Category: UKIP

Twin Stupidities: “White Sharia” and Ethnonationalism

Against “White Sharia” and the ethnonationalists.

Stop judging me, “movement.”

I’m bringing up this amusing (but true) post again, which is relevant to some of the points I make below.

“White Sharia” – juvenile jackassery that only the Alt Right could produce. Put me down as a misogynist who believes in patriarchy and who also believes that snarky memes derived from alien cultures are utterly moronic. “White Sharia” violates Sallis’ Shiv: “movement” freakishness should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

By the way, AltRight.com probably needs to deal with the SiteLock problem. I’m assuming they’re aware of it; if not, they are now.  I know some of them read this blog. Some of your readers can’t access your site – at least the ones who don’t change their VPN settings.

Speaking of that site, it’s amusing how the ethnonationalist retards are getting their noses bent out of shape over Spencer’s analysis of a very clear and obvious issue.  Yes, British nationalism put all its eggs in the UKIP basket, yes, UKIP lost its raison d’etre after Brexit, and, yes, Brexit hasn’t actually solved any of Britain’s racial and cultural problems.  And, yes, I remember that I was strongly in favor of Brexit – but for the same reasons I supported Trump.  Both Brexit and Trump in and of themselves are useless; however, as bringers of chaos against a destructive status quo, they’ve been useful.  And, of course, the EU as it currently exists is an anti-White disaster and it needs to be deconstructed.  But the idea that “Polish plumbers” (who of course don’t belong in the UK) are in any way the real existential problem is absurd.  Brexit itself solved nothing, the emphasis on Brexit and the UKIP damaged genuine British nationalism, and the whole sorry tale is yet another blow against the ethnonationalist narrative.  Ethnonationalism and mainstreaming – two failures.

I also get real enjoyment over that tired old paradigm that the failure of nationalism in America vs. its “success” in Europe is due to the “unworkable” pan-racial White aspect of American racial nationalism vs. the “grounded” ethnonationalism in Europe.  Err… first of all, given what’s happening in Europe, the migrant invasion and terror attacks being the most obvious examples, the fact that nationalist parties in Western Europe have gone from one failure to another is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the ethnonationalist approach. Second, the difference in success of America vs Europe (to the extent that it is true that nationalism is more advanced in Europe) is mostly due to:

1. The pathetic freakishness of the American “movement” that repulses people of all White ethnic backgrounds, and the fact that the American “movement” is hardly pan-European but openly despises a significant (minority) fraction of America’s White population (the problem is more that the American “movement” is not for all Whites, not that it is).

2. De facto social pricing (America) is more of an impediment to nationalist organizing than is de jure “hate” laws (Europe).  Johnson and Le Brun discussed this on a podcast and I agree with them.  Now, yes, I’ve been adamant that the “hate” laws in Europe must go, and that they are an impediment, but social pricing in America is a far bigger impediment. Wide-ranging soft totalitarianism deters more than narrowly applied harder totalitarianism.

Thus, if (1) the American “movement” was reformed, and (2) a way was found to counter-act social pricing, you’d quickly narrow the gap between American and European nationalist organizing.

Advertisements

Der Movement in Der News, 6/9/17

Build the tribe.

After this example of memetic appropriation, at AltRight.com, we see the startling revelation that hatred of Trump by the Left is essentially hatred of Whites.  That sounds familiar. Where may we have read that before?  Oh wait, here at this blog; for example, from Feb. 2016.

If the Alt Right is going to be great savior of the White race, it may be helpful to actually generate some original content other than that of yelling about “Pepe” and “Kek.”

Getting back to the 5PT article at Counter-Currents, we see this excerpt of a hostile comment:

Contrary to the author’s hypothesis, polling shows most whites are not in favor of mass immigration, suggesting they are wary of their own demographic replacement. The feeling of being invaded and replaced will only continue to grow as mass immigration continues unabated, until the issue becomes red hot. The problem is that our politicians, as usual, are moving far too slowly for those of us who already demand action. Immigration and demographics need to be made a major campaign issue in our elections, which will lead to parties making it a campaign promise to reduce immigration — and we need to hold them to it.

Most Whites may be against mass immigration, but they sure don’t vote that way when they have the chance to vote for even mainstreaming ethnonationalists like Le Pen and Wilders. Politicians moving far too slowly” – who?  Who has been elected?  Only the fraud Trump, and we all should have known better.  Polls are useless if the alleged opinions said polls represent neve become actualized into electoral victories or any other concrete real-world manifestation of White backlash.

In any case, both sides of this debate don’t seem to realize that “building our tribe” and “taking back our nations” are not incompatible or orthogonal to each other. It would seem that tribe-building is going to be a necessary prerequisite to nation-taking, and if the latter fails, then having the former around will allow the White tribe to survive (and possibly make new attempts at nation-taking in the future).

We need to do both the nation-taking (it’s too early to give up completely on that, despite the current grim reality) and tribe-building. And it’s the tribe building that needs to be the predominant focus, since it serves not only to aid nation-taking, but it also lays the groundwork for an effective strategy if the “take back the nation” efforts fail.  Tribe-building is the underlying foundation for a wide variety of overlapping efforts.

Note the comments about UKIP’s silk roadism and about “British Asians.”  I agree wholeheartedly with Spencer’s pan-European vision.  Delenda est ethnonationalism!

A Double Fail for Mainstreaming, 5/17/15

Sigh…

Read here.  For all quotes, emphasis added:

And I am saying this from a unique perspective as my grandfather was of Indian origin. Although I don’t present as Indian, I am obviously not 100% British.

So, first, this prominent fellow active in the UKIP and British “far-Right” mainstreaming politics is of part South Asian origin and is a “self-described British culturalist.” Second, he’s the one (!) criticizing the UKIP for being too liberal on race, immigration, and the “JQ.” Thus, he’s being interviewed by The Occidental Observer for his “further-to-the-right” perspective on the UKIP. Never mind his mischaracterization of WN as being unconcerned by ethnically alien European immigration to the UK. Instead, we get:

An organic assimilation of people we hand pick to move into our country is very different than encouraging mass immigration as our government have done for decades. If I had my way, I’d close all the borders and repatriate anyone who wasn’t able to, or refused to assimilate. We’d only take immigrants deemed culturally assimilable.

Like South Asian Hindu immigrants, I presume.

At this point, should we laugh or cry?

Mainstreaming News, 5/11/15

Jack Sen interview, part 1.

This is a useful antidote to the UKIP cheer leading of the “work within the system” types at VDARE.
There’s much of interest. We see a description of the disgraceful episode in which a predominantly White English audience berated Griffin for championing their own rights; the typical “lower than omega” behavior often described here.  More important is this description, by Sen, of what the UKIP is really about (emphasis added):

Much like the Labour Party, UKIP relies upon societal discord to peddle its policies and candidates. Although people on the ground, with a genuine love of country, are buying into the ‘Take Back Britain’ message UKIP is peddling, I am not convinced the people running the party care one bit about this country. 

If UKIP were to come to power, they’d push a domestic agenda similar to Margaret Thatcher’s, highlighted by deregulation, privatisation, crony capitalism, and the implementation of policies that for all intents and purposes prey upon the disenfranchised, albeit nostalgically portrayed working man. I recognized that quite early on and it’s part of why I started to have issues with the party. 

UKIP’s intentions to privatize the National Health Service, frack our beloved English countryside, sell us out to their cronies in the City (equivalent of Wall Street), cut taxes for the wealthiest Britons, kill ‘mansion’ and inheritance taxes while reducing public sector expenditure, never sat right with me. This is even before I recognised how cosy with Jewish organisations UKIP were. 

I suppose a fair comparison would be to your Republican party, who appeal to working class Whites to get elected but systematically oppose their interests once in office.


The comparison with the GOP is key. Just as “appealing to the center” and attachment to Big Business Interests destroyed the Republican Party as a vehicle for genuine conservatism, so is “mainstreaming” destroying nationalism as a vehicle for promoting the racial interests of the indigenous population. We see the same fraud, the same dishonesty, the same instrumental use of sociocultural issues to attract middle-class and working-class Whites to support predatory capitalism, and we see the same cynical leaders who could care less about race and civilization. And, finally, the infiltration of Jewish interests, to finish it all off.

All of this is not a “bug” of mainstreaming; it is instead a key feature.  What mainstreaming does is break down the barrier between tactics and ideology, between means and ends. If you portray yourselves as aracial conservatives, peddling some sort of watered down cultural and constitutional patriotism, then you will not only attract “moderate” mainstream voters, but you will also attract “moderate” leaders and political candidates.  You will attract big money supporters who want to make the “facade of moderation” become actualized as core party ideology. In summary, instead of tricking more moderate voters to support a radical party, you end up tricking more radical voters to support a moderate party. Sen’s experience is that the core UKIP voters seem farther to the “right” on race and immigration than is UKIP leadership.   Sound familiar? Thus, GOP voters oppose amnesty and mass immigration, while the leading GOP candidates and the party machine embrace immigrants, legal and illegal alike.

When you mainstream, means become ends, and the original ends are lost; the leadership forget, or pretend to forget, what those original ends actually were. In America, we end up with Hispanic Jeb and his illegals who invade “out of love,” in the UK, we end up with “far-Right nationalists” who think that brown and black “commonwealth immigrants” are A-OK. It’s a big joke and the joke’s on us.

Mainstreaming News, 4/17/15

Will the UKIP under perform?
Someone at The Occidental Observer thinks so, and some of the reasons why reflect that party’s mainstream conservatism, free trade fetish, and protestations about not being “racist” (*).  Thus, another “fail” for mainstreaming, more time wasted, more diversion of effort and resources. Eventually, mainstreaming will be recognized as a failure; unfortunately, by the time that happens, we will all be several steps closer to our collective racial doom.
*On the other hand, the author cites the fear of being “racist” a reason for folks not voting for the UKIP.  Then the author critiques the UKIP for being weak on non-White immigration. At first glance, those two assertions seem contradictory – voters won’t support a non-racialist UKIP and at the same time they won’t support the UKIP for fear of being deemed “racist.” However, things are more complicated than that.  First, there are different groups of voters. There are some who, at the current time, would never vote for a “far-Right” (labeled by the media) party, regardless of how mainstream; these are those voters scared by the “racist” label.  Then, you have a second group, folks who could be core supporters of UKIP, who don’t care about the “racist” label, but these folks will get disgusted by the UKIP because that party is, in reality, not “racist” at all. So, the UKIP falls in between two stools – it loses the faint of heart because of media labels, and it loses the stout of heart because of their actual policies.  Then we have a group of voters who are, at the individual level, of two minds – these same people are at once afraid of “racism” but tired of immigration and they could in theory be persuaded to vote for “racists” if they thought it could end the personal suffering they experience from mass immigration.  But why go through the trouble of supporting the UKIP if that party accepts “high-IQ” Asians and others?  When you have a party with an incoherent ideology (typical for mainstreaming), then you can expect incoherent responses from voters.

More Mainstreaming: Meet the UKIP

The real immigration insanity.

The insanity of our immigration rules means that a second-generation Briton wanting to bring granny over for a wedding—still less if they want to get married to someone from abroad themselves—will face huge difficulties, yet they will see an open door to immigration to anyone from the European Union. [Applause.] 

Now does anyone, left or right, genuinely support an immigration system where we turn away the best and brightest from our Commonwealth, people with links and family here, in order to make room for unskilled immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. [Applause.]

Now, certainly, Southern and Eastern Europeans (who are, as we know, always “unskilled”) do not belong in Britain, the homeland of the indigenous British peoples.  Any Euro-Federation must include internal, as well as external, migration barriers.  But – guess what! “Second-generation Britons (sic)” and their “grannies” don’t belong in Britain either, and the idea that “skilled” Commonwealth Asians and Africans (sic) should get immigration preferences over Europeans (if one is forced to make a choice) is madness. The UKIP is merely a cogelite kosher conservative operation, apparently favoring South Asians and Nigerians over the wops and hunkies.
Say it loud and say it proud: anyone who supports “mainstreaming” is the enemy of the White race. And the UKIP are a bunch of anti-EGI colored-loving lunatics.