Kangaroo Studies

Tags

'leader syndrome', Alderman Hatch, American immigration system, Andrew Marr, Antipodean, Aussies, Australia, Australian, Australian accent, Australian English, Australian-type points system, BBC, border controls, borderless free movement, Boris Johnson, Britain, British Establishment, British politicians, British politics, civic nationalists, class, consequential world, Conservative Party, conspiracy theory, Councillor Buckley, demonisation, Douglas Carswell, dumb whites, DUP, Enoch Powell, Establishment politicians, ethology, EU, EUSSR, feminists, general public, group, human migration, immigration, infantilism, Jews, Kangaroo Studies, kangaroos, liberal traitors, liberal West, liberal Western society, liberalism, liberals, LibLabConUK, London Mayor, marsupial, Marxoid Left, mass immigration, masses, Michael Howard, migration, mixed-racialism, mob (kangaroos), monsterisation, MP, Nigel Farage, non-white immigration, non-white populations, Northern Ireland, Northern Irish politics, nurses, Parliament, Pavlov, Pavlovian reaction, Peter Hitchens, points-based immigration system, political class, political infantilism, politicians, public, race, racial consciousness, racial integration, Schengen Zone, social reactionaries, society, stupefaction, the Establishment, the Left, Third World, Tories, traitors, UK, UK Parliament, UKIP, United States of America, US immigration system, Western civilisation, Western society, zero-consciousness

Kangaroo Studies

G’Day!  ‘Throw a shrimp on the barbie’, or whatever.  My Australian English is, alas, a little too stereotypical to convince anybody.  The cause of my lapse into Antipodean theatrics is the emerging evidence that, even in 2014, after almost 70 years of mixed-racialism, British politicians have not yet quite plumbed the potential depths of silliness, stupidity and ineptitude humanly possible when it comes to finding new and novel ways to distract the British public from the real issues in society.  Since 2005, when then-Tory leader Michael Howard first raised the matter as an electoral palliative in lieu of an actual policy, Establishment politicians across the political spectrum (including UKIP) have tried to convince the public that what we need to do to tackle immigration is emulate modern Australia and its so-called ‘points system’.

The latest high-profile, half-witted exponent of this emerging new field of study, that I will presumptively christen ‘Kangaroo Studies’, is London Mayor Boris Johnson, who shared his thoughts on this increasingly popular subject in an interview with the BBC’s Leftist mouthpiece Andrew Marr.  If Johnson’s performance in the exchange is anything to go by, I think it is safe to say that he is not much of an expert in Kangaroo Studies.  The galactic nitwit said that the UK needs a “points-based system” akin to Australia and America to control immigration, “or whatever”.  The interviewer, Marr, cast aside the usual journalistic impartiality and chipped in affirmatively:

“Sure…..you mean depending on education and skills being brought in, that kind of thing is what you’re after.”

Andrew knows Boris’ mind better than Boris knows himself it seems.  The two of them are also concerned about border control:

[Johnson] said: “It is not reasonable to have a situation in which you simply don’t know the numbers that are coming in.”

Of course, this is not the same issue as immigration, though the two matters are closely-related.  Arguments about border control, monitoring the number of immigrants and concern over borderless free movement within the EU are, I would suggest, more about media talking points than getting to the nub of the issue, which is really to do with race, capitalism and economics.

Governments, whether working nationally or co-operating supra-nationally, cannot control human migration flows effectively.  This is because mass non-white migration from the Third World to the West is the result of capitalism, globalisation and economics, and the acceptance of these non-whites as immigrants to the West is the result of a lack of racial cohesion within liberal Western societies.  The talking points recycled in the popular media about border controls, Marxoid Left-focused conspiracy theories, Jews, feminists, the EU…sorry, EUSSR….and whatever – while having some basis in truth, are more properly understood as childish distractions designed to occupy the minds of a febrile and infantile general public, including right-wing pseudo-intellectuals, who need abstractions to blame.

If politicians were honest, they would admit they have little or no control over these matters, and frankly do not understand the causes of immigration any more than they understand, or can control, the technical causes of weather.  But they aren’t honest. That’s because they’re not allowed to be.  The public won’t let them be honest.  Dumb whites want to understand the world in emotional rather than intellectual terms, and so explanations are disseminated by politicians, business people, policy-makers and so on that contribute to ignorance rather than understanding.  The radical new field of Kangaroo Studies is just the latest innovation in sheer silliness and stupidity, designed for the masses to lap up their own stupefaction.

A classic in the stupefaction genre is the latest missive from Peter Hitchens.  That’s because the purpose of Mr. Hitchens is stupefaction.  A ‘Huge Story’ “breaks” without anyone bothering to notice or remark on it, Mr. Hitchens tell us.  The ‘story’ is that politicians and their advisers and helpers have been lying to us for years about immigration.  What Mr. Hitchens doesn’t grasp is how the public are complicit in political dishonesty.  Lying is what politicians are for.  That’s what they are elected to do.  This is so that the average member of the public can continue to live in a kind of extended childhood rather than face up to real, dangerous political choices with actual risks and consequences that would have to be weighed-up and considered.  That is the essence of the liberal mind: an infantile desire to live in a consequence-free environment, in which choice is reduced to whatever feels good.  Mr. Hitchens – a liberal posing as a conservative – is not quite the apotheosis of the tendency, but his determination to distract his readers and stop them grasping the nettle is apparent.  Mr. Hitchens blames things on devious or naive politicians.  He monsterises and demonises individual political figures, thus encouraging the myth that the public should rely on ‘leaders’ to save them while also discouraging attempts to think about problems such as immigration in terms of a social system.  In Hitchens’ worldview, the key social issues are shorn of causation and everything is reduced to gossip and micro-conspiracy.

This type of perspective dominates public debate and permeates into the way that people think about society.  It’s common, for instance, for people to invoke the principles of Kangaroo Studies in their office or home discussions about immigration, saying that immigrants should be skilled and we only want people who come here to work and integrate and so on.  These talking points are the preoccupations of those who want to persuade the indigenous white population to vote itself out of existence. Yet interest in the new discipline of Kangaroo Studies is growing in popularity.  Here is an obscure Northern Irish councillor on the subject recently:

A DUP councillor has claimed that the Portadown-Craigavon area cannot continue to be “swamped” by foreign nationals.

Mr Buckley was questioning Alderman Hatch’s recent analysis that foreign nationals were “positive” for the town. “There is no doubt that people like doctors, nurses and care workers, plus highly-qualified technicians, are a great boon to the area,” he said.

“But there must be strict criteria and border control, and not the free-for-all that exists now. There should be points system – as in Australia – which would attract qualified personnel to the required and specialist fields.”

We already have a points-based system in the UK and we have operated this system for some years, since 2008 in fact.  Yet even senior politicians seek to continue this obsession with Kangaroo Studies.  A recent story in The Independent makes it clear that what UKIP and their new elected MP Douglas Carswell believe in is a skills-based immigration policy similar to that which operates in Australia:

Carswell states:

“…I agree with everything that Nigel [Farage] has said and we need an Australian-type immigration system.”

Australia’s immigration system uses a points system that requires visa applicants to meet minimum health requirements. Mr Farage has spoken before of adopting a similar system to control unskilled migration in the UK should Ukip ever win the general election.

He [Farage] said in July: “The Aussies have a points system and they say to come to Australia you must be under 45 years of age, you must have a skill or a trade that will bring a benefit to our country.

“They say if you have a life threatening disease, I’m sorry but we can’t accommodate you. They say if you have a serious criminal record we won’t have you […] This is exactly what we should be doing.”

So if you’re a skilled Nigerian banker, presumably you’ll fit in just fine with UKIP’s immigration policies. Better still, as Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth, you might even enjoy preferential treatment, if what some UKIP representatives have been saying is anything to go by.

The official basis of justification for a points-based immigration system is that countries have ‘skills shortages’, but I am suspicious of the notion. I believe that most immigration has more to do with the short-term needs of big business, combined with problems in the sending countries, rather than any need to address supposed skill gaps in the host population. I also find it difficult to believe that even a country like Australia has such a pressing shortage of skilled workers and professionals that it actually needs to import labour from other continents. Why not focus more on training the existing population? I believe that for a country such as the UK, the notion looks even more silly.

Enoch Powell thought we were so short of nurses, he started importing non-whites in great numbers, but we have a sufficient labour pool in this country for all manner of trades and occupations. We always have. The whole scheme is just a scam to save money, boost profits and destroy working class solidarity.  It offers the advantage for governments that most people will unthinkingly accept the idea that if immigrants are to come here at all, then they should be skilled because this, it is assumed, will make them more valuable to society.  Yet it is just as likely that the importation of skilled workers will create more problems than it solves, by causing friction in society.

No account is made of the aspirations of the indigenous white population, especially youngsters, who might want a trade or a professional career but are denied this chance because we prefer to import students and professionals to take their place. How many well-qualified young people in this country are being denied places at medical and veterinary schools and other prestige courses due to non-white immigration of students and professionals who have qualified elsewhere?

There are also implications for older people who are established in their trades and vocations and whose wages/salaries and livelihoods might be harmed by skilled immigration.

UKIP’s policy of a points system is a stupid policy designed to appeal to stupid people who want some justification for their innate liberalism and treachery. UKIP is a traitors’ party. It is a sugar-flavoured palliative for people who, deep down, intend to do nothing about the problems in this country other than say they are voting for a palatable-sounding party and “only want skilled immigrunts, innit“.

There is also the race issue to consider, arguably the most important issue of all.  Even if we were to accept that having skilled immigrants who address certain labour shortages is beneficial economically, this doesn’t address the social and cultural problems of introducing non-white populations into the West.  It doesn’t matter what skills the incomers have, if they are not assimilable and if immigration policies are not applied according to a racial template, then all we are doing is storing up problems for the future.

And don’t we have enough talented young white people who could qualify as doctors, nurses and teachers? I mean, really, does anyone think we are lacking for a talent pool among young whites?

The whole situation is completely ridiculous and politicians like the assorted idiots quoted above just exist to muddy the waters.  That’s quite apart from the fact that their objections to immigration – if the carefully-nuanced public utterances of the modern politician on this subject could be characterised as ‘objections’ at all – normally have a tacit anti-white basis, in that they centre around bullying white Eastern Europeans, who seem to be an easy and popular target, despite the fact that they are assimilable. I can understand and sympathise with the need to preserve discrete white ethnies and the ethnic integrity of traditional European nations, but we have bigger problems now: the masses of non-whites who will, in time, overrun Europe and wipe out Western civilisation and white identity for good.

The real Antipodean marsupial is famous for an ethological curiosity.  When angry or fearful, the kangaroo thumps its tail on the ground, sending the rest of its group (‘mob’) of kangaroos into frenzied retreat.  Britain is already a kangaroo country, dominated by its own frenzied mob of zero-conscious, Pavlovian, tin pot reactionaries, who scatter at the thump of the kangaroo’s tail because they have no racial or class-based understanding of society, nor any consciousness of the ‘system as a system’. Those who want to live in a real country should consider where their true loyalties lie. The proper loyalty of a rational, conscious individual is to himself and his own self-interest.  He should reject organisations and abstractions that do not serve him.  That is the first step to a world of meaning and consequence.  ‘Border controls’, ‘fitting in’, ‘points systems’ and ‘integrating’ are the preoccupations of the hordes of imbeciles who have not the courage for a life of consequence.

Bias Towards Whom?

Tags

17th. century, 18th. century, 4OD, BBC, biais, bias, Britain, British Broadcasting Corporation, British politics, broadcasters, Channel Four, civil service, Cultural Marxism, democracy, Dragons' Den (UK), far-Left, far-Right, Information democracy, Information Society, internet, Jewish influence, journalism, Left, left-wing, left-wing bias, left-wing revolutionaries, liberal bias, liberal-left, licensing laws (printing presses), Loyal Opposition, media, Middle French, Nationalism, newspapers, parliamentary licensors, Popular Nationalism, Potemkin Village, press, printing presses, Quixotic, Right, right-wing, Spectator (UK magazine), Tatler (UK magazine), television, The Apprentice (UK), Tories, TV, Undercover Boss (UK), web, Zeitgeist

Bias Towards Whom?

We often hear or read about complaints concerning the alleged bias of one mainstream media organisation or another. The BBC, for instance, is regularly accused of having a kind of ‘left-wing’ bias. Sometimes this allegation is broadened to all media in Britain, so that it is said most press and broadcast media have a general liberal or Left bias.

The reverse allegation is, of course, often heard from the Left, in that they claim the mainstream media is bias towards the political Right or is against the Left in various ways. Admittedly, most of us will readily accept that bias is a natural state of mind that is difficult to conceal when commenting on news or current events. We all approach comment from a perspective that is our own and a strong level of objectivity is difficult to achieve in those circumstances. The root of the complaint, then, is in the belief that those who journalise or report on what is happening in the world are expected to resist ordinary, base temptations of partiality. Perhaps unrealistically, bias is thought to be the preserve of commentary, while news should be gathered by a kind of Quixotic cadre of objective public servants who, idealistically, report what they see and nothing else.

Of course, the real world doesn’t work like this. We only need look at history. Bias in media has existed since the dawn of the first printing press. In the early days, the capital needed for establishing a serious and viable press was such that the technology was concentrated in relatively few hands. Naturally, great reliance was placed on the financial sponsor, with the result that only a narrow range of opinions were published and circulated from the first printing presses. This informal censorship, if one might call it that, later took on legislative form in the infamous licensing laws imposed by Parliament during the 17th. century. These laws restricted what types of opinions might be published and circulated. As you might expect, views that were hostile to the political elite of the day could be suppressed, and were often prevented from being published at all. It was only with the rise of the modern journalist trade during the late 17th. and early 18th. century that the liberty to speak freely in Britain took on meaning in the public space, as publications such as Tatler and the early Spectator emerged.

The modern equivalent of the parliamentary licensors and the wealthy print owners are the BBC executives and their counterparts in the private sector. The BBC executives often have close involvement in a variety of political and cultural activities outside their immediate responsibilities at the Corporation. The private sector media owners are invariably hugely influential figures in business and across society, especially in politics. Together they form a media and political class: class being the apt term, since they act cohesively, and consciously, in their collective interest. These people will generally tolerate only a narrow bandwidth of ‘acceptable opinion’, and it is within this Potemkin Village that the public is presented with its political choices, through newspapers, various online channels, the radio and the TV. These ‘choices’ are in fact largely a series of ‘false opposites’, the falsity being that on closer examination, it becomes apparent that almost-all of the political parties are presenting the proverbial ‘business as usual’ agenda, while minority views that might challenge the status quo are not permitted to find expression.

The emergence of the web as an alternative media is slowly threatening this domination by wealthy interests of news and opinion. The web is a means by which information can be disseminated democratically and on a mass basis relatively cheaply, but even with the rise of internet news and commentary, the economic structure of media still harks back to the wealthy print owners and their parliamentary licensors. The reason for the continuing struggle for ‘information democracy’ is the economic power of the media barons, who still have available to them ‘soft’ means of censorship and control. Their methods, tried and tested, include, inter alia, powerful advertising and marketing techniques; the use of propaganda to dissuade serious consideration of alternative viewpoints; the promotion of concision in broadcasting; the control of what is ‘acceptable language’; and the simple denial of airspace (or print space). The rudiments of this information control apparatus give a whole new dimension to the term ‘bias’. Its Middle French origin word, biais, meant a slant, slope or oblique. We see here also a possible origin for the term ‘spin’: i.e. the giving to favourable slant on events and news stories. In keeping with that etymology, and in spite of the web’s democratic potential, what is broadcast, published and consumed by the public day after day is still a slanted reality, a simulacrum in which a distorted, even alien, picture of the world is presented, yet a picture that at the same time uncannily reflects the priorities of our everyday oppressors: be they employers, official types or a hostile government. But what is all this in aid of? What is being protected?

We must remember that self-perpetuation is in the nature of a hierarchy. This gives rise to a variety of materialist expediencies, which we see manifested in everyday news about politics, and in the mundanities of our own lives. What the politicians and information managers wish to protect most of all is their own sinecures. It is the case that a wave of Nationalist support in Britain would imperil the livelihoods and material interests of a large part of the ruling elite. And we know that the same could be said about a rise in support for the extreme Left, which is anti-capitalist, yet we note with frustration and dismay the appeasement and co-option of the social liberal perspective by the Establishment, including mainstream media. The explanation for this must be deeper than mere cultural bias. There have to be materialist considerations at play. We can also observe that it is Nationalism – and the broader far-Right – that suffers most of the British State’s overt oppression, and while the far-Left does also at times receive its share of official attention, it is the far-Right and Nationalists that are openly reviled and despised by the British State, and also, significantly, among the mainstream media.

Does this overt biasing both against Nationalists and toward social liberal attitudes suggest a deeper, systemic partiality among media institutions? Or are the allegations of left-wing bias, levelled especially against the BBC, just another clever distraction that, when repeated by Nationalists, serve to take attention away from the country’s real problems? The monsterisation of the so-called ‘Left’ is an easy and clever way for the elites to distract attention. The Tories in particular enjoy the fact that those of a populist bent rail against the so-called ‘Marxist’ or ‘left-wing’ BBC while overlooking the destructive, anti-social and anti-national policies of the government itself, not to mention its ‘Loyal Opposition’. That most of the people who use the term ‘Marxist’ in this context have little or no idea what it means is hardly relevant. The point is that there is a need for a diversion, a scapegoat, and it must be plausible. And it is plausible that the BBC is infested with what is called Cultural Marxism. What exactly is meant by the phrase ‘Cultural Marxism’ depends on who is speaking or writing, but in non-academic hands the vague gist is that it is an extreme, socially-liberal type of leftism involving a wish for a more egalitarian, racially-mixed and internationalist society. Does the BBC support this sort of thing? Officially, the BBC is impartial. Unofficially, however, its various journalists, broadcasters and reporters do seem to promote a certain partial outlook, and while it is difficult to define precisely what that outlook is, we can say with relative ease what it isn’t. It is not socially-, morally- and culturally-conservative, nationalistic, or family-centred. In fact, it is uncomfortable with these things. But is it left-wing? The question, and indeed the accusation, are circular in that the Left are people and groups with a variety of different ideological positions. However, it is clear that when the issue of media biasing is addressed by Nationalists and the far-Right, then the Left is being defined as those who believe in, or prioritise, social, economic and racial equality. Few could or would disagree with that as a fairly inclusive description, if not a definition. We can include within it almost-all political groups that identify with the egalitarian Left culturally, if not ideologically, and propound equality as a good in itself. To what extent does the BBC align itself with this ‘ideology of equality’?

The evidence is mixed, but a clear picture does emerge. The BBC often broadcasts programmes that are deeply pro-business in character. We only have to look at ‘reality’ series such as The Apprentice, Dragon’s Den, etc. as a case in point, as they celebrate business and the vague idea that one must be competitive and cut-throat in order to ‘get ahead’. Then there is the BBC’s news and current affairs output, with items and stories that often have a pro-business focus. On the other hand, we can detect with the BBC an editorial slant that is equalitarian, in that stories and news items are selected that highlight certain issues. We see this in the BBC’s coverage of business issues. There is often a focus on the supposed pay gap between male and female workers, and the issue will be presented in a way that is favourable to those who believe that female workers suffer a raw deal. Coverage of the immigration controversy will be presented from an angle that highlights the business and economic benefits that migrants supposedly bring to the UK. Some programmes show a more overt editorial biasing. An edition of Countryfile in December 2012 highlighted the supposed ‘problem’ of a lack of ethnic minority people living in or visiting the countryside. That and other particularly egregious examples do suggest an equalitarian bias that is anti-national and anti-white in character, but to label this as ‘left-wing’ does not necessarily tell us a great deal. It is not that the BBC and its cousins in the media are institutionally ‘left-wing’. Nor are they institutionally ‘right-wing’, necessarily just because they produce pro-business programmes. That is not to let the Left (in both the Labour and Tory parties, and their cultural friends, etc.) off the hook concerning their failed policies in this country, rather it is to seek a closer understanding of precisely what is being propagandised and promoted through our media and why. Do these people really keep yapping about ‘equality’ because they’re all left-wing or involved in some sinister neo-Marxist plot? Or is the real reason more prosaic? We really need to ask the age-old question: Who benefits? A different, and arguably more accurate, way to summarise the situation is that the media, including the BBC, tend to be ‘metropolitan’ in attitude.

By ‘metropolitan’ I refer to the adoption of certain mores, norms and attitudes that are modish and reflect the lifestyle of those who might benefit from or look more favourably on a more liberal outlook in society. In British society today, we can see that a new ‘metropolitan class’ is emerging that could be likened to the patrician class of the late Roman Republic, occupying the strata of elite political, cultural and administrative posts in society and evolving into an ersatz Nomenklatura, with its own class signifiers. One such signifier is a distinct anti-plebeian attitude and an overt disdain for working people and their provincial mores and needs. A stark example of the phenomenon is found in discussion about immigration. A common provincial complaint is how problems with open-door immigration are not discussed in public, yet in truth, the subject is dealt with at length in public discourse. The difficulty is not in its absence from public discussion, but in the perspective from which it is dealt with, which invariably emphasises the priorities of both big business and metropolitan types, two groups that loudly welcome the ‘benefits’ of open immigration policies in the form of low-cost, pliable labour and cheap restaurants, etc. Likewise, in some ways it benefits the business class to promote the idea that all women are potential victims of ‘sexism’ or that ‘racism’ is widespread, as this encourages division and individuation in the workplace, as opposed to solidarity. If working people unite, they are strong – especially if they unite within effective unions. If, on the other hand, working people are encouraged to divide and becomes suspicious of each other, maybe also compete with each other for illusory ‘middle class’ careers, there is less a sense of solidarity, and the bosses are stronger. To an extent, these priorities manifest in open snobbery towards the ‘ignorant provincials’ who dare to challenge the established order of things. Insults such as ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘Nazi’, ‘red’, ‘commie’ and so on are a reflection of a class bias, with one class using verbal intimidation to block reasoned debate about its assumed privileges and the damaging and anti-social effect they have on the country-at-large. Simple class snobbery also plays its role. You might say that the provincials are the ‘workers’, while the metropolitans are the ‘bosses’ and the workers really should know their place and keep quiet. This type of attitudinal cringe is of course nothing new in Britain, but it is important to understand that class prejudice is not merely a cultural phenomenon, it is also economic in character – in other words, it serves a purpose, with a long antecedence into the traditional feudal economic structure of British, particularly English, society.

What we will also consider here is the interaction of basic socio-geography. Britain – particularly England – is London-centric, and this is reflected in the priorities of the media. In a more pluralistic society with diffuse and autonomous power structures, there might be more room for the provincial attitude to take root. Nevertheless, and despite superficial appearances offered by devolution to the sub-national level, Britain remains a heavily centralised society with its power structures concentrated in London. A ‘British media’ does not, as such, exist. What we have in fact is a London media that broadcasts to the entire country, adopting a metropolitan social, cultural and political orientation. In London, and among Londoners, the ‘anti-plebeian’ and ‘metropolitan’ values are pervasive because of what London is. It’s a metropolis. Its people tend to see things in metropolitan terms. That’s only natural. In fact, no matter how conservative you are, or think you are, if you lived in London you would over time begin to allow accommodations to the social environment around you. If you were sufficiently robust mentally, you could resist it to a degree, but not totally. Most media people either live or work in London, or both, and where they do neither, they still work for a media organisation that is London-centric in the sense of either being located in London or being under London-centric cultural influences, or both. Most successful media people also spend the formative years of their careers in the London media environment. However, the metropolitan mindset is only a tendency – so, there are exceptions, and there are ‘metro’ people who will flit in-and-out of the tendency and exhibit a more provincial or conservative mindset from time-to-time, depending on the issue. But to display a provincial, anti-metropolitan viewpoint consistently would require the journalist or broadcaster to rebel against his own paymasters. That is something that most journalists – and certainly nearly-all young journalists – will not do. The media are cliquely and McCarthyite in their treatment of their own, and will shun and exile professionally any journalist who does not articulate and repeat the Zeitgeist, and so understandably many journalists will not reveal their true thoughts or betray inner doubts.

Those of us outside London, especially those like myself who live in areas that are still traditionally quite conservative, working class and white-dominated, look at the goings-on in the ‘mainstream media’ with bafflement. The gossip and parliamentary tittle-tattle; the petty arguments over who said what on Twitter; the strange and fanatical crusade to purge racism among white people; the obsession with house prices and abstract growth figures; and so on. To the provincial mindset, none of this is particularly relevant or equates to the common experience, still less makes sense. Nevertheless, the circus rumbles on, on all channels, purveying the metropolitan, anti-plebeian perspective. Recently, on Channel Four (another, supposedly, ‘left-wing’ channel), we were treated to the dubious delights of a fresh series of Undercover Boss, a risible programme that infantilises and humiliates ordinary workers. The perspective of the programme-makers is deeply patrician. They believe implicitly that ordinary people are helpless and should not take responsibility for the material conditions in their working environment. Instead, they should look to their munificent ‘boss’ who, like a knight in shining armour, will come to the rescue to make their working conditions ‘fair’ and give a few quid to charity in the process. The picture is of ordinary people not in control of their own lives while carrying out difficult and arduous work that the ‘boss’ can’t do, yet the boss earns several times their salary. It’s fitting for a society in which selfishness and greed have been elevated to a virtue that is then crystallised in patronising workplace munificence; a society in which the ordinary worker is denied union membership and basic dignity; a society in which what matters is getting one up on the other fellow. Most of the participants in the series are low-paid and unskilled and not in any position to answer back to an impertinent boss who understands his own company so poorly that he needs a camera to follow him round while he discovers just how bad a manager he is and how good his workers are. I think it is safe to say that Undercover Boss is not a left-wing programme, though it may unintentionally fill the more astute Channel Four viewer with some very left-wing ideas as he or she angrily throws a shoe at the TV set and contemplates what they would do if they got their hands on the stupid boss being featured that week.

Our metropolitan media are happy for us to believe that they are simply a bunch of ‘left-wing’ revolutionaries, but the truth is not quite like this. What they – and their friends in politics – really are is the propaganda arm of an anti-social predator class in society. These modern ‘licensors’ are the mouthpieces of society’s capitalists, and just as in the 17th. century the parliamentary licensors did the bidding of their wealthy constituents, today the political and media class work against the people in pursuit of a self-enriching agenda. The BBC, in common with all broadcasters, is certainly biased. This bias may, from time-to-time, appear in ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ form, but its true nature is more complicated. You may be sure that the real bias is toward those who wish to maintain their profits at the expense of the people and will do everything possible to stop a Popular Nationalist movement arising. This is because in a Nationalist society the community will place the health, welfare and dignity of its folk above all else, and give its children a future – and the modern licensors will not be welcome. As we work towards that society, we may require from time-to-time policies or initiatives that resemble the Left or the Right, but are in fact Nationalist. That is our only bias: we are merely working for the interests of our own people.

_________________________________________________________________

This is the second in a series of articles I wrote last year for the White Independent Nation website.  Again, I stand by today what I wrote then, only I would probably be more explicit now about the role of Jewish influence in the media, whereas in the above article it is only hinted at very subtly.

A World of Meaning: Nationalism and New Europeans

Tags

absolutist sovereignty, alcoholism, avid Icke, Britain, British Mixed-Racial State, British Nationalism, British Nationalism versus White Nationalism, British politicians, British politics, British Treason State, Britishers, Conservative Party, critical Nationalism, drug dependency, Edwardian era, EEC, EU, Europe, European Union, Eurosceptics, Fate, inequality, Judeo-capitalism, Karl Popper, kosher nationalism, Member States, mixed-racialism, multi-culturalism, neo-communism, neo-Nazism, Neo-Tribalism, New Europeans, patriotism, Pioneer Little Europe, PLE, pornography, pseudo-communism, Racial Intentional Community, relativist sovereignty, Schumanisme, sovereignty, Tories, UK Parliament, UKIP, Uncritical nationalism, Welfare State, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, WIN

A World of Meaning: Nationalism and New Europeans

What vexes about Europe is not the notion of geopolitical unity itself – a goal most can support and subscribe to, if only in a vague sense – but rather why any Nationalist should oppose such a goal and instead maintain, against all evidence, adherence to the treasonous mixed-race nation-states that now govern the West.

I do not refer here, of course, to the more considered view expressed by some Nationalists that the European Union, as presently-constituted, is a detriment to our racial interest. While there are probative issues with this line of thinking and I doubt any serious discussion about cause and effect would bring clarity to the matter, the concern is entirely legitimate and understandable nonetheless. In blunt terms, it is said that the European Union is stripping the British nation of its long-held traditions of common law, liberty and popular sovereignty; that while the EU’s Four Freedoms have their benefits, the increasing migration of European peoples into Britain in revolutionary numbers is socially- and culturally detrimental and undermines the economic interest of the indigenous population; and, that the erosion of legal and political nationhood reflects a broader, sinister, agenda to undermine human indigenous identities in the interests of Judeo-capitalism.

Let me join that chorus and make it clear that I, too, disapprove of the European institutions, and though my views on the European Union are not unequivocal because I see some positive aspects to it as well, I do not like the negative aspects any more than other Nationalists. The matter, however, is one of seeing things for what they really are.  The E.U.’s modus, in its predicators, was a process of evolution, successively, from a collection of independent ethnic nation-states to a closely-integrated political and economic confederation, and that remains its goal and mode of action today. The line put about by British politicians in the 1960s and 1970s that the then-EEC was merely an international trade association was a simple, straight-forward lie, but simply to acknowledge that it was a lie does not promote any understanding and is not in itself an argument. The E.U. must be confronted for what it is. As a social and political experiment, it has demonstrated that a realistic consequence of serious, intensive co-operation at all governmental levels among closely-aligned nation-states is the incremental ceding of sovereignty, both informally through ad hoc social, cultural and economic relations, and formally and legalistically through legislative integration. This was to be expected, and could have been predicted, whatever the deceptions of the politicians. Sovereignty as an abstract may seem absolute, and it may manifest in absolute notions of state identity, but in reality sovereignty is necessarily relativistic in practice. The E.U. itself, and some of its apologist commentators, employ euphemisms such as ‘sharing’ or ‘pooling’ sovereignty, or words such as ‘integration’ and ‘co-operation’. These words all mean taking away powers from national institutions. They give the impression of an absolute attitude to sovereignty. In other words, they are used in such a way as to imply that a reserve of sovereignty remains with the Member State-donor, which graciously grants lumps of sovereignty to the foreign or alien body but can withdraw co-operation – and thus reclaim all its sovereignty – at any time. That notion has some validity, of course. It is true that, formally and practically, the relevant powers do remain with the national institutions and Member States can withdraw co-operation, and sometimes do. This absolute conceptualisation of sovereignty has been adopted implicitly by both supporters and opponents of the E.U., however it is represents a highly-misleading picture. A true understanding of the E.U. and its legal relationship to its Member States can only be gained if we see sovereignty as a fundamentally pragmatic concept, conceived-of relativistically.

We have already touched on the E.U.’s modus, which is a gradual accumulation of powers and supervisory competence to the European institutions. This represents a creeping movement towards the E.U. having legal integrity, a form of nationhood, in its own right. This, the E.U.’s true project, could not be successful without a pragmatic understanding of sovereignty among Europe’s various stato-nationalist leaders. The single currency project is the most overt and blatant example of this creeping statehood and ‘pragmatic sovereignty’ in action. More auspiciously, the E.U. has been successful in evolving distinctive competences in foreign policy, commercial policy, customs matters and fisheries, all of which transcend national boundaries to some degree of other: in the case of fisheries, radically so. This is the reality behind the idealistic pleadings of ‘sovereignty’, in both directions, from the E.U.’s technocrats, political personalities, supporters, enemies and opponents. Looked at historically, the E.U.’s modus is not innovative. In fact, it is entirely consistent with philosophic concepts of international law and stato-nationhood going back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. The reality is that the E.U. is consistent in development with established traditions of European legal, political and constitutional thought. This raises a number of questions and points that, at first sight, may seem perplexing in the mind of the ethno-motivated stato-nationalist dissident, and which have formed the backcloth of much political debate in Britain over the last few decades. Why would these ancient, ethnic nation-states permit an evolutionary process to enter into train that would involve the practical bleeding of sovereignty from their own institutions? How could such a project be carried out so harmoniously and contentedly, without significant resistance from stato-national political or economic elites and without rioting in the streets?

That the E.U. has been a harmonious alignment is because its various stato-national leaders – in both politics and business – have willed it, as this was their project. They would not have willed it to fail or fall apart. That the E.U. has, generally, achieved its intermediate objectives and remains on course for “ever closer union” among its Member States is a testament to its consistent success in attracting public assent or support throughout the various Member States. It is the people-at-large who wanted, or at least were willing to accept, integration (and thus, the ceding of sovereignty). This may be because they were misinformed – were “lied-to” – or it could be that they lacked other political choices, but they wanted or accepted these changes nonetheless. The point illustrates a reality that few stato-nationalists wish to recognise or acknowledge. Their usual response is to complain about the E.U.’s true agenda as if it is some conspiratorial secret, but it isn’t a secret. The true agenda has been out in the open from the beginning. Even so, the stato-nationalist diagnosis and the prognosis are correct and the complaint has an accurate basis; it is, in fact, the treatment prescribed that is harmful, if not dangerous, to our racial prospects. If sovereignty is pragmatic and relativist, and if the world is evolving in a way that reflects this, then the correct response is not to fight the rest of the world because of the way it is or the forces of history because of what they have led to and will likely lead to. That is a war that would surely prove futile. Flogging the poor old tired horse may be emotionally-satisfying, but it is hardly useful. What we need is a new horse.

Debates about the ‘evils’ of the E.U. in Britain are, then, a distraction. The fault – in so far as there is fault – for ‘problems’ with ‘Europe’ is with the institutions of Britain itself, specifically the UK Parliament. These are not European problems, caused by some distant, out-of-touch cartoon bureaucrats in Brussels or wherever, so much as British problems caused by people in London. This is true even on the terms of the ‘anti-E.U.’ politicians and agitators themselves. If we accept UKIP propaganda, then it is in the UK Parliament, for the time being, that reserve sovereignty is still vested. It is there that the necessary resolution would see us removed from the E.U., de facto and de jure, should that be considered desirable. When this point is made, the ‘Eurosceptics’ and anti-E.U. politicians reply that the ‘problem’ (whatever they define that to be) is not some foreign committee, but in fact that the political class in this country is out-of-touch with the population. There is, indeed, a political class in Britain, and they are out-of-touch, but even a remote elite must broadly reflect its population representatively. If there were a genuine desire to withdraw from the E.U. among the population, then by now we would have at least entered into serious negotiations to withdraw. The reason we have not done so is that there is no such desire. Not a serious desire at any rate, not in the country, not in Parliament and not in UKIP itself. Those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves on two fronts: first, they are deluded that the E.U. actually matters in racial terms, when in fact it is a side-issue and, at best, a distraction; and second, quite apart from the relative significance of the E.U., what is not grasped is that we have the type of society that disregards national and racial identity because the majority of people have either affirmed or acquiesced in the changes that brought about its existence, and UKIP – a globalist, right-wing, materialist faction of the Tory party – is a product of this general attitudinal climate. Do not mistake my logic for an affirmation of this country’s democratic credentials. I do not believe in democracy in the first place, nor do I accept this country is a democracy in anything but the most limited sense. However, even the most beligerent dictator cannot survive without either the tacit acceptance or acquiescence of his people – consent, in other words – and if we are sufficiently clear-headed to acknowledge this, then these difficult issues become easier to grapple with.

We are the foreigners in Britain: those of us who are racially-conscious that is.  Those among us who wish to preserve Britain politically must ask themselves what it is they are seeking to preserve. A mixed-racial, alien-infested hellhole perhaps? Or maybe the most unequal British society since the Edwardian era? Or perhaps what matters is preserving mass drug dependency, pornography and alcoholism? The reality is that Britain is not Britain. It is somewhere else, a sick, depraved, dysgenic society that cannot be saved, and those who, on any terms, call for its preservation are (consciously or otherwise) joining a different chorus, the fractured, dissonant clatter of our enemies who welcome all-sorts to their shebang. That is not to say that an idealised racial ‘Europe’ is the answer. We cannot instantly re-create the society that we want, and any concrete attempts to do so via remote country retreats and other sundry discursions will lead to nothing. What we must recognise is that though geo-demographics are crucial politically, what we are engaged in is not so much a territorial battle as a war for the human mind and spirit. Our destination must be ‘Nowhere’ in the truest sense. We are fighting for a future we will not see, but our contribution is critical – and the European identity of that future is inescapable.

‘Europe’ is a problematic word for Nationalists due to the association it now has with the discredited, pseudo-Communist excesses of the E.U. Yet a vision of the unity of Europe is entirely compatible, if not a predicate, for white racial survival. In that sense, as I see it, the difference between a British stato-nationalist and a White Nationalist is fundamental, and I do not accept that the two positions are complementary. There is a conflict between the pull of the invented nation and the reality of race, and increasingly as the British Mixed Race State shows itself to be treasonous as to race, that conflict manifests itself in so many ways so as to almost render the two positions opposite. Despite this, for practical purposes, a state of complementarity has continued within Nationalism for many years, so that British nationalists have worked alongside White Nationalists, and some have even adopted the claim of holding both positions at once. This unhappy marriage cannot continue. Those of us who are White Nationalists do not reject our British identity. Far from it, but nor is this merely a cold debate about political structures. It is true that we do not attach any significant weight to the current political construct that is the British State: what I call, the British Mixed Race State, a phraseology I use to emphasise the fact that the British State is mixed-racialist in its nature and purpose, and is thus anti-white. However, the difference goes deeper and can best to summarised by differentiating the terms ‘patriot’ and ‘Nationalist’. A patriot in the stato-nationalist sense is akin (to paraphrase Popper) with the ‘uncritical rationalist’. He accepts, worships in fact, the manifestations of absolute sovereignty. A Nationalist, on the other hand, is Popper’s ‘critical rationalist’. He confronts the brutal truth and dismisses idealistic notions of absolute sovereignty as an empirical nonsense. He accepts that sovereignty in the stato-national sense is pragmatic and relativist. He holds that the only sovereignty that matters is racial sovereignty. Accordingly, he treats the deceptive manifestations of absolute sovereignty with cold expediency. When the nation-state no longer serves its purpose, the Nationalist gathers together his worn tools and builds up a new Nation. That is what we Nationalists must now do.

Some would say that the issue between British stato-nationalists and White Nationalists is insubstantial and semantic, in that it’s all nothing more than how one defines a ‘Nationalist’. I disagree. It is not merely that I am free, if I wish, to define ‘Nation’ in racial terms. It is that the term ‘Nation’ has no meaning unless it is defined racially. The idea of mixed-racial nations, Singaporean administrative units for the management of human populations, is as sinister and nonsensical as it sounds, but I must acknowledge the reality that the choice of the alternative has been taken from me. The British population voted for this Westphalian perversion, this Rainbow international legal order that hides behind idealistic myths of absolute sovereignty. They want this. That we few, the Nationalists, want a quite different world in which human beings have strong indigenous identities, and that we see such a world as a precondition to human dignity and freedom, is a point completely lost on our uneducated fellows. To them, we are: “Nazi!”, “Racist!”, “Misogynist!”, or whatever is the in-term. There comes a point when one must acknowledge that the horse is well-enough flogged, and it so happens that this horse is comatose. The historians of the future will be startled to find that the cause of the horse’s condition was not some tragic accident or sinister plot sprung by malicious crypto-Jews acting in league with David Icke and a council of lizards. The explanation is more prosaic, and less comical. The horse lost its spirit. It laid down to die. This truth must now be confronted, coldly and soberly.

If our nation cannot be Britain, then we must lift our sights higher. Our Nation will be Europe, i.e. a White Nation that is a white European community of whatever geographic location, and that is cohesive in the racial sense. The petty ethnic and linguistic divides within the White National Community that once swayed masses now amount to little, for the majority who were charged with the eternal task of assuring our genetic destiny have set their course, a road to a cosmopolitan Nothing in which ethnoism is a deracinated construct. This cosmpolitian world will be as cold as the pavement outside. It will be a world in which everyone is equal, and therefore everyone is nothing; a world in which everyone is, truly, a citizen of the world, and therefore a citizen of nowhere: alas, not the Nowhere that William Morris had in mind, but instead a Nothing kind of Nowhere in which each person will live a life of softened servitude. I refuse to join that journey into spiritual obsolescence, and as it is Europe that is the ancestral homeland of our race – the greatest people to walk the face of the Earth, the White Race – then those of us who remain of the pre-Modern mind, of the visceral racial consciousness, must set a quite different course, towards a world of meaning, towards a New Europe.

The modus of the New Europeans will not be some crude Schumanisme, an extension of the existing civic Europe. Ours will be a New Order, a New Tribe, but we need a means to get there. What I propose is that Nationalists now turn the greater part of their efforts towards community-building strategies that are explicitly race-conscious. In North America, wonderful efforts are underway to create Pioneer Little Europe communities. In Europe, we must iterate this brilliant movement, but we must do so in a way that is more appropriate to our distinct civic, social and political environment. I therefore propose a new concept, Racial Intentional Community, which honours our debt to PLE and to a large extent simply replicates it, but which also reflects the more communitarian, social and fascistic philosophical basis that we, the Nationalists of Europe, wish to see in our societies, on our Continent, including here in Britain. Let us confront the choice that faces each of us.

Arguments among friends are often the most brutal, as a reading of the history of various white civil wars will show. There are times when friends must, bitterly and tearfully, part for the good of the whole. We have arrived at such a moment. The white race is stood on the precipice of destiny. One day it will be our very survival that is called to the dock of Fate. In that trial of fire and steel, Mother Nature will look on with withering contempt at those who do not accept the imperatives of genetic and racial perpetuation, and She is remorseless. There is no room for the liberal mentality of seeing both sides of it, of having it forwards, sidewards and backwards. There is survival and there is extinction, and now each of us must choose. What we are witnessing is the beginning of the making of that choice. A critical but necessary schism is appearing in our milieu. It will be a slow but sure separation of the true, racially-conscious Nationalists from the reflexively racist ultra-Tories and national chauvinists clinging to the comforting wreckage of the British Mixed-Race State. The latter are now a dead-weight due to their inability to evolve politically. A significant minority of them were never sincere racialists in the first place, rather they masqueraded as Nationalists, often due to a psychological need to wear the black hat. These obstinate ‘Britishers’, whether purblind, reactionary or just plain stupid, will now take their rightful place among the ‘racially liberated’ masses, happy to be appeased by whichever right-wing puppet the Establishment throws up from time-to-time. By contrast, those for whom the bottom line is, and always will be, race – the Nationalists – must forge a new future as New Europeans. For these few, the nation-state is a transient construct, a means to an end that can be adopted and discarded coldly according to the expediencies of racial survival. We, that small minority, who are conscious of our racial destiny, must come to the painful mental acceptance that the most cherished patient has finally croaked, and while it certainly deserves – and will one day receive – a dignified burial, wrapped in its own Union Flag, we are set on Fate: Britain as a political entity must now be left to die, lest it brings the entire white race down with it.  A New Europe must arise!

__________________________________________________________________

Note: The above is an article I wrote more than a year ago for the White Independent Nation website.  I still hold to the views expressed in the article.  My only quibble now would be over the terminology, in that I think the word ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Nationalism’ needs to be abandoned by white-conscious people if we are going to make progress.

The Morality Problem: liberalism as a white construct

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

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.

UKIP and the Enoch Powell Cult

Tags

David Cameron, democracy, direct democracy, Enoch Powell, EU, free trade, immigration, Labour, multi-culturalism, Nationalists, political buzzwords, Powellite Conservatism, referenda, The Enoch Powell Cult, the Farage Cult, the leader syndrome, the Powell generation, Tories, UKIP

UKIP and the Enoch Powell Cult

UKIP is, in my view, a continuation of Powellite Conservatism, and its most visible aspect, the Farage Cult, is a pluperfect example of the ‘leader syndrome’ in operation.

The salient points are these:-

– the debate/discussion on immigration is fraudulent and managed;

– initiatives from parties (including UKIP) that encourage the impression they are interested in ‘democracy’ are only further extensions of this fraud;

– referenda and other forms of direct democracy change nothing because the questions and issues are decided in advance;

– UKIP’s leaders and backers have no interest in controlling immigration in any meaningful way, as that would be against the interests of the people they really represent, but they have no scruple about giving the opposite impression;

– UKIP’s support for global free trade and its supposed opposition to the EU are code language that it is in fact anti-white and pro-capitalist;

– political buzzwords and phrases have multiple meanings: ‘democracy’ means different things in different hands at different times. The same applies to ‘controlling immigration’ and ‘freezing immigration’, which could mean more immigration or less immigration;

– the historical myths around Enoch Powell are of significance to politics today because they influence Nationalists in clinging to democratic solutions that do not work [Powell held to the thesis that democracy would solve the problem of ‘multi-culturalism’];

– in reality, democracy as it is presently constituted is the problem, not the solution;

– the ‘Powell cult’ has given birth to various ‘democratic’ (i.e. anti-white) parties, including UKIP, which is essentially the activist Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party and a legacy of Powellite Conservatism;

– the longer Nationalists cling to leaders, the longer we will have to wait for a real solution – ‘Farage’ is a drug like heroin, and some people need a daily dose;

– finally, the support for UKIP and other Powellite solutions betrays a double naivety about democratic-style politics: first, that when you vote for something, you get it (which is hardly ever true in reality); and second, that choices are framed in the way that you want them to be, which is a backwards way of looking at history when in fact history is played out forwards. The ‘Powell generation’ knew what was coming, but they would never have presented the choice to the British public on racial terms, and they would never have allowed that choice;

– the ‘dumb’ white British public can see that they have been thoroughly conned, yet they carry on their dialogue within the same existing political solutions: Tory (UKIP) or Labour? Powell (Farage) or Cameron? Etc., etc.