis, Roma Gypsies, Nigerians, Indonesians, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Afghanis, Congolese, Zimbabweans, Turkish, Afro Caribbean, and all the other groups saturating this country?

I bet there are next to none. There may be a few, but a bet it is a fraction of the majority who are libertarians or susceptible to it. Nor will they be particularly interested in old English customs, rights, attitudes, or systems based on principles of our forefathers. In my view, obviously.

When the Conservative party dies off (or morphs even further into being the Labour party and effectively dies off in another way), when more cities are lost to the white demographic, I suspect Libertarianism in this country will also be kissing its ass goodbye.

It is sad, but that is how this cookie is going to crumble I reckon.I hope the racially aware and race-realist Americans can hatch an escape plan so that they too are not swallowed up piecemeal.

I just hope it is not going to be another case of the “Fable of the Ducks and the Hens” when it does happen.


I made my argumentative entrance by boldly challenging a commenter over their accepting and willing championing of multi-racialism and multiculturalism - and their point of view that none of this is really a matter that's sensible to discuss anyway. I could have gone in more gently, but I decided to try my hand at going for the jugular. 

I am curious as to why are you an advocate of the genocide of white people and (in the context of this country) the ethnocide of the indigenous British population.

How can you live with yourself by supporting such an abhorrent viewpoint, which is what you are in effect doing by subscribing to and defending the multiculturalism and multi-racialism project?

How can you ignore that the vast proportion of Blacks and Hispanics in America (90 odd percent) voted for Obama, and Pakistanis and Africans and such here overwhelmingly vote for the Labour party here? (I think that too is over 80%).

Are they not voting in their own interests? Are they not, in some part, supporting Obama because he is seen as “one of them”, and for their own advancement

There was certainly much gloating about the “change” when Obama was elected as the “first Black president”, and even more glee when he was re-elected, with almost all the major news outlets discussing the “changing face of America” through demographics and what that means for the future.

So in your view it is okay for people to see race, celebrate the “first Black president” and crow about the demographic replacement of whites, softly named “increased diversity”, but not okay to do or say anything which is in the interest of whites?

Why do people such as yourself also ignore what happens when the demographic balance shifts, such as in Detroit, New Orleans, or even parts of London recently, where a major high-street bank has had to pull out of the area because it became too dangerous for its customers and their security vans (and not worth the hassle of them staying in the locality)?

Why do people who call themselves Libertarian often seem to deny the legitimacy of true freedom of association and freedom of choice on how our surroundings develop?

Don’t “racists” (ie, those who merely wish to preserve and protect their own ethnic and cultural heritage in their own homelands, and do not “hate” or “despise” anybody for their differing ethnicity) have the right to some self determination and a voice within society, politics and how a nation around them is shaped for the future?

What if I do not want to be an ethnic minority in my own homeland? Is that really such a wicked, nasty, and disgusting opinion to have? Would you tell the Maori or the “American Indians” the same thing?

What if I recognise that race, ethnicity, is a vital component of societal interaction and group dynamics, never mind a pivotal component of economic and national achievement, and do not wish to see it trashed and the future stability, safety and security of my nation put in jeopardy?

Why are such people almost always kicked to the curb, denied a serious platform, smeared against, brushed aside as not even worth considering, people who are somehow “hateful” and “violent” and “uneducated”?

Shouldn’t Libertarians of some stripe or other defend some of their interests or rights, rather than scurry off with a sense of distaste and distancing shame in their mouths?

Who has engineered this situation, manufactured these globalist and anti-white viewpoints, who sets the agenda and the narrative for a society? Have you never asked yourself these questions?

After all, this anti-white “melting pot” and ‘proposition nation’ project you champion is not something that can be undone, like some fiscal policy, or welfare policy, or some spate of an ideological zeal such as communism or socialism, where the inhabitants of the land mass can come to change their minds but still find themselves intact as ‘a people’.

Why should the people who “do not care” about race, it’s pivotal role in a nation and the human condition, or even their own peoples genetic continuance, get to decide what happens for the people who DO care about these things?

It is like being in a boat with seven other people who are rocking it over and being told that ‘you can sit still at the back if you want to, that is your right, nobody is forcing you to tip the boat over’!! Think about it.

Where are we supposed to go to escape it? Where am I supposed to go to avoid such multiracial and multicultural policies and societies? I am already in my own homeland! I cannot go “Home”. I am home!

Australia, America, Europe (France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Italy etc) and all of the occidental world is heading the same way.

You suggest that society and civilisation has nothing to do with genetics, but this is obviously false when you look at what the trends are and what the history of the world is. I need not even get into the average IQ levels or different states of development or capabilities of forming successful nations and civilisations.

Even on a micro-level, how does the California of the 1950′s and 60′s compare with the California today? Has the different demographic percentages had any impact on the look, feel, sound and nature of California or not?

I would suggest it has, and that for the original white occupants of California, of the aforementioned era and today, it has not particularly been a good thing or in their long term interests as whites or as a society. The same is for Detroit, but more stark.

It is a people who make a culture, not a culture that makes a people. To ignore this is to ignore reality itself. Change the people, and you will change the culture and change the very essence of the nation.

The founding fathers of America knew this perfectly well, and that is why America was founded as a White nation, where residency was restricted only to ‘free white men”. It never was a ‘proposition nation’ until the liberals (and the Jews) pushed to overturn the immigration quota restrictions and sold the Americans the pup of the idea that it is just “values” that matter

David Cameron here, similarly proposed a form of “Muscular Liberalism” whereby this nation was to be formed on a set of “universal” values of liberalism. This does not make a nation, it is the antithesis of a nation, because what makes a nation is its exclusivity to other peoples and other nations.

Nor does it make the ensuing ethnocide and genocide of a people acceptable.

Africa for the Africans, Japan for the Japanese, China for the Chinese, yet Whites have no longer any place they can call home or survive intact within. Their countries are ‘for everybody’ – and on current trends they are going to be washed away and mixed-out of existence in all of them.

We ‘white’/Indigenous British people only have between 25 and 28 years left as a demographic majority, and a high proportion of them are sopping wet liberals, the apathetic, and self flagellators .

However, some people are starting to resist this future, and like the original article suggests, if you do not start to organise and look after your own groups interests, be prepared to get elbowed aside and trampled over by those others who do.

This is where I get called 'a moron' who is 'spouting racialist bullshit'. I get told that certain parts of America (which are heavily majority white) voted for Obama, and that it is all about ideology of the parties and not about people having 'bad skin'. I am also told that California still has a lot of white-left-wing politicians, and that I have no right to suggest that 'black and brown' people have 'caused all of Britain's problems'. I am then labelled part of a 'white power brigade'.

Another contributor calls my comments 'revolting', and questions whether I can *'distinguish between race or “ethnicity” and the complex of customs and values that together we call “culture”'*. I also get charged with the false assumption that I would not allow a non-white person into my home and that positions like mine are 'stupid-stupid-stupid'. 

They suggest that we should all just 'live and let live' and that I am also dusting off some 'hoary old libels about 'the Jews'.

I see that neither of you two can actually answer any of the points I made. In fact, one of you preferred to try and shut down the debate instead (“I see no reason why somebody should have to reply”) whilst implying that there should be ‘no place’ for such views as mine on a libertarian leaning site.

Then, instead of thinking about the contents of what I said, there is a crude reach for the name-calling sticks and obfuscations of what was actually being said.

So, what exactly is the “bullshit”? Can either of you two refute what I said – instead of just calling people ‘morons’ or their position ‘revolting’?

Your obfuscation is apparent, for example, when you cite that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are not known for their large numbers of ‘black and brown’ people. You are not a stupid person, so you must know very well that was not my point. So why try and twist it around, if not for the purposes of being deliberately misleading?

Of course, the point was NOT whether white liberals voted for Obama, the point was that around 80% of ‘black and brown’ people voted for Obama. (That is the mean percentage of the non-white demographic, cited in the original article).

So no, “large numbers” of ‘black and brown’ people did NOT vote for Mitt Romney, they overwhelmingly and almost exclusively voted for the non-white candidate. This was especially so with Blacks, of which a whopping 93% voted for the ‘black’ candidate.

Were they all suddenly rampant socialists, or could it be said that many of them were voting for ‘racial solidarity’ and a sign of racial ‘change’ in America, and because they believed that Barack Obama would look out for ‘them’ and ‘theirs’ much more than the ‘stuffy old white guys’ of the past?

Come on now, do not be coy or purposefully blind to this. If 93% of whites had voted for Romney (in preference to Barack Obama) there would have been a major outcry about “racism”. Obviously this has not been labelled so when the situations are reversed. Why you seek to hide from this observation, which is based upon factual and official election counts, is a mystery.

Nor did I EVER say that somebody else has “bad skin”. I would prefer it if you did not project your own ignorances of my positions (and your own ignorances of what defines a race) in order to put words or thoughts into my mouth, or to project me in a particular light which is not factual. (Nor am I of the “White Power Brigade” – whatever that is supposed to be).

More obfuscation appears when you say that California is dominated by white ‘left wing’ politicians. Well so what if it is? What has that got to do with the point I was making?

The point was that a massive demographic transformation has occurred (one that is rendering the original white population and society of the 1950′s and 1960′s ever marginalised) – that it will have changed society, changed the culture, changed the composition and the nature of California. The other example I cited was Detroit, only instead of Mexicans it is primarily Blacks.

Are you seriously suggesting that the changes have not had any impact or made any difference whatsoever?

Is the ‘long term’ situation going on in such places in the INTERESTS of the Caucasian race? Is that group better off for it? Have they got a long term future there? Has it been only ‘beneficial’? My answer to that is of course NO. I do not know how you can possibly argue that it has been.

Who said that the ‘causation’ of Britain’s problems are ‘Black and brown’ people? Not me. So where did you get that smear from? Why are you projecting such things on to me?

There are many problems in Britain that can be attributed to third world people and their progeny. They are too numerous to list, but I could list them if you insisted upon it. However they themselves are not to blame, but are rather a symptom of an insidious ideology. That is where the real causation lay. It is the purposeful and ideological transformation of this country which is the main problem.

By the way, I can perfectly well distinguish between what an ethnicity is and what a race is. Maybe it is you who is confused, or maybe it is just that I stick to the historic meaning of the terms ethnicity and nation, whilst you believe them to be wholly ‘civic’ in nature. For example, a Pakistani living in England is not English. He does not have English ethnicity. To afford him the right to call himself English is to deny the true English people their right to an identity of their own. Why would you want to do that?

He may be a British Citizen under the terms of residency (and quite rightly afforded the same rights under the law as everybody else), but he is not ethnically British. He is a Pakistani living on the British landmass. The same is true of their offspring who are born on this soil. They are still of Pakistani heritage and not of the English or Caucasian stock.

Nobody in their right mind would look at a Bantu in Hong Kong and suggest that he is of Chinese ethnicity. Please do not deny the historic British people (ie the English, the Scottish, the Welsh) their identity by suggesting otherwise. To deny a historic people an identity is one of the aspects of what constitutes the road to genocide.

Germany has an ethnicity, as does Denmark, Sweden, and other indigenous people to their homelands. Yet of course they are all linked to the same racial group, Europeans, or Caucasians if you prefer. As are the British people.

As such, I am quite aware of how ethnicity and race differentiate. That you seem to confuse ethnicity with citizenship, is not really my fault. ‘American’ is not an ethnicity.

I do not even begin to understand why you are of the opinion that I would not allow a non-white person into my home. Is this another projection and slander upon me, my positions and my character? Of course I have little option but to take it as being so. 
You seem to be of the opinion that I somehow ‘hate’ or ‘despise’ other races and would not entertain allowing somebody into my house who did not share my racial grouping, as though I would swab my hands with disinfectant if ever I had to shake hands with somebody who differed from me. Where does this strange viewpoint come from? Who manufactured such things and put such stereotypes in your mind?

I made myself perfectly clear as to what my objections were to the processes going on, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘race-hate’ or a sense of racial superiority over others, or any of the usual things that people like to ascribe to those who defend white interests and the preservation and continuance of my people – in the face of a rather wicked and genocidal ideological position which sets a course for our destruction.

And that is what I called you up on - your support for such a situation.

It does not take a genius to work out that if you flood historically white nations with a whole swathe of non-white citizens, promote miscegenation in the media, socially engineer the societies and leave them to ‘boil’ on the ‘melting pot’ for a ‘hundred years or more’, you would be turning out ‘coffee coloured people by the score’. (To cite the infamous Blue Mink song).

Tell me how that does not constitute the eradication of races, specifically the white race, which is genetically recessive (as two non-whites or one white and one non white can not ever produce a wholly white child).

That is why I put it to you that you are advocating ‘racial nihilism’ and supporting the ethnocide of people in various nation states, which in turn ultimately leads to the eradication of the white racial grouping from the planet.

Caucasians only make up 8% of the planet’s demographic, and only 2% of that 8% are white females who are able to give birth. That is the fact of the matter. It is going to be impossible to survive in the conditions being imposed upon our nations.

Whether you chose to care a jot is of course up to you, but I care about it along with many others. I think it is important, and an important part of being human, and I think those who would advocate such a wrecking of human biodiversity – (albeit for so called ‘live and let live’ reasons) – are just as morally questionable as you find me to be. You are the ones on a destructive course of action which can never be reversed, not me.

I also tend to believe that libertarianism works the best in near-homogeneous nations, especially nations which are white. As I understand things, no other racial grouping has come up with the concepts which we aspire to in the West, and to my knowledge, Caucasians are the primary ones to have sought to implement it.

For example, I think you are all going to have an extremely hard time, especially here in Britain, getting the various other races and cultures to subscribe and adhere to libertarianism at the abandonment of their own group interests. How many Somalian libertarians live in Britain, for example, and how many others are likely to be prepared to take it up when put into comparison to the historically European/Occidental demographic?

My belief is that when we “go” – libertarianism will largely, but perhaps not completely, go with us.

Genocide is a strong word to use, it may have shocked you, but genocide does not solely mean the sudden armed and violent culling of a racial or ethnic group. The definition of genocide includes many factors, one of which is to bring about a series of policies and situations which can ultimately lead to the eradication of a group over a period of time.

Let me tell you that in 1951, Britain was 99.8% ‘White British’. Let me also tell you that just 80 years later the indigenous British population will be the minority on the island, and that by natural progression, under these current conditions, they will be virtually gone not long after the dawn of the next century.

If that does not constitute the definition of ethnocide, I do not really know what does.

When this same situation is happening in Germany, France, Australia, America, it is obvious to anybody with half a braincell what the ultimate result will be. Israel has certainly recognised what the problem would be for them, but then again they are quite smart and ethnocentric.

As for my mentioning of the Jews, it is perhaps only problematic for the over-sensitive if one is to mention that their grouping is disproportionately involved in progressing this mischief. I cited the Jews (in brackets, as I do NOT exclude or excuse white participation) because it is a matter of FACT that Jewish people were involved in pressing for the American immigration quotas (restrictions) to be changed, just like they were in Australia. Do not blame me for stating a fact.

To just abuse my earlier posts and my positions as being “stupidity”, some sort of “confusion” or “mental laziness” is extremely lazy in itself. Especially when none of my actual points were counteracted.

So, to repeat some of my unanswered points: Are you happy for the slow eradication of white people? If so, how does that make you a good person? Would you celebrate the slow eradication of Africans on the African continent and worldwide?

Would you have told the Maori and the American Indians that they have no legitimacy as a people or a right to self defence and determination? Is it wrong of me to be deeply concerned about what is taking place to the disadvantage of my people? Were they also nasty and despicable people with no reason to be alarmed or in opposition?

Are you seriously denying that race and ethnicity are vital components of societal interaction and group dynamics, never mind a pivotal component of economic and national achievement?

Are you seriously denying that there are no differences, on average, between races and their capabilities of building successful civilisations (as seen through Western eyes) and that bringing a different demographic into a landmass will not affect its national standing in the future? How to you substantiate these claims?

The New Scientist magazine, only in September last year, subtly discussed this kind of topic when it was pondering on the future of America in 2050.

To quote the article, it said of racial demographics that “analyses of US Census Bureau data reveal large and stubbornly persistent disparities in wealth and educational achievement. If these are not narrowed, predicted population change could undermine the US’s future prosperity”, and that there was “a persistent racial and ethnic economic inequality which may lead to new cultural and economic fragmentation”

It further followed that since “Older immigrants with no higher education drag down the overall statistics on Hispanic educational attainment” and could thus skew the figures, the researchers “compared US-born Hispanics with other groups, looking at the percentage of people in their late 20s with a college degree” instead.

They found that “Since the mid-1990s, there has been no narrowing of the gap between whites and Hispanics”. It continued how (if their studies were right) it would be “bad news for the nation as a whole”.

Seeing as there have been programmes to “close the gap” in attainment between differing racial groups in America for over 50 years now, with ZERO results, I think it is relatively safe to surmise that now things are at such a stage demographically, the gap will never be closed – and that much of the inability to close the gap is likely to be down to a natural ‘average’ difference between peoples.

The Jewish people are (on average) cleverer than all the rest of humanity, the Asian (Oriental) people are (on average) slightly higher than the Caucasians, and the list tends to trickle down to sub Saharan Africans, which in Africa have an average IQ of around 75, although this is raised slightly through environmental factors when in the West.

You will have to forgive me when I try to look at the facts of the matter, instead of relying on emotion or fallacies – i.e. things which people would desperately wish to be true, but in fact aren’t.

Given that we already have Islamic problems emerging here, demographic problems, the issue of the race-replacement of Caucasians from Britain plus historical examples of what takes place in these kinds of situations, surely it is more sensible to be cautious and oppositional to what is likely to occur, than to bring it on assuming it will be “different this time”. That is a kind of white-Western chauvinism and superiority complex in itself.

Situations could develop into increased strife, then increased conflict and even warfare. Hopefully not. But we could at the least see the standing of this country drop to that of second or third world status if trends continue, so why should I wish to see the future stability, safety and security of my nation put in jeopardy by NOT saying “Wait a minute!”?

For somebody who is supposedly a ‘moron’ and “mentally lazy”, I seem to have thought about, researched and investigated this issue more thoroughly than either of you. You both seem to believe you are open-minded yet you do not seem able to break of a mental straight jacket.
I then get chided on whether I can read or not, because they were not asking whether I could distinguish between race and ethnicity, but whether I could distinguish between those two things and that of culture. Semantics, instead of answering anything I wrote. I get accused of saying that she would not be welcome in Britain because her grandfather on one side of the family was Spanish.

They then make a point of how white people are not all the same and that they would rather live in a mixed society that shared the same values than a wholly white one where they were under threat from differing ideologies. (That is the first fair point I will credit to them). 

They cite how immigration should really be curtailed to allow time to develop into a sensible mash, that they do not agree with "affirmative action" programmes and such. 

The other participant bleats a simple two lines back to me: "I am not in the habit of carefully answering the questions of Black Shirts. Go jump in the nearest lake". I am also described to others as a 'Nazi' and that I am part of some mission to discredit libertarianism as being full of "closet racists" and that by allowing such views amongst them they are playing into the hands of the left. 



Okay, it seems that I did make a mistake on what you had meant, but what you wrote is perhaps slightly open to misinterpretation. I do acknowledge that I was the one who jumped the gun, you are right, but you said that: “If you can’t distinguish between race *or* “ethnicity” and the complex of customs and values that together we call “culture,” then there’s no way I can see that we can have a worthwhile discussion”.

I mistakenly took it that there was a three-component rebuff and not just the two. Ie, that I could not distinguish between race OR ethnicity, OR their differentiation from culture.

Many people I come across do make the mistake of confusing ethnicity and race, so understandably, I would have taken that as being the primary focus of the confusion you were attributing to me – not least because accusing me of not being differentiate between race and culture is a pretty preposterous thing to have said, given my area of interest and concern!

I entirely agree about the need for a meritocracy, and support that. I have never liked ‘affirmative action’ or the idea that each and every sector of employed life has to be “representative”.

I do not know where the United States generally stands with that matter, but here in Britain there have been noises before (especially under the Labour government) which seemed to want an ideal where, for example, the fire service should be staffed 50% by men, 50% by women, and no doubt they would then also desire that if the area the station is situated in had a 25% demographic of “minorities”, then 25% of that service should also be “minorities”.

This is their trapping of endlessly enforcing that kind of “equality”. Equality in those kinds of terms is a nonsense to me. Naturally, it should not really matter who the person is that is saving a life or pulling somebody out of a car.

Some people (read: Lefties) believe that only ethnic minorities are able to look out for other ethnic minorities, or that everything has to be so ‘balanced’ to “reflect the demographic” and to “balance the roles of men and women” etc.

Personally, I would not particularly wish for something like the fire service to be staffed by so many women, as they are generally weaker than men.

That kind of position (like my earlier positions are based on fact) would no doubt annoy many feminists in this country, much in the way that my facts about racial dynamics annoys and upsets people who do not want them to be true.

I am not saying they are incapable as fire fighters, just that a man may be able to rescue two children simultaneously than a woman who may only be able to carry one at once. For much of the other day to day duties, there would tend to be little problem.

This is perhaps just the same as how I say racial dynamics are important, that they are “in effect” whether people here like it or not (hence Robert’s article, which nobody has actually refuted) – and that I think it should not be such a heresy to point it out.

That is what is also playing into the hands of the ‘left’ – always operating on their platform and allowing them to dictate the parameters and rules of the game. I do not care if I am called ‘racist’ or ‘Nazi’ or whatever usual names. That is often the last resort of people who are losing.

The truth is the truth. In a fictional example, if Black people are, say, 15 times more likely to carry knives than Whites, then I see no reason at all why that should not be said. I get sick of people hiding away and not dealing with realities as they are. It helps nobody.

For example, nobody here (like in many other places) has actually answered the questions I put to them. I can only conclude from that, that they cannot ‘comfortably’ be answered without having to concede there may be a point and some legitimacy for being concerned, or that they just cannot answer them. What I tend to receive back is just their own wishes and desires. That is fine, but it is not the same thing.

Nobody has really dissected or de-constructed the main article either, other than just talking about how it should not be gone into, not really given time to, not suitable for this site, that is should not be used as a strategy, and whatever else. Some of the replies to this article are particularly weak, especially given the depth and the time that the author went to in looking into this aspect of life for his article.

I think that the author pointed out that racial dynamics do shape a society and that whilst some people may wish for it all to go away, it cannot entirely be escaped from.

He (quite rightly in my view) hinted near the end of the article that if ‘whites’ do not start think about the possibility of looking after their own self interests (especially when we are the main ones being “pathologically altruistic” and debasing of ourselves – and when we are the main ones losing ground and losing our nations to the point we cannot survive), we are going to ‘do away with ourselves’ both physically and influentially.

As I say, I cannot particularly imagine a great libertarian uprising by Pakistanis, Somalis, Turks, Nigerians, Chinese, Afghanis, and all the other disparate people’s who are currently going to be rendering the British people a minority group in their own country. I may well be mistaken, but at the moment, I just cannot see that ever happening.

When it comes to the current situation, I think things are getting much “too far gone” to ever hope to assimilate them all (slowly, over millennia, as has previously occurred with the fractions of percentages of others who were here) to the degree they are indistinguishable and likely to sing from the same hymn sheets (and generally evolve into good little libertarian minded souls).

The indigenous demographic are going to be made minorities, and as I tried to point out earlier, I think it is perfectly valid to oppose this developing situation and all the problems it will bring – and is already bringing.

(As I say, the list of existing problems is already quite long).

I think that people discussing ‘welfare’ and ‘taxes’ and getting rid of ‘affirmative action’ programs, ensuring freedom of employment and freedom of association, pulling out of supranational bodies and the European Union and such things mean well, but that they are the very least we ought to be doing. Especially at this late hour.

I think I will end this reply by reasserting, again, that I do not “discriminate” upon individual people or believe I am “superior” to any other racial group, that I do not “hate” or “blame” all my frustrations on “scapegoats” and all the other usual misconceptions people like to attribute to people such as myself.

It is the “bigger picture” that is my concern, ie, what is taking place as a whole – and believe me, my blame lay primarily on the establishment, the ideologues and intellectuals behind the current sociocultural hegemony which prevails, the excessive globalism and the forces of vested interests – ranging from ‘Cultural Marxists’, the purveyors of the “critical theory”, to “corporate Fascists” who have used (and funded) the left-wing agenda to monopolise and feather their own nests and agendas.

I have just got past the point of being dictated to (and being put into a mental straitjacket manufactured by) the ‘opposition’.

This is why I often robustly state my case, stand my ground, and have taken on the opinions of what is sometimes termed the “New Right”. We are in the habit of unapologetically asserting a future for ourselves, because we know that nobody else is going to do that for us.

Despite me knowing that some people here would object to me saying this, I have always had libertarian leanings, and still do so. That is why I am here. It is just that I *also* recognise other things which are in the picture. Nothing is ever clear-cut and neatly compartmented.

For example, I care about matters such as parents not being able to film or take pictures of their own children playing in the park (or film nativity plays) without them being questioned by other parents or harassed by the police (in fear of them being paedophiles).

I care about matters such as securing freedom of the internet, securing freedom from a surveillance state, being able to smoke in your own car if you are not harming anybody else (and I am not a smoker), and generally not being ‘nannied’ by the state on every aspect of how you may live your life…..etc. As you know, the list gets endless.

I also happen to care about my people, my kith and kin, my nation, both of their futures, and think that is a travesty – an unnecessary travesty – that the current course has been set when it could still potentially be avoided.

Yes, I admit I am bitter about it – and often towards those who have brought it on and continue to bring it on. I oppose that travesty, and think I have every right to oppose it, despite the silly name calling I tend to receive by doing so.

When it comes to libertarianism, as I think Libertarianism has more chance of success in an already relatively mono-cultural and homogeneous society (where there are fewer in-group and out-group dynamics at play than in a multiracial and multicultural society) and that I believe the Europeans are more naturally inclined towards libertarianism as a trait – I therefore also believe that we have a duty to be wary of what can damage that and damage the future stability and essence of a nation.

For some here to paint me as some kind of “dumb” “white power brigade supremacist” (who no doubt wants to kill millions of ‘inferior’ people worldwide for their “bad skin”, etc and “sieg Heil” up and down the pavement with my finger under my nose) I find to be just plainly ridiculous – and perhaps more a highlight of some peoples own ignorances and prejudices than those they perceive as being mine.

And then that was the end of that. The original article and my points became ignored. What I wrote may all end up being some kind of nonsense, but that is how I feel about things - and if others feel the same way as I do, then hopefully it will chime with them too and maybe be useful in their own battles. 

Regards,
B.A.

2 comments:

  1. Wow! You really know how to get your point across. I feel a lot more moralized from reading all that. I'm sorry all that effort was wasted on people who, really, have no clue of the bigger picture.

    It's also really sad that despite libertarianism enjoying the input and knowledge from such a wide variety of perspectives (including the fringe) which would really help it along, that so many of its followers callously reject them simply because their worldview has been forged by their enemy.


    I discovered your blog a few weeks back with your spot on Irn-Bru article and have recommended it since. Subscribed!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thankyou for reading the article and my site. I am glad it resonated with you!

    As can be seen from the date of the piece, I have been taking a break from the blog and nationalism in general.

    I hope to return to it in some fashion, but at the moment I am not sure if or when that may be.

    If you liked this one, you may be interested in some similar ones and some more of the same here:
    http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/some-refutations.html

    and here:

    http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/some-refutations-2.html

    You may also like the little series I wrote:

    http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/introduction-to-new-series-of-articles.html
    http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/british-nationalism-part-one.html
    http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/british-nationalism-part-two.html

    There is also a bit of a dusty bookshelf of other peoples articles on my other (much neglected) site 'The Nationalist Reading Room': http://britishnationalistarchives.blogspot.com/

    Not everybody is a fan of some of the authors, and nor do they all necessarily touch all the bases properly, but I must have found them to be worthy of collecting and collating.

    I am currently in the process of sorting a lot of such material out as part of a little project to get all the stuff I have collected together. At some point I plan to publish it all on the net in one location.

    So, although I may not be updating the blog here regularly at the moment, I hope some of the older articles like I linked to, will be of interest in the meantime.

    Regards,

    B.A.

    ReplyDelete