• About

John Londen

~ White Neo-Tribalist, radical self-critic, troublemaker: "…didactic, opinionated, pontifical…" But not philodoxically.

John Londen

Tag Archives: British

White or Aryan? Some thoughts from a Spanish Viking

27 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

admixtures, Africa, ancient white civilisation, anthropology, Aryan, Aryanism, Asia, Basque, black, British, Britons, brown-skinned peoples, Celts, central Asia, cosmopolitan race, English language, Europe, European civilisation, genes, German, German National Socialists, Germanic, Germanic languages, human migration, indigenous British, indigenous Britons, indigenous Europeans, Indo-European, Latin languages, Latin-German hybrid, linguistics, Mesolithic, Mesolithic era, Nationalism, Nationalists, Neolithic era, Nordic, Nordics, northern Africa, northern Europe, Planet Earth, politicised anthropology, race, science, scientific method, skin colour, southern Europe, Spanish Vikings, suppositions, we're all black, White Civilisation, White Nationalism, White Nationalists, White Race, white skin, whitening

Indo-European-Languages-map

White or Aryan?  Some thoughts from a Spanish Viking

The whole matter of white origins is a very complex subject and not something I have ever had the time to sit down and really study properly. Which is not for lack of interest on my part – it is a subject that fascinates me, and I am particularly intrigued by the idea that ancient white civilisations might have existed outside of Europe.

One thing I have noticed from cursory reading of the material is that this whole area is built on shifting sands. No-one with any actual expertise in the various disciplines involved really seems sure of what they are saying. By contrast, those who lack expertise but hold strong views invariably put across their opinions with unwarranted certainty.

Anthropology, for instance, is not a science, whatever its pretenses otherwise, and most of its methods are not truly scientific. That is why I am wary of accepting affirmative pronouncements in these matters, even from experts. Most of the work of anthropology over the last 100 years or so has been heavily coloured by politics. It would not surprise me if what I alluded to a moment ago turns out to be true: that ancient white peoples occupied the whole of this planet, but anyone relying on the academic material would never alight on that supposition. We whites certainly have the capability and inclination to have been the world’s first cosmopolitan race.

I’ve seen here and there on white nationalist websites use of this word ‘Aryan’, which I know is typically associated in the public mind with the German National Socialists of the 1920s to 1940s.  I don’t particularly object to it, but I prefer ‘white’, more out of habit than anything else. Some white nationalists reject use of the term ‘Aryan’ altogether, while others use it imprecisely in what I can only assume is a sort of whimsy or fancy.  Is it accurate?  I think a lot depends on what is meant by the term ‘Aryan’. It seems to be malleable and can be used in a purely linguistic sense or in more of a racial sense. Different people have different theories and ideas on who was (or is) Aryan. The suppositions are sharply conflicting, which doesn’t bode well for those who seek certainty. Some people think that the Aryans are of ancient indigenous European origin. Others believe that the Aryans were a cultural and language group of central Asian origin that expanded across southern Europe and perhaps northern Africa as well, mixing with the Mesolithics (the Basques, etc.), then moving northwards, initially as a brown-skinned race. Over time due to evolutionary pressures, this whole group then lightened in skin colour. My intuitive judgement on the matter, based on what little I know, is something along the lines of the latter theory, and being of a naturally ‘intellectual’ bent, I am suspicious of those who would reject it purely for political reasons. But I just don’t know – and I strongly suspect no-one ‘knows’.

Interestingly, I read somewhere (sorry, can’t source this right now) that indigenous Britons are predominantly of Basque and Celtic origin with only very minor Nordic and Germanic admixture. If true, that means (in pseud modern parlance) we’re basically Spanish Vikings speaking hybrid Latin-German. That would certainly explain my short temper. Next time an ignorant lefty tells you we’re all black, that should be your answer – if, like me, you’re of indigenous British origin.

The New Four Words

05 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Friends of the BNP, Britain, British, British politics, community, community work, democracy, elections, leadership, mixed-racial culture, New Tribe, Nick Griffin, political education, political language, political parties, political propaganda, public consent, race, racial consciousness, Safety, saleable words, Solidarity, Texas, The New Four Words, UK, White Independent Nation, White Race, whites, WIN

whiterussia

The New Four Words

In April 2000, Nick Griffin spoke at a Texas conference of the American Friends of the BNP. During his speech, he referred to four saleable words that the BNP would use to persuade the British electorate of its message: Freedom, Democracy, Identity and Security. I call these ‘Griffin’s Four Words’.

Whatever the issues may have been with Griffin, I would like to propose that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with his idea. The problem was in the strategy. By adopting the political language of our opponents and attempting to ‘liberalise’ the BNP, Griffin positioned the argument firmly in enemy territory, using the enemy’s propaganda and weaponry. No doubt the idea was to turn our opponent’s own words against them – which is an understandable enough strategy, and in its own way clever – but the end result was to simply concretise multi-culturalism, not just in wider British society, but even within the far-Right itself.

My central contention is that any attempt Nationalists make to roll-back the existing mixed-racial culture is going to fail and is a waste of time. Griffin’s Four Words were based on this mistaken predicate. It was and is an understandable position, especially at the time it was developed – I am not suggesting Griffin was stupid – but now more than ever we need to understand that this approach to politics doesn’t and cannot work.

We need to adopt a different strategy that (in my view) involves rejecting leaders (but not leadership), democracy (but not democratic mechanisms when they suit us), elections (but not electoral ratification as a vehicle for affirming public consent), and political parties (but not as a vehicle for achieving reasoned and sound aims and objectives).

In my opinion, we cannot hope to win over the majority of whites, who are either lost to us ideologically or simply spineless. The goal, then, will be the preservation of the White Race in the form of a New Tribe, as suggested by White Independent Nation (WIN) – in whatever social, spiritual and geopolitical form future generations deem appropriate. Time will tell.

For now, I think our aim should be to re-connect white racial consciousness with white people. We can do that by encouraging community-based resistance and by making people aware of our message. To do this we must develop our own ‘New Tribe‘ political language independently of the mainstream.

In response to Griffin’s Four Words, I would propose The New Four Words, as follows. These emphasise the communal nature of what we are doing and the shift in our focus away from mainstream politics – elections, political parties, personalities, etc. – to building education, propaganda, community work and racial consciousness outside the mainstream.

RACE
We believe in the permanency and sovereignty of the White Race.

SOLIDARITY
We believe that all White People should and must stand together, irrespective of class, gender, nationality, ethnicity and other factors.

COMMUNITY
We wish to live according to common values, which we share as a White Racial Community and that we seek to apply on a local level in white conscious communities.

SAFETY
We believe that all White People have the right to live and work in areas that are safe for them, without intrusion from influences harmful to white racial consciousness or which might impede the propagation and flourishing of the White Race.

The Far Right: conning us since 1945

25 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

18th. century, 1950s, 1960s, 20th. century, affluent poor, agricultural society, anti-whites, autonomy, BDP, BNP, British, capitalism, capitalists, civic identity, commerce, Conservative Party, Craig Cobb, Dave Spart, democracy, dumb whites, Europe, far-Right, First World War, industrialisation, Jews, John Ball, John Bull, Johnny Foreigner, Labour Party, Leith North Dakota, LibertyGB, mass production, National Front, non-whites, North America, political Right, Pomp and Circumstance, pro-Zionist, racial identity, Richard Edmonds, right-wing, right-wing Dave Spart, rural society, Second World War, state-fascism, The Lessons of Leith, The Smiling Jew, the White Race, Tommy Atkins, UKIP, ultra-Zionist, Union Flag, Union Jack, urban society, urbanisation, Zionism, Zionist symbolism

edmunds

The Far Right: conning us since 1945

For seventy years, Nationalism in this country and the rest of Europe and North America has been dominated by the political Right, especially the far-Right.  These people have created a rather shallow political movement, borrowing the superficial aspects of a fictional national identity invented by satirists at the beginning of the 18th. century.  Their cause appeals to the unthinking, undeveloped mentality of the bigoted provincial who dislikes Johnny Foreigner: a kind of right-wing version of Dave Spart.  These people do not represent me.  They never have.  Their simplistic messages have never appealed to my deep sense of feeling for these islands, for its geography, its unique people and culture, but above all, my allegiance to the White Race.  I am a socialist, not a Zionist.  My symbol is John Ball, not John Bull.  The far-Right reflects no more my ‘nationalist’ tendency than a Catholic nun.  That said, I think John Bull has had a bit of an unfair press.  The original creation was the classic honest country yeoman: provincial, unpretentious and common-sensical, if a little blinkered.  It was only later, around the time of the First World War, that the image of John Bull morphed into an authority figure and was used, for instance, on Army recruitment posters to enlist white men into the mass slaughter of that senseless war – a contrast with ‘Tommy Atkins’, who replaced John Bull as the representative of the ordinary Englishman.  This transition in John Bull’s propagandistic function from common man to a personification of authority reflected fundamental changes in British society and the working class experience: the movement from a society that was rural and agricultural in character to urban and industrial, and the resultant need for social control in society; the transition in the social relations of production from autonomy and landed peasantry to commerce and mass production; the change from strong families and communities to the strong state.  The root of the far-Right’s reactionary, authoritarian propaganda – indeed, the root of the modern state-fascism of the 20th. century – is the liberalism of the mass industrial society.

As such, the far-Right is just the latest in a long line of ideological vehicles for mass social control, working in the interests of capitalists.  Its strategy seems to be to rely on an out-dated notion of Nationalism that was for all intents and purposes abolished by the Second World War.  (See my essay: ‘The Lessons of Leith‘).  The British have always had a more subdued attitude to patriotism than that found in other European countries.  The British far-Right’s pro-Zionist symbolism – the use of the Union Flag and John Bull imagery – does not connect with ordinary people and to a large extent plays into the hands of anti-whites and non-whites, who wish to co-opt the ‘British’ civic identity as their own.  The various party political brands of the far-Right, including the National Front and the BNP, together with its ‘normalised’ outlets such as UKIP, are about managing dissent among the system’s middle-managers and self-employed.  The typical demographic of their supporters is not ‘poor’, but middle-class and the affluent working class, i.e. the petit bourgeosie.  These tend to make up the majority of right-wing supporters and voters.  The delusions that such people carry through their lives (what I call ‘respectable deceits’ in my essay, ‘The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles‘) are similar to those among Labour and Conservative supporters and are based on the belief that they have a stake in the system.  Voting itself, and a lot of mainstream political activity, has now largely become the preserve of a modern parody of the Platonic citizenry, a sizeable minority who make up the system’s client base and are the easiest to control because they believe either that the system already works in their favour or can be made to do so.  As such, party politics – including the far-Right – has become just a way of diverting the frustrations of the ‘affluent poor’ into activity that is relatively harmless to the system.  Thus any real opposition is suffocated without the need for violence.  (See my essay, ‘Democracy Keeps Us Dumb‘).

When I encounter these ‘affluent poor’ who accept the system implicitly, either by supporting it or seeking to reform it, one of my questions to them is why they choose to be so munificent towards their rich masters: the Jews and the capitalists?  Why do they vote against their own racial and economic interests?  Why would someone who has nothing expend so much time and energy in propping-up capitalism and Jewish supremacy, using received propaganda?  Of course, these ‘affluent poor’ are in denial about their disenfranchisement.  They don’t accept that they have nothing.  They still live under the delusion that they have a stake in the system.  They own their own home and run their own business or hold down a well-paid job, or have some kind of plastic status, or whatever.  These props fuel the delusion of citizenship, as does the promise of proxy say and influence through the attainment of political power and influence by ‘their’ party, UKIP.  These are delusions, supported by lies that come from the mouths not of the elites, but of the ‘affluent poor’ themselves.  They repeat and reinforce the positivistic mantras that the media feed them: democracy, human rights, legality, dictatorship, liberty, etc. ad nauseum.  The question we should be asking these people is simple: Has lying worked?  It’s a simple enough question, maybe a little too simple, but sometimes the truth is straightforward.  The reality is that lying hasn’t worked. What these people want us to believe is that we should carry on lying nonetheless and vote for UKIP or the BNP or the BDP or LibertyGB or the National Front, or whatever.  I have some time for the idea of tactically voting for these outfits on local issues, but the awkward truth is that electoral politics hasn’t worked, largely because since the 1950s/60s, Nationalism has been controlled by the far-Right.  They have not found a narrative that relates their cause to the needs and interests of ordinary people. All they have to offer is Zionist symbolism. Why should I vote for that? Why should I bow down to Jews? Keep your pin badges and your Pomp and Circumstance. I would rather go down fighting, thank you.  The BNP, the National Front, Britain First, LibertyGB and UKIP are all the same: just the kosher Right under different names. They are all officially pro-Zionist or ultra-Zionist. They are all plugging the same line, using slightly different language and emphases.  Enough is enough!  We have to start voting for ourselves.

FORWARD THE WHITE RESISTANCE!

The Morality Problem: liberalism as a white construct

24 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

1965 Immigration Act, Afro-Americans, anti-white policies, apartheid, Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic slavery, baby boomers, black community, black values, blacks, Blue Tories, Bolsheviks, Britain, British, buzz words, canonical meaning, capitalism, China, Christianity, clientism, Cold War, conservative, Conservative Party, counter-revolutonary, culture, culture wars, Democratic Party, detroitisation, drugs, dumb whites, empiricism, equalitarianism, EU, Europe, fake white liberal paternalism, families, financialisation of capital, free market capitalism, free trade, government dependency, group culture, group think, gun crime, healthcare, human rights, indoctrination, inequality, inherent racial differences, Jewish Bolsheviks, Jews, Left-Right divide, left-wing populism, legality, liberal, liberal equality, liberal morality, libertinism, manufacturing, Marxists, mass immigration, Michael Moore, militant feminism, moral economy, multi-racial society, Nationalism, non-canonical meaning, Orwellian, paternalism, Poles, positivism, prisons, propaganda systems, Protestant asceticism, Purple Tories, race, racial equality, racial morality, Republican Party, revolution, right-wing populism, rock music, Russia, Russian Czars, scientific Marxism, slavery, social deprivation, social fragmentation, South Africa, state capitalism, state-communism, Stupid White Men, the leader syndrome, the Left, the Leviathon, The Morality Problem, the Sixties, the United States, the White Race, Tories, TV Nation, U.S. healthcare system, UKIP, ultra-individualism, Unitarianism, Vietnam War, violent crime, welfare, Western governments, white liberalism, white minority, White Nationalism, white values, workfare

Screen shot 2012-07-06 at 2.40.39 AM (3)[large]

The Morality Problem: liberalism as a white construct

Many years ago, when I was still on the Left politically and naive about racial issues, I was an avid watcher of Michael Moore, including his political TV series, TV Nation, and his various books and pseudo-documentary films.  I watched and read everything of his: my own (embarrassing) empirical example, if you like, of the leader syndrome.  One particular Michael Moore book stands out in my memory: Stupid White Men, which – if I recall correctly – I bought and read almost as soon as it was published in the UK.  It was a truly terrible book, and I even threw it in the dustbin – the only time I have ever done that with a book.  I normally have much more respect for books, even the ones I dislike intensely (and there have been a few like that), because I assume a great effort is expended in the business of writing and publishing, and I do think it is ignorant to treat a book, any book, with disregard.

Thinking back now, it occurs to me that I might have been harsh on Moore and that he understands something about white people that is important, but not obvious.  What I am referring to is the white tendency to assume the burden of others, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, and sometimes by proxy, and often in political language that does not make the paternalism obvious.  When I was on the Left, one thing that puzzled me for a long time was what appeared to me to be the sheer mean-spiritedness of right-wing/conservative types (I used to lump them all together, and to an extent still do today, albeit for more rational reasons now than before).  Quite simply, I could not understand how one group of people could be so mean.  This was especially the case when I looked at American politics.  If British Tories can be cruel, their rugged U.S. Republican counterparts across the Atlantic can seem positively uncivilised to cosseted British eyes.  What I think I hadn’t grasped was the relationship of conservative moral outrage and condemnation to its apparent opposite, and that in fact one is just the flip side of the other.  Conservative condemnation is liberal compassion expressed in its own political language, sympathetic to the values of provincial whites  It is just another manifestation of the white tendency to assume the burdens of others, just as traditional welfare liberalism represents the same tendency in the language of ‘liberal’/leftist whites.  Moral condemnation of welfare and poverty is prominent in the mainstream politics of all Western societies, and even in those societies in which whites do not want to live around blacks – for example, historically South Africa, which was an apartheid society that had blacks as the labouring class, even though its whites wanted to live separately.  Whites seem to adopt in their behaviour, thought and attitudes a paternalism towards non-whites – blacks especially – that often does not even extend to their fellow whites.

This is liberalism – or as I would put it, ‘fake white liberal paternalism’.  It comes in ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ flavours, depending on what you prefer, but it is basically the same thing.  It is trait of moral concern found across the mainstream political spectrum, including among some of the most right-wing and conservative people, who fulminate about welfare and government dependency, expressing their view of society as a moral economy in which non-whites (and poor whites) must adhere to white values.  Where I think we can sometimes misunderstand the (admittedly simplistic) Left-Right divide in Western politics is in assuming that left-wing political thought is underpinned by a radically different moral economy to that of the Right.  The political Right, especially white conservatives, rail against what they see as left-wing clientist policies that promote welfare dependency.  The criticism is largely based on reality, but what is not openly admitted is the necessity of left-wing clientism for a multi-racial society as a whole to function and not explode into civil conflagration.  The moral economy is the same, because the interests are the same, and the Left-Right dichotomy is, in truth, simply a stage for different actors to play out a fictitious melodrama.  The public, both white and black, only see the puppet shadows on the wall and do not surmise who has been holding the puppets and playing them all along. The Orwellian propaganda of fake white liberal paternalism is practised most starkly in the United States.

News and current affairs in the US are largely framed and influenced by racial issues.  A sharp racial divide exists, eliding people of different races by issue and party, largely due to the fact that white Americans have had to live alongside blacks much longer than white Europeans.  Healthcare is really a race issue.  Prisons are really about race.  The Republican Party is essentially a white party (though ‘white’ seems to have an expansive meaning in this context, embracing also non-white groups that aren’t black).  Complaints from Republicans about welfare and healthcare intervention, affirmative action politics, and so on, are really coded attacks on black culture and reflect a resentment among white Americans about the extent to which they have to subsidise the black community (or so they think).  Conversely, the Democratic Party is the party of so-called white ‘liberals’, Jews and other non-whites.  Most Democrats seem to support the elite culture of paternalism openly, whereas Republicans like to pretend they don’t, or at least pretend they don’t like it.  In fact, they do support it, and they do like it, for reasons I will explain momentarily.

The repeated theme of right-wing populists is moralist – the white tendency to assume the burdens of others, this time through the tax system.  The debate is centred around the extent to which support should be given or at all.  Likewise left-wing populists adopt a moral tone that is just as transparently about getting whites to support blacks through the tax system.  The Right (and some on the Left: what American elite types call ‘progressives’) hold that the welfare subsidy cannot continue.  The argument is that while it keeps a lid on American society – keeping a growing and restless non-white minority in check – it is not financially or economically sustainable.  Actually, that is the very reason it must continue, because its real purposes are served well, which are ideological.  One misconception is that American politics is non-ideological when in fact it is deeply ideological.  The ideology is that of capitalism.  The purpose of welfare is that it is a rent that the rich pay to the poor in return for control of society.  This is only possible because real power is with the poor, the working classes.  This is why even the most right-wing Republicans support an extensive welfare system in the United States.  The system serves a purpose for the elite.  Or it just wouldn’t exist.  It keeps the people with real power in check, i.e. the masses.  The propaganda attempts to convince us of the opposite, that it is the rich who are powerful and that the people receive welfare as some kind of paternalistic concession.  This is hogwash, but the propaganda works – people really do think this.  The propaganda takes various forms, but the underpinning rationale for all of it are the aims of the moral economy.  Some white conservatives genuinely believe that they are on a mission to rescue the poor from government dependency.  Others are more concerned with the financial algebra of what they see as government dependency.  Many white liberals see welfare paternalism as a moral duty, others try to rationalise it as a necessary step-up from poverty and destitution.  What all these different threads of ideological justification share is an underlying faith in maintaining white liberal paternalism.  Each side of the debate will argue heatedly and make all sorts of accusations against the other while hiding their common interest, which is to maintain elite control by handing out scraps to ordinary people, depriving the masses, black and white, of their birth right: a true stake in society.  Capitalism, like any hierarchical social system, relies on pacification, lies, ignorance and collusion with the elite among those who can be bought-off.

The fakery and propaganda distracts the masses from the real issues and puts off until another time any resolution of the deep-seated problems faced by America, and other Western societies.  This makes sense because to confront the problems would require a social revolution – in other words, democracy (or ‘socialism’ or whatever you want to call it).  Thus, it is necessary and expedient to fudge the issues and to use the political system as a moderator between the competing interests.  This has some unintended effects which, in the long-run, are causing fissures in the system and may eventually bring it to collapse.  First, to avoid discussion about the deepening economic inequality in society and the inherent unfairness of capitalism, certain scapegoats are set up for blame.  These include rich whites (the Jews do this) or blacks (the whites do this) or poor whites (the blacks do this).  The actual problem, economic inequality, is a subject that Jews and rich whites don’t want raised – even though, arguably, it actually threatens their interests as much as everybody else’s.  If present trends continue, the future of capitalism itself could be on the line due to the widening and deepening wealth and income gap between the elite and ordinary people. Poor whites are bought-off through the propaganda of some White Nationalists, who (not unreasonably, it must be said) seek to blame blacks for detroitisation of black-majority areas and (rightly) point to high black involvement in violent crime, the high black prison population, and other problems.  It is argued, a little simplistically but not inaccurately, that these issues are due to ‘inherent’ racial differences. There is some merit in those observations, but the causes are more complex than simply race and, if we are honest, include the socio-economic and cultural legacy of slavery as an institution in North America.  Nevertheless, the narrative is very effective in diluting and diverting opposition to the system and serves a secondary purpose in that it allows Americans to defer the awkward but necessary resolution they must one day come to on the race question as a de facto segregated society and certain other uncomfortable cultural questions in that society, caused by the 1965 revolution in immigration law and America’s deep history as, in effect, a biracial state.  It is fashionable among intellectuals in Europe, who are influenced by scientific Marxism, to dismiss cultural questions and sneer at the preoccupation among American conservatives with such matters (while ignoring the desecration of their own culture), but culture is important because it is about how people live their lives.

That American white liberal paternalism is fake and will one day collapse is simultaneously known and denied in an Orwellian fashion, and a similar observation can be made about other Western countries.  As in America, in Britain there is a significant underclass whose needs and interests are, in practice, ignored.  It is this international underclass that will one day be the ferment for a revolution.  Whether the revolution is spasmodic, or one event, or in fact an evolutionary social movement that is technical in character (much like an industrial or technological revolution), is open to speculation.  I suspect the latter.  In fact, I think the ‘anti-hierarchical revolution’ is already happening, all around us, imperceptible to most people, but real nonetheless.  But I – we – cannot know for sure.  Only history will tell.  For now, a vital question that arises for race conscious whites is whether this new revolutionary consciousness is, or will, be based on, or allow for, racial and cultural differences.  My central contention is that we must focus our work on making sure it will.  We must disregard the fake, paternalistic structures of our present society, including its electoral politics and its media fictions that keep the uneasy alliances and contradictions of capitalism in check, and we must instead build a parallel white republic-in-waiting: a community of white conscious individuals ready to think and act collectively in a future non-hierarchical world.  If nothing else, we must do this so as to ensure the survival of the White Race.

The major intellectual obstacle faced by White Nationalists in this task is the problem identified by Michael Moore in Stupid White Men: the white predilection for assuming the burdens of other races – what might be called ‘liberal morality’ – as opposed to ‘racial morality’ (the latter being what I would regard as real morality).  Whether intentionally or not, it is clear to me that Moore identifies the liberal moral tendency among white conservatives, whom he criticises for their meanness.  Of course, Moore did not understand that what he was describing was in fact liberalism by another name, just articulated differently from what is called left-liberalism.  He did not recognise that the fulminations of social and moral conservatism are based on the very same basic belief system that inspires the moral outrage of liberal whites, only using different political language, with the rhetoric of one side catalysing the other.  This liberalism seems to be characteristically white, and possibly originated in the Anglo-Saxon part of the European world as a secular counterpoint to Christianity, borrowing its basic precepts.  It entails an implicit belief in capitalism as a moral economy and involves a strong attachment to spiritual self-immolation and Protestant asceticism.  It is a characteristic that has made white societies racially and culturally vulnerable and that has been used advantageously by Jews to infiltrate and direct the policies of Western governments in an anti-white direction: including the introduction of mass immigration, among other things.  White conservatives like to argue instead that the decline of the West, even the West’s post-modern collapse, began with an identifiable series of events – the so-called ‘Sixties’: some kind of radical social, academic and cultural movement in Europe and the United States.  The conventional view seems to be that the Sixties were a departure, a rejection of the surrounding society by some sort of youth culture made up of baby-boomers.  I see it slightly differently.  To my mind, the Sixties, in so far as it existed as a coherent phenomenon at all, was a continuation of the liberal canonical tradition.  It wasn’t so much a rebellion against parenthood and authority as an affirmation of it, only in a more infantile sense than in the past.  Surface rebellion was combined with deep authoritarianism, the compliance being achieved through the wider dispensation of cheap recreational drugs and permissive sexual relations, which were used to pacify and control what could have otherwise been a dangerous source of unrest against the capitalist system among disaffected baby-boomers.  Meanwhile, legislative measures were enacted to undermine the indigenous white majorities in Western countries – especially through mass non-white immigration.  The mistake that cultural conservatives make is in wrongly identifying the Sixties as a some kind of revolutionary movement.  If anything, the Sixties was a counter-revolutionary movement and its problems, including mass immigration, widespread recreational drug use, mindless rock music and so on are also counter-revolutionary nature: they assist the Leviathon rather than weaken it.  The Sixties certainly encouraged the potential for radical social change in the West, but only in directions favourable to Jews and elite whites.

People seem to look back on the Sixties nostalgically, as a gala parade of colour, brightness and innocent libertinism, when in fact for most ordinary people it was a dark decade, marked by economic crises and policies that attacked and fragmented the white working class, and flooded the country with cheap foreign labour.  It was a decade that also signalled the beginning of the end of the influence of traditional manufacturing and trade unions.  This reality is masked by vapid talk of a liberal cultural revolution involving naive politicians, militant feminists, sex, drugs and rock music.  What was culturally significant about these more superficial aspects of the Sixties was what they represented about the shift in ‘meaning’.  The previous institutional definitions of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ had been established based on a pre-War type of moral economy in which each ordinary person was expected to be upstanding, self-reliant and respectful of the institutions, formal and informal, that regulated societal conduct: the family, the Church, the community and so on.  These institutions were far more influential and important in people’s everyday lives than the state – love and warmth in the family, solidarity in the workplace, kinship and racial identity in the wider national space. In the Sixties, the moral economy shifted towards a brutal form of equalitarianism, necessary for a type of capitalism that was becoming increasingly financialised and based on high technology and bureaucratic expertise.  This happened against a background of meaningless rock music that encouraged promiscuity and other reckless, ultra-individualistic attitudes.  These types of attitudes are implicitly anti-family and designed to break social cohesion and encourage each of us to think about the primacy of our individual desires. In this new moral climate, the social bonds that were regulated through the various old institutions began to breakdown as loyalty shifted from society to the individual, so that the family, workplace and nation became a less stable and permanent feature of people’s lives.  In an absence of ‘meaning’ at this informal social level,  there is tyranny – the need for a strong state.  At the same time, this type of liberal, less-bonded society is more welcoming (or less unwelcoming) to aliens and outsiders – like Jews and other non-white immigrants – and it becomes easier for business people and multi-nationals to control and exploit the population.  All this was concealed beneath positivistic buzz words and terminology.  The Sixties was about ‘freedom’, ‘peace’, ‘democracy’, things that were in fact lessened and weakened.

One of the great symbolic movements of The Sixties was the agitation against America’s war in Vietnam.  The purpose of the Vietnam War was to quell the spread of a geopolitical movement that the United States called ‘communism’, but in fact was just a type of state-capitalism that happened to be antagonistic to the United States and its sphere of influence.  One group of Jews, the Bolsheviks, had seized control in Czarist Russia and established a new imperial and aristocratic system, based superficially on Marxist-Lenninist ideology and governed by a bureaucratic elite.  This was just another form of capitalism.  Another group of Jews, the liberal capitalists, had taken control of the United States and established a centralised system of financial control with notional market forces.  This was also a form of capitalism.  Both systems served the interests of Jews and rich whites, but used ideology and propaganda to encourage the fiction of popular consent, legality and justification.  The two state-capitalist systems faced each other in a bi-polar Cold War that was in fact just a part of the ideological and propagandist fiction used to trick and con people into accepting the moral legitimacy of whichever system they lived under.  The Vietnam War was a proxy war fought between these two superpowers.  The confrontation between the pro-war and anti-war movements were a microcosm of the deceitful play-off between the two power ‘systems’.  Rather than question the system itself, the elites sought to lead public debate into the limited avenues of either a pro-war or anti-war position.  Neither position challenged the system itself.  In fact, each position in its own way served to legitimise the system by giving the appearance that political dissent could be effective within capitalist societies and that capitalist governments could be responsive to popular movements.  That is why the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era was itself counter-revolutionary and conformist, and the ideological outcrops of The Sixties, such as militant feminism, are also counter-revolutionary and conformist.  They encourage conformity to the liberalism of the elite: the essential features of which are control of the masses through fantasy politics and false choices; fake opposition parties and movements; the control and manipulation of political language; and fake welfare paternalism, as a means of ‘buying-off’ potential sources of unrest, such as the unemployed.

Crucial to this propaganda system is the positivistic interpretation of political language.  Instead of examining and understanding what certain words meaning and assessing the system against rational criteria that relate to the substantive meaning, political language is treated as simply a pragmatic, man-made phenomenon without any social. moral or economic basis.  This allows liberal intellectuals to use words such as ‘democracy’ without any need to understand the basis of the term or its meaning or evaluate its usage and application to the actual political system or the actions of powerful people.  The word ‘democracy’ itself has at least two valid meanings. It can be seen as a double concept. There is the meaning that it carries in the West, and then there is its actual true meaning. The meaning that democracy carries in the West – its canonical meaning, if you like – is what is common currency in the media and institutions.  It is a mechanism to keep us ‘dumb’ because, in brief, it is a way of maintaining a hierarchy based on economic power, a truth that is hidden behind positivist buzz phraseology about ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’ and false notions of legality, such as ‘human rights’.  The questions are decided in advance and everything is stage-managed.  Whites are encouraged in their ‘liberal morality’ to assume the burdens of elite Jews and their white collaborators.  That is Western ‘liberal democracy’.  Actual democracy – its non-canonical meaning – bears no relation to this and is in most respects its opposite. This is the basis on which those whites who support UKIP are fundamentally opposed to people like me. I am willing to see the system for what it really is and face it head-on. They aren’t. They want to carry on living in a dream world and support politicians who wear the right rosette. This ‘democracy’ encourages a fanciful idea that you can somehow get what you want by putting an ‘X’ – the mark of an illiterate – in a box every few years. UKIP supporters seem to think that political leaders mean what they say and say what they think and that if we vote for something, then it will happen in the way presented. So, in this dream world, if UKIP say they want to ‘freeze immigration’, this of course means that rates of immigration will decrease or that support for UKIP will put pressure on politicians of other parties to support a decrease in the rate of immigration, or both. It doesn’t occur to these types of  people that ‘freeze immigration’ might mean that the rate of immigration increases. When UKIP say they want to leave the EU, the liberal mind swallows this because it is thought that the promise means literally that. It doesn’t occur to many people that in fact what this might mean is much the same relationship with the EU, in or out.

In my view, the purpose of political parties is to uphold the existing economic system, control public opinion and suppress dissent. Their role is to represent the interests of the powerful, i.e. people who own significant capital. They are not there to uphold the interests of the weak, i.e. us. That is the way the world works.  It’s what liberalism really is and really means. This reality is never admitted into discussion, because no-one entertains the idea that ‘democracy’ is a double-concept. The reason no-one other than a few Marxists want to admit this is because that: (i). would involve some independent thought; and, (ii). would involve an admission that most of us (including you and I) have been fooled. No-one wants to admit they have been fooled, so we keep going with this merry-go-round…fake elections and leader cults…demonising Poles and ‘Eurocrats’…voting for Purple Tories and Blue Tories…It’s like a bad soap opera: which is precisely how it is intended. It’s meant to distract you AND alienate you from your true interests. It’s not real politics. It’s just fantasy.

What is the way out of this intellectual morass?  What we need (among other things) is a racial morality, not a liberal morality.  We need to let go of the unfortunate, masochistic group tendency identified by Michael Moore and start thinking in terms of race.  The next time you feel like fulminating about blacks or the cost of welfare or some similar subject, remember that this is what the system wants you to do.  We are often told that we are weak and ‘they’ are powerful.  But the terms ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ are malleable. The only reason we are ‘weak’ is because we have been indoctrinated with that mentality. In reality, we are strong and the ‘powerful’ are in fact terrified of us. What is required is for people to reject these leader cults and the moral poison of fake liberalism and wake up to their own strength.

Down with Britain!

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1945, Britain, British, buzz words, capitalism, capitalists, Cold War, common law, deracination, deregulation, EU, Europe, far-Right, First Wave Nationalism, free trade, George Orwell, globalism, Israel, Jewish interests, Jews, labourism, Magna Carta, monarchy, nation-states, Nationalism, neo-thatcherism, New Europeans, Nigel Farage, Peace of Westphalia (1648), political language, pro-business, pro-capitalists, pro-globalist, pro-immigration, pro-Zionist, race, Race Conscious Revolution, racial sovereigntism, Second Wave Nationalism, Second World War, socialism, thatcherism, The Lessons of Leith, Tory Right, UK, UKIP, ultra-Zionist, Union Flag, Union Jack, Westphalian sovereignty, White Nationalism, White Race, White Republic, white separatism, White Sovereigntism, Zionist

china_2944000b

Down with Britain!

In a previous essay (‘The Lessons of Leith’), I outlined how political Nationalism in Europe and North America remains stuck in a kind of First Wave, in which the preoccupation is with traditional-style loyalty to old nation-states that are now all-but defunct for racial purposes.  The First Wave Nationalists cannot face reality. They still cling to the ideas and concepts of a diplomatic system that originated with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and that ended for all practical purposes in 1945 at the conclusion of the Second World War.  What was needed in the 1950s was a working class race-conscious Nationalist movement, grounded in socialism and labourism, and opposed to globalism.  Instead, what filled the void was the legacy concept of Westphalian sovereigntism, which staggered on in the shape of various far-Right movements, in defiance of popular views and attitudes and economic and geopolitical reality.  The far-Right assumed an exclusive franchise on Nationalism, and introduced a Zionist perspective and various Cold War-era pathologies.  The result has been 70 years of stagnation and false victories, to the detriment of the White Race and Western civilisation as a whole.  Rather than becoming the popular movement it should have been and had every right to be, Nationalism became associated with various marginal ideas that have no relationship to the interests of ordinary people.

The UKIP of Farage is just the latest unwelcome reincarnation of First Wave Nationalism, with its naive, xenophobic pre-War conceptualisation of ‘Britain’ as a rugged, independent nation-state.  Not that UKIP is actually a Nationalist party.  It just pretends to be when it suits.  In fact, it can be observed that, in reality, UKIP is – by its own admission – a neo-thatcherite free trade party.  The apparent paradox is unravelled when one examines closely who UKIP really are and who they represent.  UKIP is a vehicle for a revived Tory Right, with pro-capitalist, pro-business, pro-immigration, pro-globalist, pro-Zionist policies.  UKIP’s co-option of First Wave Nationalists is a familiar tactic designed to suffocate real race conscious opposition.  Its commitment to anything remotely nationalistic is superficial; its policy of ‘no more uncontrolled immigration’ is simply code for more immigration; its policy of free trade is code for more foreign intrusion into Britain, including cheap, non-unionised labour; and, its policy of withdrawal from the EU is a deceit: UKIP know that, even after ratification of secession in a referendum, it would take years for the UK to formally leave the EU, if not decades, and the single market would in any case remain a powerful and decisive influence for British exporters. UKIP is an example of what George Orwell referred to as ‘wind given solidity’.

When people ask me whether I am ‘FOR’ or ‘AGAINST’ UK membership of the EU, my response is normally something like this: DON’T CARE. It’s an argument for the elites (i.e. Jews and capitalists). I have no interest in their interests. I am only interested in my interests and those of my Race. If a sufficient conscious white majority were ever to arise in this country, then I have no doubt that the decision would be whatever is in the interests of the Race, that being all European people with whom we share kinship. The rest of it is just propaganda. In? Out? I’ll toss a coin if you like. Won’t make any difference to immigration. Not one iota of difference. I’m voting for myself, not your media fictions.

In the real world, if the White Race is to survive then we have to abandon our altruistic concern for the racial and economic interests of others.  It’s nice that ordinary whites are concerned for the economic interests of Jews, but we have no stake in whether the UK is ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the EU.  We need to start acting as a Race again.  We need a Second Wave Nationalism.  This time not based on parties, demagogues and personalities, but on nothing more nor less than racial unity and integrity: the Race as Nation.  What we need is a Race Conscious Revolution.  This Revolution will not be a single incident.  It will not be traceable to any particular group of people, nor to a particular time or place.  It will not be founded on any specific ideology or set of texts.  It will be a gradual, imperceptible shift in consciousness, maybe over decades, even centuries.  Much like the agricultural revolution, or the industrial revolution, it will mark the movement of European civilisation away from Jewish supremacy towards true white sovereignty.

I was born in Britain.  I was brought up in Britain.  I have spent the majority of my life here.  I am ‘British’, however I no longer accept that I belong to this made-up collective identity, ‘British’, that has been gradually deracinated into a set of meaningless buzz words and catchphrases.  So you can stick your Union Jack.  To me, it is fit to be burnt on the streets.  And you can keep your monarchy, common law, Magna Carta and all the other accoutrements of being ‘British’.  I reject them.  Not out of self-hatred or hatred for Britain as a place, but from a realisation of what Britain is racially and geopolitically.  It has become clear to me that Britain is controlled by Jews and collaborators with Jews – specifically, Zionists.  ‘British values’ mean Jewish values.  ‘British interests’ mean Jewish interests.  Even our opposition groups are under the control of Zionists and pursue Zionist agendas: some Nationalists have, in effect, become ultra-Zionists in that they believe in removal of Jews to Israel.   I, too, want the removal of Jews from my society, but I have no concern as to what happens to them after that or where they go.  That is their concern.  As long as Jews exist, the British state, in common with all Western nation-states, is a treason state and will remain in the control of a racial group other than whites, to the detriment of whites.  It does not deserve the loyalty of race-conscious whites.  But the solution is not to eradicate Jews or Judaism, nor to interfere in what happens in Palestine.  The solution is a New Europe: racial separation, once and for all.  That is why I say: Down with Britain!  Hail the White Republic!  Long Live The White Race!

The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles

12 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

'reasonable' Zionists, 1930s, affluent poor, affluent working class, American middle class, Americans, Andrew Carnegie, anthropology, anti-Zionist Jews, baby boomers, Barnett Janner, barrister, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Brian Leveson, British, capitalism, Capitalist Party, Cardiff, child abuse, compliance, conservatives, Dale Carnegie, dementia, democracy, emotional correctness, equality, EU, evolution, evolutionary psychology, fake anti-Zionists, financialisation, Friechrich Hayek, Great Depression, Greville Janner, Holocaust, homosexuality, House of Degeneracy, How To Win Friends And Influence People, How To Win Meetings, human rights, humanism, institutionalised paedophilia, Janner on Communication, Janner's Complete Letterwriter, Janner's Complete Speechmaker, Jewish phenotype, Jews, Labour Party, lawyer, legalism, Lenin, liberal-left, liberals, linguistic correctness, Lord Janner, Lord Levy, mass immigration, materialism, Member of Parliament, Milton Friedman, motivational psychology, Nationalism, New York, Noam Chomsky, Nuremberg standards, On Chairing, On Meetings, On presentation, paedophilia, Palestine, permissiveness, Peter Hitchens, Peter Mandelson, political correctness, politics, positivism, post-War economic booms, post-War generation, propaganda, protest, QC, race, racialism, Rainbow Nation, Rolf Harris, service industries, sexualisation, smiling, social politics, solicitor, steel industry, Stuart Hall, the Left, The Smiling Jew, The Unsmiling Jew, the West, the White Race, UKIP, Wales, White Race, workplace politics, YMCA, Zionism

article-2661711-1EE7103D00000578-875_634x456

The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles

Anthropologists think that smiling is based on an evolutionary impulse of some kind that has its origins deep in human history.  Opinion differs as to what ‘smiling’ meant, or what its purpose was, at different times.  One theory put forward is that due to our reduced canines, at some point smiling became a way of showing others that we are not a threat.  Smiling might also have been a simple gesture of submission.  Those who needed to join a group would have learnt to smile to show their submission and successfully integrate, while those who sought to express their dominance over others would refuse to smile.

Certainly in our society, one common strategy for ingratiation into a group or culture – be it the workplace or some social environment – is simply to smile.  Smile, smile, smile.  It is seen as a gesture of friendship, but from an evolutionary perspective, it can also be seen as a form of submission or compromise, needed for those who are genuinely submissive, but also by those who see submission or integration as merely a strategy for true dominance.  The opposite behaviour, refusing to smile, can work equally powerfully, but is also risky because it is more visibly dominant and transparent in its intent.  People who do not smile are typically seen as ‘anti-social’ or ‘unfriendly’.  They are a threat to the cohesiveness of the group because they do not follow group behaviour.  Of course, in certain situations, visible unfriendliness and other signals of dominance are a requisite of professionalism.

In his seminal motivational book, How To Win Friends And Influence People, Dale Carnegie had a great deal to say about smiling.  Here are some relevant excerpts from the book:-

“You don’t feel like smiling? Then what? Two things. First, force yourself to smile. If you are alone, force yourself to whistle or hum a tune or sing. Act as if you were already happy, and that will tend to make you happy. Here is the way the psychologist and philosopher William James put it: “Action seems to follow feeling, but really action and feeling go together; and by regulating the action, which is under the more direct control of the will, we can indirectly regulate the feeling, which is not.”

Your smile is a messenger of your good will. Your smile brightens the lives of all who see it. To someone who has seen a dozen people frown, scowl or turn their faces away, your smile is like the sun breaking through the clouds.

Actions speak louder than words, and a smile says, “I like you, You make me happy. I am glad to see you.” That is why dogs make such a hit. They are so glad to see us that they almost jump out of their skins. So, naturally, we are glad to see them.

I am talking about a real smile, a heart-warming smile, a smile that comes from within, the kind of smile that will bring a good price in the marketplace.

Carnegie was capitalism’s answer to Lenin.  The impact of his homespun philosophy is, I would argue, much more significant than anything written by a Friedman or Hayek.  He didn’t write this book for the good of humanity and he wasn’t sponsored by the League of Nations.  He was writing a book for business people.  You might almost say that it was a propaganda piece for the Capitalist Party (i.e. the political elite).  He began his famous motivational courses during a hiatus in the Great Depression of the 1930s, at a time when the future seemed more optimistic than later events justified, and when people were desperate for advice on how ‘to get ahead’.  Of course, as anyone who has travelled through reality knows, ‘getting ahead’ normally means more or less doing as you are told and colluding in the abuse and exploitation of others.  Carnegie’s innovation was to suggest that we should be nice while doing it, and actually really genuinely believe in it.  Thus we would be less likely to complain about it and take up arms against the Capitalist Party, the people that Carnegie was really writing for.

The advice dispensed by Carnegie still appeals to the type of person the Americans call ‘middle class’ and we British variously call the ‘striving classes’, ‘hard-workers’, the ‘affluent working class’, ‘White Van Man’, or whatever – people who want to ‘get ahead’.  Traditionally such people were, and still mostly are, white.  They are normally poor – ‘affluent poor’, you might say – but they share certain delusions, including an implicit belief in the system, or at least they are not as cynical about it as, say, a drop-out might be.  Their consumerism and almost fanatical belief in home ownership fuelled the post-War booms in the Anglo-Saxon economies.  I think it would be safe to say that I was brought up in this environment.  My parents were manual workers with few or no academic qualifications, and I remember being instilled with certain ideas, some of which were valid, while others I can see in hindsight represented ‘respectable deceits’.  I was pressured to pursue a ‘career’ and cautioned against dropping out or falling in with ‘undesirables’ or the wrong crowd.  These warnings, which were well-intended and contained much wisdom, nevertheless reflected a pining for respectability, and implicitly, a need among the post-War generation to put distance between themselves and their less materialist, less self-conscious parents.  It also reflected, I think, a basic existential fear about the collapse of society and thus the collapse of the material prosperity that the ‘affluent poor’ enjoyed.  This ‘materialism’ survives today and explains a great deal of what happens in mainstream politics.

Politics – whether the ‘social’ and ‘workplace politics’ of our everyday lives or the institutional forms – is the relational apotheosis of the Carnegie doctrine.  The way we relate to each other in different aspects of our lives tends to reflect a deep need in society for compliant attitudes.  A practical, seemingly trivial example of this would be the way in which any kind of vocal disturbance that disrupts the apparent equilibrium of daily life, whether a shouting match between a couple in the supermarket, or an impassioned political protest – will often prompt a response of visible shock on the part of onlookers.  Increasingly, people value an equilibrium of calm and compliance to counter the anarchy and stress of their daily working lives.  Extra-mural activities that are of no productive value, such as protest, dissent, anger, are being stigmatised as dysfunctional.  The archetype of the ‘angry white man’ – whether he is in a committee meeting or on a golf course – is offered as an unattractive example that we are urged not to emulate.

There is nothing new in this, to be fair – a need for compliance and group think is, to an extent, a reflection of innate human impulses – but what is new, at least for our time, is the way in which compliance and consensus are being fetishised. We must not ‘rock the boat’, cause ‘trouble’, give ‘offence’ nor do anything that might threaten ‘investment’ into our local areas.  We must all become Smiling Jews.  Society is being reduced to a series of transactions, in which human value is measured by a shekel.  This naive hyper-materialism permeates debate even among Nationalists.  UKIP has co-opted those whose real loyalty is to the ‘respectable deceits’ of the post-War generation.  In the end, they will do what is expected of them in the workplace, in the community and in politics, in the hope that they might be able to change the environment a little, make it slightly more favourable to whites.  This is done with the best of intentions, but it serves wickedness and evil, and in any case won’t work.  You know the drill by now – leave your troubles at the door and be ‘professional’, don’t rock the boat.  Smile!

The Smiling Jew that each of us sees in the mirror is just the more visible element of a deeper culture that has its hold on the West.  Those Nationalists who believe they can invent a counter-culture to reverse it and re-create a white society, or something like it, are mistaken.  What is needed is a new society.  The strategy must be separatism. The reason goes back to the nature of our real enemy.  Jews understand the difference between power and influence, and prefer the latter, using overt submissiveness and ingratiation as a strategy for racial domination.  Whether the Jew is Levy, Leveson or Mandelson, they do not overtly take power themselves – at least not the top positions  – but instead tend to act as hired hands, right-hand men, to the putative (white) leaders, using the influence this gives them to steer institutions and entire countries.  This strategy is partly self-selected, due to their natural physical unattractiveness, with the result that Jews tend to be obsessed with money, finance and capital, and are skilled in areas that require back room, bureaucratic ‘expertise’ – law, finance, administration, media production.  It’s how the Jew parasite survives, and the virus needs a host.

Liberalism, the ideology that Jews promote, is an ideal vehicle for this survival strategy.  It encourages whites to be ‘open-minded’, ‘tolerant’, ‘nice’ and so on – Smile!  It discourages conservatism, scepticism, criticism, dissent.  It is a concept, not a tangible enemy, and so cannot be fought easily. Meanwhile, the Jew hides skilfully among the host population.  Liberalism helps him to do this, as a society that is ‘open’ and tolerant of different cultures is less likely to single out the Jew, but the Jew also uses miscegenation for this purpose, a kind of physical expression of liberal values, so that subsequent generations of Jews increasingly resemble the host group phenotypically, while retaining their true racial and cultural allegiance. The crocodile smile of the Jew is a reflection of both his submissiveness and his dominance.  He submits to his host, the white society, knowing cleverly that this is the key to his true long-term domination.  In contrast, the white man’s smile is the signal of his final capitulation and submission to the Jew.  The white man as The Smiling Jew – the white man Judaised, finally – is what the Jew is really thinking when he gives you that crocodile smile.  Above all else, we, the workers, are to be ‘friendly’ and ‘smiling’ – a veritable Rainbow Nation of fluffy loveliness, all equal and tolerant.

Sometimes the Jew also makes use of the ‘unsmile’.  This is an indirect method of thought control using the manipulation of behaviour similar to the ‘smile’.  It is in fact an emotional corollary to the smile.  We are asked not to smile for our passport photographs, nor make jokes at airport security.  Official business is grim and serious and the authorities must not be laughed-at. There is also the emotional bullying inflicted on The Unsmiling Jew in that he must be seen to react to certain events in a po-faced way; he must condemn dissenting public figures harshly; he must agree with the treatment of certain forms of speech as a serious ‘crime’; and he must use only a licensed form of speech, widely known as political correctness. What people often don’t appreciate is how the term ‘political correctness’ is deeply misleading.  The notion is that political correctness itself is just a modern form of politeness and self-censure, a kind of legalistic application of language, a formality and almost harmless.  When viewed in that limited way, political correctness can indeed be seen as just an advanced form of etiquette for people who live side-by-side with others of a different culture.  In reality, the doctrine is of much deeper significance and importance.  A better term for it would be emotional correctness.  The Unsmiling Jew is the essential counterpoint of The Smiling Jew.  He is told what to think, feel and say, and when, and even why.  And he is made to feel guilty for his ‘incorrect’ feelings.  Above all else, it is not enough to comply, the individual must also be happy about it and if he is not happy – usually evinced by a smile, a penchant for meaningless chatter and gossip and an interest in mindless TV soaps and sport events – then he is viewed as neurotic and dysfunctional, a ‘weirdo’, an outcast.  So smile!  But be careful when you smile.

Meanwhile, you will notice that the Rainbow Nation’s commissars, the celebrity white traitors and Jews, and their various hired idiots in the media, the police, politics, law, business, and academia, your boss at work – honorary Jews in short – are all permitted to be stern and unfriendly.  They are, after all, the ruling class – or its collaborationist branch – and must express their dominance.  This dominance entails the imposition of new values on white society, some of them entirely alien.  We have already had to suffer the ignominy of homosexual equality, a sign of ‘civilisation’ the Jews tell us.  Now, it seems, we must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘smile’ in the face of the sexualisation of our children.  We are reassured that child abuse is never tolerated, but already we are seeing tiny glimpses of an emerging toleration.  Some people really do think that paedophilia is just another sexual orientation, rather than a psychiatric condition.  Typically, such people see problems such as homosexuality and paedophilia through a legalistic perspective.  They advocate changes in the law so that this or that ‘orientation’ can be normalised by legislative fiat. This legal permissiveness has taken place against the backdrop of broader economic changes in society, especially the financialisation of capital and the focus on service industries, which have reduced the industrial power of working people and led to the diminished role of men in society, and with it the weakening of the family.  The media and advertising industries have slowly crept into the sanctified realm of childhood innocence, like unwelcome stalkers in the night, intruding their profanity on ordinary people who tend to ape what they see in the imagery around them.  Permissive attitudes have played a role in increasing the opportunities for men to indulge base desires unchecked.  One undesirable result of this is an increasing role for the state in policing sexual conduct, with its courts acting as a kind of surrogate parent to an infantilised population.  Executive dominance over the legislature has also left the courts without their traditional independence and without any respect for the presumption of innocence.  The sexual perversion of the elite, stocked with homosexuals, and the infiltration by ethnic minorities, have resulted in a raft of anti-white legislative measures that have created a confused moral climate.

Against this background, a long-running scandal of institutionalised paedophilia and child abuse has re-surfaced over the last week.  What we are being asked to believe is that these allegations cannot be properly investigated or prosecuted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to missing documents and the memory loss of key witnesses and suspects.  One suspect is Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone.  It is an open secret that Lord Janner, a Jewish Labour Law Lord, is a suspected paedophile.  He has been investigated several times by the police for various child abuse allegations, but charges have never been brought.  When asked to explain this, a range of dubious excuses are brought forth by the police.  The latest announcement is that he will probably not now face criminal charges due to his ‘dementia’.  The Houses of Degeneracy – formerly known as Parliament – will go to great lengths to protect itself, but on this occasion it seems that Janner will probably not be thrown to the wolves as a distraction.  That he is a well-connected Jew and promulgator of Holocaust propaganda of course has absolutely nothing to do with it.  No such scruples were exercised for white men accused of paedophilia – Hall and Harris, being examples – and rightly so in that they were guilty, but they too are elderly, like Janner.  Only, they are not Jewish.

Janner himself is an interesting figure.  A lawyer and author, he is a sort of modern version of Dale Carnegie for the more sophisticated.   Titles of his books include On Meetings, On Chairing, On Presentation and How To Win Meetings.   His Janner’s Complete Speechmaker shows all the brutal self-analytical qualities of Carnegie.  This is someone who understands not just speech-making, but human beings as well.

“The first and last sentences of a speech are crucial.  The importance of a clear, resounding, and striking first sentence and a well-rounded peroration cannot be over-emphasised.  You must catch the interest of your audience from the start and send them away satisfied at the end.”  [p.5].

“Personalise your message.  Give your audience true incentive to listen.  Whet their appetites for the substance to come.” [p6].

Throughout the book, Janner warns against the perils of jargon and cliché, the over-use of the vertical pronoun, common verbal grammatical errors, how to deal with nerves, various social faux-pas and other ways that the amateur speech-maker might trip himself up.  Janner also likes the sound of his own voice:

“Part of the price of the pleasure of hearing your own voice is the need to endure the speeches of others.” [p131].

Unlike Carnegie, Janner was born into privilege and advantage, the son of Barnett Janner, a member of the House of Lords.  It is interesting that he has nevertheless developed an almost neurotic obsession, expressed through his books, with the finest minutiae of social advancement and success.  People of privileged backgrounds do not normally concern themselves with such things, except as a kind of commentary on the sub-culture among their own class.  It’s a subject that is normally the province of the more insecure and self-made.  It is tempting to think of Janner’s counterpart, Carnegie, the son of a poor Mid West farmer, as that kind of figure, someone who craved social acceptance through the pursuit of material success – a classic American 20th. century materialist, in other words – but Carnegie was more complex than that.  He did end up changing the spelling of his name to ape the great steel magnate (it was originally spelled Carnegey), but in the beginning he had innocent dreams of becoming an adult education teacher and then an actor, failing at the latter.  He actually fell into the more cynical area of motivational schtick, for which he would become famous, entirely by accident.  Out-of-work and homeless during the Depression, he decided to combine his liking for teaching and his skill as a salesman.  It is easy to see how a person in such desperate circumstances of poverty – in Carnegie’s case, he was living at a YMCA in New York – might have been driven towards a point-of-view that, if anything embraced the values of the system fanatically and ingratiatingly, including a kind of obsessive-compulsive interest in the details of human behaviour and the value of compliance and ‘getting on’.  The alternative – bitter rejection of the system – would have got him nowhere.

Janner, on the other hand, has never had this type of poverty to drive him, yet much like Carnegie, he seems to concern himself with how people can get on in life and the details of success and social acceptance.  Among his other titles are Janner on Communication and Janner’s Complete Letterwriter.  Coincidentally, I found the latter book years ago at a second-hand bookshop, at a time when I was involved in Labour politics myself and knew about Janner (though I’d never met him), and my first thought was: Why would a successful politician, barrister and QC want to write a scratty little book on letter-writing?  Now that I am aware of some unpleasant rumours about Lord Janner, my question widens to: What does Janner’s interest in writing ‘how-to’ books say about him?  What’s his psychology?  Appropriately, it’s a very Jewish question, so let’s employ some Jewish methods and start with the father.

The key to Janner might be found in his relationship with his father, Barnett Janner.  Although he has never suffered hardship, Janner will have had to cope with the pressure of being the son of a highly-successful, self-made man, who was a lawyer and Member of Parliament, then a member of the House of Lords, and held the position of President of the Board of British Jews.  All of these attainments ensured a high profile for his father, and thus the family, within the Jewish community.  Barnett Janner was not necessarily the scion of privilege, though detailed information about his background is hard to find.  He was born in Lithuania and his family emigrated to Britain when he was nine months old, where his father became a furniture dealer in Cardiff.  Barnett, having achieved on his own merits, would have harboured similar expectations of his children.  The pressure would have been considerable and might have been detrimental psychologically to his son, either pushing him into a life he did not want, or maybe turning him into an unpleasant, callous, single-minded individual.  Janner went on to equal his father’s achievements, becoming a barrister, an author, a Member of Parliament, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and then a peer. He became a Member of Parliament by taking over his father’s Leicester seat on his retirement in 1970.  Both were Labour politicians, and having succeeded his father, they were clearly close politically, both advocating Zionist causes. Zionism is Jewish geopolitical nationalism.  Zionists believe in the creation and sustaining of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Zionism is important to all Jews, but some oppose it, a larger number affect to oppose it, still more pretend to, a smaller number support it, and almost-all Jews in some way believe in it (whether they support it or not).  As a side-note, it is the case that some deeply-religious Jews are sincerely anti-Zionist and virulently oppose the State of Israel.  This is because they believe the existence of a Jewish nation-state threatens Jewish existence itself.  They prefer the strategy of maintaining Judaism as a tribe, rather than rely on a geopolitical entity that can be attacked.  However, that view is rather principled and esoteric and definitely in the minority.  In fact, most anti-Zionist Jews tend to be liberal-left types and insincere.  For the Jewish Left, opposing Israel is a kind of teenage reaction or rebel style trip – an example of this tendency is Noam Chomsky, who intellectualises liberal Jewish anti-Zionism, whereas in fact if you study his writings and statements closely, you’ll realise he upholds Israel.   This fake opposition is very important.  Another subtle tendency of ‘pro-Zionism’ disguised as something else is found among conservative Jewish writers like Peter Hitchens, an atheist who pretends to be a Christian and stern moralist and who paradoxically admits he is Zionist.  You might have noticed that he makes easy concessions to the Palestinian side in order to appear ‘balanced’ – a common tactic.

In order to ensure Israel remains in existence, it is necessary for Jews to bring influence to bear on Western governments, which can only happen if Jews are made to appear sympathetic to the West so that the interests of Jews (specifically, Zionist Jews) and the West are made to appear to dovetail.  They do this in various ways.  Fake opposition is deployed, as outlined above, to ensure that the parameters of contrary views and feelings are kept within certain limits.  Fake anti-Zionists like Chomsky often make heavy and dramatic use of abstract legalistic language – reference is made to human rights, Nuremberg standards, etc. – as a form of linguistic submission and ingratiation towards what are supposed to be Western ideas.  The method is in fact part of a strategy of dominance.  Hitchens, the ‘reasonable’ Zionist uses similar liberal parameters to judge Israeli actions.  Neither Chomsky nor Hitchens – nor other Jews who fall into their respective ideological camps – will mention the real reasons for Israel’s existence and its actions, which is the racial preservation and advancement of the Jewish people.

It’s important to note that there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral in this activity, in and of itself.  Jews have as much right to genetic preservation as any other group, and they also have the right to lie and trick us about it.  They can’t be blamed for this.  My purpose is to point out the deceit and its impact on European (white) civilisation.  What we see is a narrative presented in piously humanistic, liberal, ‘Western’ terms – a positivistic, legalistic narrative devoid of actual meaning.  If Chomsky, Hitchens & co. were actually intent on telling the truth, they would begin by admitting and accepting their own pro-Jewish racism, and they would point out what Israel is for and why its collapse can never be allowed to happen by any self-respecting Jew.  People like the Janners played an important role in this deceitful pro-Israel narrative, by advancing 20th. century British Zionism, a movement within Britain’s traditional institutions that persuaded our government to adopt policies favourable to Israel and to Jews in general.  The essential features were – Holocaust education, equality laws, joining the EEC and mass immigration.  A liberal climate in society is more favourable to Jewish survival.  The Janners’ loyalty was not to Britain, but to their race, the Jews.  In its own way, this loyalty was admirable, but it was also detrimental to the interests of indigenous whites.

We now come to the possible relationship between the allegations of paedophilia against Greville Janner, his politics and his strange penchant for writing self-help books.  Janner’s need for acceptance and pressure to emulate his father gave fuel to his ambition, but Janner was also part of a distinct and different racial group with its own interests that were, and are, separate from whites.  Janner, the racist and Jewish supremacist, inculcated in Jewish culture, steeped in the rabid Zionism of his father, a bitter contemporary of the Holocaust, sees white people as cattle that he can legitimately control, trick and deceive – and possibly also sexually abuse, though that allegation remains unproven.  Power is pursued for its own sake, of course, but also out of loyalty to family, tribe and race. In that respect, the Jews of today understand the survivalist importance of race and culture better than the whites of today.  Janner’s patronising attitude and his obsession with social etiquette and superiority to the cattle whites is encapsulated in his books, which are the projection of a complex.  With his didactic barbs about the minutiae of success, he taunts whites using the pettily repressive mores and norms of their own culture.

Unfortunately, most whites do not recognise the deeper motives in the behaviour of powerful and influential figures.  Institutionalised paedophilia, even if proven, will just be seen as the disgusting actions of individuals, not the degeneracy of an entire political system.  That’s because presentation is more important than the truth, something that Janner knows a thing or two about.  We whites are mostly social rather than intellectual as a race.  This has its advantages, but its downsides include the fact that we are easily manipulated by clever Jews.  Buzz words are more effective in diverting the focus of the average white than a detailed, truth-seeking scrutiny of the facts, even to the extent that the truth – the Jewish face that is staring back at us from the television screen – will be ignored in favour of the usual mantra: “democracy”, “human rights”, “equality”, “justice”, “fairness”, the language of the cynical, lying Jew.  The role of the white man is to smile back – or else.

The ultimate liberal shibboleth of our time is the Holocaust, that Greville Janner helped to invent and promote – first as a wartime Army investigator, then as a politician.  In The Complete Speechmaker, Janner writes:

“About the only time that deliberate exaggeration helps the presentation of a serious case is when that case is thin.  ‘If something is too silly to say, you can always sing it,’ says the operatic librettist. ‘If logic and argument are surplus’ says the skilled speaker, ‘then it is just possible that if you should loud enough, exaggerate sufficiently, thump with sufficient force, you may numb the minds of your audience.’ [p16].

I cannot, for the life of me, think what ‘Lord’ Janner must be referring to.

The question arises: how many ‘Janners’ must be publicised and how much of this sickening degeneracy must white people put up with before they begin to question the system more fundamentally?  When is the White Man going to stop smiling and become angry again?

Activism

  • 2033
  • Advance Scout
  • B.U.G.S.
  • British Movement
  • British Movement – Women's Division
  • British People's Party
  • Casa Pound Italia
  • Civil Liberty
  • English Community Group (Leicester)
  • English Green
  • Fédération des Québécois de Souche
  • Fighting Back – Todmorden
  • Free Speech For Nationalists
  • Golden Dawn
  • Golden Dawn America
  • Immigration Control Platform [Ireland]
  • Justice for Germans
  • Kleinfontein
  • League of the South
  • Legion Martial Arts Club
  • mosqueblock
  • NAAWP
  • National Action
  • National Action [Blog]
  • National Alliance Reform & Restoration Group
  • National Socialist Movement Britannia
  • Navigor
  • Nordfront
  • Northants English Welfare Society
  • Northwest Front
  • NS Outlook
  • Orania
  • Orania Movement
  • Pie and Mash Squad
  • Pioneer Little Europe
  • Project Nova Europa
  • Racial Volunteer Force
  • Redwatch
  • Salford Nationalist News
  • Second Vermont Republic
  • Shieldwall (Nationalist Welfare Association)
  • Shropshire Patriot
  • Sigurd
  • The Celtic People's Party of Ireland
  • The English Shieldwall
  • The Federation of South West Nationalists
  • The Immortals
  • The National Revolutionary Alternative
  • The New Tribe
  • The Springbok Club
  • The Steadfast Trust
  • United White
  • Western Renaissance
  • Western Spring
  • When The Internet Is Censored
  • White Genocide Project
  • White Independent Nation
  • White Pride World Wide
  • White Resistance Movement
  • White Rex
  • World Union of National Socialists
  • Young Wolf – BM Youth Section

AltWhite

  • Stuff White People Like
  • This Is Europa
  • Why I'm a White Nationalist

Anti-Antifa

  • Extract from 'No Retreat'
  • GableWatch
  • GableWatch [YouTube]
  • Gerry Gable
  • Nope, not Hope
  • Searchlies Magazine
  • Searchlight and Homosexuality
  • Searchlight for Beginners
  • The Nation Wreckers
  • UAF Bully Boys

Anti-Capitalism

  • Parasite Street

Anti-Labour Party

  • Labour Watch
  • Labour25

Anti-UKIP Sites

  • Because We All Bleed Red!
  • UKIP Uncovered

Archeofuturism

  • Archeofuturist
  • Feral Observations
  • Outside in

Articles

  • Alternative Right
  • American Renaissance
  • Black Gnosis
  • Candour Magazine
  • Counter-Currents Publishing
  • Culturalist Hub
  • Gothic Ripples
  • Krystallnacht
  • League Sentinel
  • Luke O'Farrell
  • Nation Revisited
  • National Vanguard
  • Nationalist Opinions
  • New English Review
  • Praxis Mag
  • Radix Journal
  • Renegade Tribune
  • Sobran's
  • Spearhead Online
  • Taki's Magazine
  • The Occidental Observer
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Quarterly Review
  • Theden
  • VDARE.com
  • White Aryan Resistance
  • Zuerst!

Blogs

  • 88FourteenWordPress
  • Achilles Blog
  • Albion My Way
  • Albion's People
  • Ana the Imp
  • Anti Oligarch
  • Anti-Semitic Nordicist
  • Ara Maxima
  • Behold the Hydra
  • Belfascist
  • Birmingham Nationalist
  • Caligula's Horse
  • Cambria Will Not Yield
  • Carlos the Casual
  • Carolyn Yeager
  • Cavatus
  • cigpapers
  • Citizenfitz
  • Commonwealth Contrarian
  • Critical Dissent
  • diggerfortruth
  • Diversity is Chaos
  • Diversity Macht Frei
  • Ehudwould's Blog
  • ElderofZyklon's Blog
  • Elm House Paedophiles
  • England calling
  • English Passport
  • European Outlook
  • European Resistance
  • Ezekiel 31 Army
  • Fallen Freedom
  • Fallout Shelter 7
  • Fascovereign
  • Fred On Everything
  • GalliaWatch
  • grizzom
  • Hail To You
  • Hammer & Anvil
  • Hardons Blog
  • Henry Makow
  • Independent British Nationalist
  • Ironlight
  • Jack Donovan
  • Living In A Madhouse
  • Local Rights
  • Majorityrights.com
  • Menticidal Medicine
  • Mindweapons in Ragnarok
  • More Right
  • Musing of a Durotrigan
  • Nanny Knows Best
  • National Socialist & Proud
  • Nationalist Sentinel
  • Nationalistfairmedia
  • Ne Ultra
  • News From Atlantis
  • Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
  • Niflson's Mind
  • Nilfson's Mind
  • Northern Voices
  • Northerntruthseeker
  • northstand66
  • NorthWestNationalists
  • Nottingham Patriot
  • NUFNS
  • Occident Invicta
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Once Upon A Time In America
  • Orwell's Picnic
  • Peter Quiggins "Killer Culture"
  • Qué nos ocultan
  • Radical Traditionalism
  • Raedwald
  • Rags Make Paper
  • Ravnagaldr
  • Richard Barnbrook
  • RotherhamPatriot
  • Sarah Maid of Albion
  • Sean Gabb
  • Signals From The Brink
  • Social Matter
  • Solicewatch 13's BOS
  • SolsticeWitch13's BOS
  • Songlight For Dawn
  • Songlight for Dawn
  • Southend Patriot
  • Stoke Patriot
  • Stop the Madness
  • Stuff Black People Don't Like
  • The Euro-Nationalist
  • The Flophouse
  • The Identity Forum
  • The Irish Savant
  • The Iron Legion
  • The Libertarian Alliance
  • The Lincolnshire Patriot
  • The Movement To Save Ireland
  • The Nationalist Correspondent
  • The Northland Forum
  • The Patriot
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Righteous Alliance
  • The Samuel Francis Letter
  • The Soul of the East
  • The Traitor Within
  • The Turner Diaries
  • The West's Darkest Hour
  • The White Way Home
  • Thomas Sheridan
  • Those Who Can See
  • Thought and Action
  • Thoughtcrime
  • Thulean Perspective
  • TribalismoBlanco.com
  • Truth For Germans
  • Truthseeker Archive
  • Ulster Dawn
  • Unrepentant British Nationalism
  • Victor Shannock
  • Viking Observer
  • We Must Be Mad!
  • West Midlands Nationalist
  • Western Destiny
  • What Do You Believe?
  • When I'm King
  • White Pride Online
  • Whitelaw Towers
  • Why I Left Sweden
  • Wonko's World
  • Your Freedom and Ours

Boycott

  • Halal Choices
  • The rogue restaurant guide

Christian Identity (CI)

  • Anglo-Saxon Israel
  • Fasxcovereign Welthanschauung
  • Jesus Was Not A Jew

Civil liberties

  • A Free Speech Primer
  • Fully Informed Jury Association
  • Getting the message?
  • Tackling Extremism In The UK
  • Twitter Joke Trial

Community

  • Leicestershire Community Voice
  • St. George's Committee

Conspiracy Web

  • Aangirfan
  • Common Purpose Exposed
  • Conspiracy Planet
  • Conspiracy Scope
  • Conspiracy Truths
  • David Icke
  • Fakeologist.com
  • Harry J
  • Ourenglanduk.com
  • Removing The Shackles
  • Stop Common Purpose
  • Take Our World Back!
  • the UK Column
  • The Vigilant Citizen
  • thecolemanexperience
  • UK Lockdown
  • WHALE

Constitutional Activism

  • Adask's Law
  • English Constitution Group
  • Fully Informed Jury Association
  • Our White Common Law

Creativity

  • Creativity Alliance
  • Creativity TV
  • RAHOWA!

CSE Scandal/Yewtree et al

  • 100 Paedophiles
  • Anorak on Cyril Smith
  • Clarissa Dickson-Wright on 'Miranda'
  • CSE Epidemic Map
  • Eric Hardcastle Investigates
  • Establishment paedophilia
  • Jimmy Savile & friends
  • Kengate
  • Leon Brittan
  • List of Child Sex Offenders
  • Paedophiles Run Britain
  • Paedophilia and Satanism
  • Rape in Pakistan
  • Royal Family & Paedophilia
  • spotlight on abuse
  • Tales From The Town Hall
  • The Death of the Life of Jimmy Savile
  • The Jay Report
  • The Miami Method
  • The Rape of Britain
  • The Rotherham Project
  • Thomas Sheridan on Savile
  • UK Paedos Exposed

Cultural Marxism

  • Australian Universities
  • Dr. Frank Ellis
  • European Knights Project
  • Far Left Watch
  • Multiculturalism and Marxism
  • Quadrant Online
  • Russian Church & Stalin
  • Sean Bryson
  • Sean Bryson Downloads Page
  • Smash Cultural Marxism

Dark Enlightenment

  • BAM! POW! OOF!
  • Characteristics of the Dark Enlightenment
  • Free Northerner
  • Moldbuggery
  • Neoreaction for dummies
  • Occam's Razor
  • Outside in
  • Outside in
  • The Dark Enlightenment
  • The Unpopular Truth
  • Unqualified Reservations
  • Urban Future (2.1)

Englisc

  • Englisc Gateway
  • Englisc Resistance
  • English Fellowship & Cultural Society
  • Regia Anglorum
  • Saxon Heathen
  • The English Companions
  • This England
  • This Is Our Land
  • We Are The English
  • White Dragon Flag of Anglo-Saxon England

Europhobia

  • Daily Nazi
  • False Nazi Quotations
  • Germany Must Perish!

Euroscepticism

  • EU Referendum
  • European Disunion
  • Practical Idealism
  • Praktische Idealismus
  • We Want Our Country Back

First Wave Nationalism

  • British National Front
  • Front National – France
  • New Zealand National Front
  • NPD – Germany
  • The National Party-uk

General Campaigns

  • Campaign for Freedom of Information
  • Coalition For Marriage
  • Discourse Institute
  • e-petitions
  • European Dignity Watch
  • Justice Denied
  • The European Citizens' Initiative
  • The Petition Site
  • The Really Open University

General Interest

  • Brilliant Maps
  • Frank Jacobs
  • Free Science Books
  • Fujiland
  • Letters of Note
  • MercatorNet
  • Steve Sailer: iSteve
  • The Algebra of Justice
  • Today I Found Out

Geopolitics

  • How The West Created ISIS
  • PNAC
  • SCG News
  • Shock Troops of Dystopia
  • World War III

Green

  • Blood and Soil
  • Ecofascism
  • Green Party anti-semitism
  • Independent Green Voice 2005 Manifesto
  • Sovereignty
  • The Green and the Brown
  • Tony Gosling

Info about Judaism

  • A History of Hebrew
  • Chabad.org
  • Guardian's Judaism section
  • Judaism on Stack Exchange
  • Study Talmud
  • Torah Institute

Investigative

  • Garbagegate
  • Rochdale's Alternative Website
  • Rotherham Politics
  • The Slog
  • uPSD

Islamoskepticism

  • 1389 Blog – Counterjihad!
  • Allah's Willing Executioners
  • Amil Imani
  • An Islamic Counter-Reformation
  • Answering Muslims
  • Arabic World and Science
  • Australian Islamist Monitor
  • Bare Naked Islam
  • Beer n Sandwiches
  • Bombing By Moonlight
  • Bulletin Of The Oppression Of Women
  • Centre for the Study of Political Islam
  • Citizen Warrior
  • Cranmer
  • Creeping Sharia
  • Defender of Faith, Guardian of Truth
  • EuropeNews
  • Gates of Vienna
  • Guardian Islam section
  • Index of Islamic Infamy
  • Infidels Are Cool
  • Info on Islam
  • Is Islam Good For Whites?
  • Islam in Europe
  • Islam versus Europe
  • Islam Watch
  • Islamo-Criticism
  • Jihad Watch
  • Jihad Works Both Ways
  • Jihad/Counter-Jihad & Politics: News & Comment
  • Kafir Crusaders
  • Militant Islam Monitor
  • MintPress News
  • Mosquewatch
  • muslamicrayguns
  • Muslim Rape Wave
  • Muslims in Britain
  • Political Islam
  • sharia unveiled
  • SIOE
  • SIOE [Facebook]
  • The Body of Truth
  • The Crusades v. Jihad
  • The Doctrine of Deceit
  • The Gathering Storm
  • The Jawa Report
  • The Muslim Issue
  • The Quran
  • The Religion of Peace
  • Tulisan Murtad
  • Vlad Tepes
  • Winds Of Jihad
  • Women Against Shariah

Jack London

  • Jack London Quotes
  • Jack London's Dark Side
  • The World of Jack London
  • To Build A Fire
  • Wikipedia

John Lash

  • Archon
  • Kalika War Party
  • Metahistory.org
  • White Genocide & The Archontic Infection

Judeoskepticism

  • 200 Years Together
  • A History of the Jews
  • A Letter To Amazon
  • A New History of the Jews
  • A World Without Jews
  • Age of Treason
  • Alex Jones is a Zionist Shill
  • Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.com
  • Anti-Zionist League
  • Ban Jews
  • Baron Bodissey and the Jew
  • Cardinal O'Connor's Yiddish Yarn
  • cj303addict
  • Colonial Jew
  • commandergoyim's Blog
  • Crush Zion!
  • Crush Zion!
  • DavidDuke.com
  • Destroy Zionism
  • Ducks and the Hens
  • Edict of Expulsion
  • Eight Homilies Against the Jews
  • Expel The Parasite!
  • Fake War
  • First Light Forum
  • Goon Squad
  • goybiscuits
  • Hereward The Wake
  • Hitler the Greatest Man
  • Irgun Hangs Two British Soldiers
  • Israel's support for ISIS
  • Jew Watch
  • Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany
  • Jewish influence on immigration policy
  • Jewish Intellectual Movements
  • Jewish over-representation
  • Jewish Rape Culture
  • Jewish Virtual Library
  • Jewish-Moslem collaboration
  • Jews & Immigration
  • Jews and Academic Freedom
  • Jews and the Black Holocaust
  • Jews and the British Empire
  • Jews as a protected group
  • Kevin MacDonald
  • Kill The Best Gentiles!
  • Krystallnacht Library
  • Laksin v MacDonald
  • Luke Ford
  • Maurice Pinay
  • Memes and Genes
  • Missing Circumcision
  • Molyneux Names The Jew
  • Morgoth's Review
  • Pedophilia and the Talmud
  • People Vs Banks
  • Prothink.org
  • Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
  • Review of Red Star Over Hollywood
  • Semitic Controversies
  • Semitism
  • Soiled Sinema
  • Stop Chasing Ghosts
  • The American Jew
  • The Anti-Semitism Scam
  • The Book of Ruth
  • The Culture of Critique
  • The End of Zion
  • The Fallen List
  • The Jewish Declaration of War
  • The Lie of Six Million
  • The Origins of the Jews
  • The Pseudo-Leader
  • The Realist Report
  • The Talmud and the Jew World Order
  • The Talmud Unmasked
  • The War on White Australia
  • The Wonder Rabbi and Other Stories
  • The Zionist Poodles
  • thechosenites
  • Timeline of Jewish genocide
  • Torah Stolen From Pagan Religions
  • Truths about Judaism
  • Vicar grovels to Jews
  • When Victims Rule
  • Who Controls America?
  • Who Controls America?
  • Why Jews Vote Leftist
  • Why Jews Vote Leftist
  • Zionism 101
  • Zionism Sucks

Light Relief

  • Billy the Heretic

Loxism

  • What is Loxism?

Mainstream

  • Financial Times
  • Forbes
  • Metropolis Magazine
  • News from the Kremlin
  • Pride's Purge
  • RT News
  • The Baffler
  • The Diplomat
  • The Salisbury Review
  • The Times

Manliness

  • Angry Harry
  • Guide To Feminist Nonsense
  • How to put a bitch in check
  • Manhood 101
  • MGTOW Manifesto
  • Sex-Crazed Justice System
  • The Art of Manliness
  • Women in the Military

Media Monitoring

  • Biased BBC
  • Crimes of The Times
  • Mediawatch-UK

Micropolitics

  • 21st. Century British Nationalism
  • Attempted Murder
  • BNP Problems
  • BNP Truth
  • Gangs and Counter-gangs
  • Matthew Goodwin
  • Memoirs of A Street Soldier
  • Spunk Antifascism
  • Spunk Library
  • Tim Hepple
  • We've Been Here Before!
  • White_Laces88

Music

  • Anglo Saxon
  • Combat Hellas
  • From the Ashes of an Empire
  • Saga
  • Saga
  • Thirty Day Notice

National-Autonomists

  • National-Revolutionary Alternative

Neo-Secessionism/Wehrbauer

  • Artaman: The Hyperborean Garden
  • Off Grid World
  • Urban Homestead

News Aggregators

  • DailyKenn.com
  • i On Global Trends
  • RedFlag
  • Silobreaker
  • The European Observer
  • The Madhouse Update

Pan-European

  • League of St. George
  • The Euro-Nationalist

Parapolitics

  • Lobster Magazine

Philosophical

  • dark ecologies
  • Hyperboreans
  • nihilism
  • The Journal of Nietzsche Studies
  • Urbanomic

Photo Sites

  • Demotix
  • Sigurd:Legion
  • Top Vacation Spots Ideas

Political Education

  • Beefcake's Bootcamp

Politics and Language

  • How To Write Plain English

Pro-White Businesses

  • Pro-White Market

Research

  • 2010 Census USA
  • 2011 Census
  • 2015 GE opinion polling
  • Academic Journals
  • Africa Do Business
  • America's Racial Segregation
  • Ashley Mote
  • Black Racism
  • BrainyQuote
  • Censorbugbear reports
  • Census Records
  • Citizens Report UK
  • Criminal Victimisation in the United States
  • Croydon Gang Strategy
  • Data Shine Census
  • DeadMalls.com
  • Defence of the Realm
  • Doing Business
  • England calling
  • Ethnic Crime Report (U.K.)
  • Ethology, Ecology & Evolution
  • Euro-Islam.info
  • EuroDocs
  • eurominority.eu
  • Europedia
  • Europol
  • Foreign NHS
  • Free Science Books
  • Gallup
  • Gallup Europe
  • Gang Violence
  • Global Research
  • Google Scholar
  • GOV.UK
  • Herpetology Notes
  • History Buff
  • Hogtown Front
  • Immigration Concern
  • Internet Archive
  • Interpol
  • Interracial Crime
  • Interracial Crime and Table 42
  • JayMan's Blog
  • JSTOR
  • JURN
  • Liars, Buggers and Thieves
  • Library of Congress
  • Marx & Friends in their own words
  • Migration Watch UK
  • Mintel
  • Modern Tribalist
  • Munich Personal RePEc Archive
  • Muslim Statistics
  • National Film Registry [US site]
  • New Century Foundation
  • Norfolk Insight
  • NumbersUSA
  • OCLC WorldCat
  • Office for National Statistics
  • Office for National Statistics
  • Police.UK
  • Questia
  • Race and Crime
  • Racial Violence in America
  • Racism globally
  • Rogues' Gallery
  • Scribd
  • Shadow Government Statistics
  • Space and Science Research Corporation
  • Statista
  • Statistics and Ethnicity
  • Taylor & Francis Online
  • The Decline of White America
  • The Fallen List
  • The Market Oracle
  • The National Archives
  • The UK Enrichment News
  • UK Census Online
  • UK Local Area
  • UKCrimeStats
  • Violence Against Whites
  • Weblens Scholar
  • WhatDoTheyKnow
  • Who Became A Nazi?
  • WikiIslam
  • Wikipedia
  • World Bank Group
  • WorldCat

Resistance

  • Arrested!
  • Aryan Vanguard
  • Battallion Azov
  • Campaign for Armed Self-Defence
  • Deep.Dot.Web
  • Fallout Shelter 7
  • Firearms UK
  • Home of the Psywarrior
  • Internet security & data protection
  • Modern Combat & Survival
  • MountainGuerrilla
  • Resist Cartoons
  • TV Licence Resistance
  • Underground Texts
  • White Aryan Resistance
  • White Resistance Manual
  • Zensurfrei

Revisionist web

  • Adelaide Institute
  • Big-Lies.org
  • CODOH
  • David Irving's Website
  • Der Morgenthau Plan
  • Dr Fredrick Töben
  • Exposing the Holocaust
  • Historical Review Press
  • Holocaust Denial videos
  • Holocaust Hoax Museum
  • How the "Holocaust" was faked
  • Inconvenient History
  • Institute For Historical Review
  • Jailing Opinions
  • Jan27
  • Lies Your Teacher Taught You
  • Metapedia
  • Ministry of Truth
  • Mourning the Ancient
  • Red Cross Exposes Hoax
  • Red Cross on the Holocaust
  • Scriptorium
  • The Heretical Press
  • The Leuchter Report
  • The Lie of Six Million
  • The Realist Report
  • The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax
  • TomatoBubble.com
  • Two Hundred"Six Million Jews" Allegations From 1900-1945
  • Veronica K. Clark
  • Weronika Kuźniar [YouTube]
  • whatreallyhappened.info

Science & Tech

  • Bioscience eLearning
  • CNET
  • ComputerWorld
  • Feral Observations
  • GigaOM
  • Improvisation Blog
  • Oxford Science Blog
  • Pando
  • Patrick McCray
  • Smithsonian.com
  • The Verge
  • ZDNet

Social media

  • John Londen on Facebook
  • LondenCallin [Twitter]

Swebola

  • Sweden and Multi-culturalism
  • The Sweden Report

Theoretical

  • 88 Precepts
  • A Theory of Civilisation
  • Alexander Baron
  • Arnold S. Leese, et al
  • Aryan Resistance
  • Aryan Unity
  • Aryanism
  • Basic Economics
  • Birdman Bryant
  • Black Sun Invictus
  • Books
  • César Tort's old blog
  • Colchester Collection
  • Colour, Communism and Common Sense
  • Coudenhove-Kalergi
  • David Hamilton
  • Don Colacho's Aphorisms
  • Erectus Walks Amongst Us
  • European Americans United
  • F.A.E.M.
  • Gnostic Liberation Front
  • Golden Dawn theory & praxis
  • Good Reads – White Nationalism
  • Hitler Historical Museum
  • Homosexuality: the facts
  • http://TheNationalPolicyInstitute
  • Infrastructure and Immigration
  • Introduction to Strasserism
  • JayMan's Race, Inheritance & IQ FAQ
  • John Londen's Book Reviews
  • JR's Rare Books and Commentary
  • Kai Murros
  • katana
  • La Griffe du Lion
  • Lawrence Dennis
  • Live The Dream
  • Mein Kampf
  • Mein Kampf [Easy Legibility Edition]
  • Michael Walsh
  • Might is Right
  • Might Is Right
  • Money for Nothing
  • Multi-culturalism as the White Holocaust
  • Multiculturalism & Culture
  • National Socialism: Vanguard of the Future
  • National Socialist Punk
  • National Socialist Studies
  • National-Socialism
  • National-Socialist Worldview
  • NS Bibliophile
  • OswaldMosley.com
  • Our Legacy Of Truth
  • Party Time Has Ended
  • Racial Nationalist Library
  • Regia Anglorum
  • Renaissance88
  • Revilo P. Oliver
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Save Your Heritage
  • Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology
  • StormWiki
  • Strasserism Online
  • Suprahumanism
  • The Absurdities of Multiculturalism
  • The Burden of Hitler
  • The Case for Germany
  • The Doctrine of Fascism
  • The Fascist Internet Archive
  • The Francis Parker Yockey Collection
  • The French Connection
  • The Hawthorne Effect
  • The Morality of Survival
  • The New Order
  • The New Tribe
  • The Prometheus Trust
  • The Prometheus Trust
  • The races of Britain
  • The Revilo P. Oliver Collection
  • The Revolt Against Civilisation
  • The Rise and Fall of the White Republic
  • The Rising Tide of Color
  • The Russian Revolution and the USSR
  • The Words of Adolf Hitler
  • The Young Hitler I Knew
  • Third Reich ebooks
  • Those Damned Nazis
  • Thule Seminar
  • Unity of Nobility
  • Ur-Fascist Analytics
  • Völkisch-Paganism
  • Wanted: Something to Dream
  • What The Founders Really Thought
  • White Autonomy
  • White Honor
  • Why Left and Right Should Unite and Fight
  • Yggdrasil's WN Library

Third Positionist

  • Final Conflict

Video & Audio

  • A Conversation about Race
  • ENResistNorthWest
  • Euro Folk Radio
  • I Am An Englishman
  • Ironwand
  • Kenn Daily
  • Michael Collins Piper
  • National Front Videos
  • Nazi Internet Videos
  • NewRightReloaded
  • Racist America
  • Radio Britain Online
  • Radio Free Northwest
  • Radio3Fourteen
  • ramzpaul
  • Red Ice Creations [TV/Radio]
  • Renegade Broadcasting
  • Sigurd Legion
  • Stefan Molyneux
  • Taliesen TV
  • The White Voice Network
  • TruTube.TV
  • White Rabbit Radio
  • WhiteRexOfficial
  • WP Radio
  • Zensurfrei Video Channel
  • Zionist Jews And The Evil Talmud
  • Zonne wende

Web Tools

  • 192.com
  • African BIB
  • Babel Translator
  • BabelFish
  • DigitalGlobe
  • dotsub
  • Keep Calm-O-Matic
  • MyBB
  • Online Alarm Clock
  • Pic2Fly
  • VisaHQ
  • wikia
  • wikia
  • Wix
  • XE Currency Converter

Welfare State

  • the void

White Charities

  • Kleinvallei
  • Mkadesh Farm Project
  • South Africa in Need

White Culture

  • A Pagan Place
  • Albion Magazine Online
  • Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic Studies
  • Brits at their Best
  • Brushpusher
  • English Heritage
  • Glyptoteket
  • Green Man Festival
  • Humanities360
  • In Our Time
  • Michael George Gibson
  • Mjolnir Magazine
  • myArmoury.com
  • Oxford Arts Blog
  • Rupert the Bear
  • The British Museum
  • The Hay Festival
  • The Revenge of Riff Raff
  • The Sealed Knot
  • Turner Classic Movies
  • Yggdrasil's Movie List

White Flight/White Migration

  • 'Geography of Hate'

White History

  • Forbidden History of Europe
  • History Extra
  • Map of Europe's Tribes
  • March of the Titans
  • Ten Thousand Years in Monkey Town

White Media

  • 14 Words Global Network
  • Balder.org
  • Daily Slave
  • Daily Stormer
  • Heritage and Destiny
  • Juno Newspaper
  • Lone Wolf News
  • Mad World News
  • Now The End Begins
  • The New Observer
  • The White Resister
  • The White Voice
  • Western Voices World News
  • White Information Network
  • White News Now

White Origins & History

  • Ancient Origins
  • Battle of Fulford 1066
  • Cotswold Archaeology
  • Germania – A Roman Province Too Far
  • How old is English?
  • Medieval Histories
  • Myths of British ancestry
  • The Fulford Tapestry

White Personalities

  • Lana Lokteff

White Products & Services

  • Doberman's Aggressive
  • EuropeanBrotherhood
  • Lana's Llama
  • Orania Business

White Publishing

  • Arktos
  • Black Front Press
  • Futhark
  • John Londen Books
  • Marshys Store
  • Noontide Press
  • Ostara Publications
  • Steven Books
  • The Barnes Review
  • Third Reich Books

White Scientists

  • Francis Galton

White Sovereigntism

  • Let's Have A Party

White-conscious authors

  • G. K. Chesterton
  • Ward Kendall

William Morris

  • A Dream of John Ball
  • William Morris Archive

Wotanism & Neopaganism

  • Creed of Iron
  • From the Talmud
  • Hávamál: Words of Odin
  • Odinia
  • Temple of Wotan
  • The Eddas
  • The Odin Brotherhood
  • The Odinic Rite
  • The Odinist
  • Thulean Perspective
  • Voice of Our Ancestors
  • Wyatt Kaldenberg

Archives

  • September 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014

Recent Posts

  • White Independent Nation (WIN): Genocide, Suicide, Treason & Hope
  • White Independent Nation: Liberal Psychosis (58)
  • White Independent Nation: The Truth (57)
  • White Independent Nation: The Post-Nationalist Vista (56)
  • White Independent Nation: Extinction & Hope (55)

Tags

BNP Britain British British politics capitalism child abuse Christianity Civilisation Conservative Party culture democracy equality EU Europe European Union Facebook far-Left far-Right fascism free trade Gaza George Orwell globalism human rights immigration internet Islam Israel Jewish influence Jews Judaism kosher nationalism Labour Party liberal-left liberalism liberals mass immigration Muslims National Action National Front Nationalism Nationalists National Socialism New Tribe Nick Griffin Nigel Farage political correctness political language politics pseudo-positivism race racial equality racialism Racial Nationalism racism Second World War socialism the Establishment the leader syndrome the Left the West the White Race Third World Tories UK UKIP web Western civilisation White Independent Nation White Nationalism White Neo-Tribalism white people White Race WIN Zionism

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy