I recall visiting Joe Sobran’s site some years ago and coming across a remark to the effect that the very existence of ethnic Europe is an unbearable reminder to the races flooding our lands of their existential inferiority, and our destruction is the only means by which they can look at their reflection in the mirror. It’s a sentiment I’ve seen since many times on the nationalist internet. It certainly explains why, when one finds oneself in conversation with a non-white, the will to racial supremacy is always presumed to hide behind all our words. It does no good to explain that the racial separation we seek cannot, by definition, afford us opportunities to oppress anybody. Those nationalists who have concluded that the animus is felt too deeply for the foreign to ever release its grip willingly are doubtless correct.
That leaves us with two options. Persuasion or more persuasion. More persuasion would be messy. We must hope that just persuasion, allied to political power, is enough.
So I wonder whether there isn’t some advantage to be got from a discourse of global freedom to accompany the gesture towards the door. After all, the fear of European racial supremacism is fifty years out of date and counting. It is the totality of the Money Power, with its favoured political, business and “ethnic” actuators and clients, which is the coming oppressor.
And if this idea doesn’t chime too much with the Third World colonisers – and it probably won’t – it must offer something to that emotional constituency among our own kind described by Desmond Jones on the Pastor Manning thread thus:
The Anglo-Saxon, being the highest trust society, is able to extend his sympathy not just to his own, but men of foreign nations, men of all races and finally, all sentient beings.
OK, don’t get stuck on the Anglo-Saxon thing. A beautiful but costly empathy is common to all Europeans, and my interest here lies only in the utility of the notion that ethnic Europe is the last bastion of freedom for the world as well as for ourselves. After the Olam Ha-ba of a European panmixia there will be nothing. Liberals who cannot comprehend why our race matters to themselves might perhaps comprehend why it matters to the rest of the world, and thereby find a reason to allow the justice and morality of its survival.
So we would say to them: you must try to understand what is at stake, and what Nationalists are really trying to do. You just can’t get past the racism thing now. But you must. Whether you like it or not, we have to separate from our replacers so that ethnic Europe survives and can take down the interest groups which seek to enslave us all.
Just a thought.
Posted by Guessedworker
Have you had the feeling, as you trawl the big news stories for meanings pertinent to our cause, that we are witnessing right now, in 2011, the unfolding of something extraordinary, something that cannot be mapped in advance, that may change the lives of billions of people, including ours, before its energy is spent? Adrian Hamilton of The Independent certainly has. He writes in yesterday’s rag:
Events in the Arab world and in Japan are clearly particular to themselves. But the sense they have given of an old order that has run its course, that no longer responds to the feelings of its people, are not unique.
Consider the list of complaints – corruption that enriches the few and oppresses the many, political systems (democratic as well as autocratic) that have lost the confidence of the population, industrial solutions that cannot cope with catastrophe. They are common cries of much of the world.
If the one dominating factor of events today is their unpredictability, then it would be foolish to predict where they will end up. We don’t even begin to know. But the one thing I am sure of is that history is on the move, and we’re only just at the beginning.
There is something in Hamilton’s idea, I think – at least as regards the Islamic world. One of the commenters to his article weighs up history’s options thus:
One path leads to tyranny, despotism, corruption and violence. The other to chaos, anarchy, corruption and violence.
… and this also is probably a fair appraisal of the way the two tectonic plates of North African and Middle Eastern politics – modernism and traditionalism – are disposed. But is there anything in this relevant to our situation, above and beyond the very general assumptions that inform Adrian Hamilton’s thinking? Marine Le Pen certainly thinks so, judging from the quote I reproduced a couple of days ago:
We’re in a pre-revolutionary situation here. What’s happening today resembles what was happening before the French revolution. I think the desire for a revolution like those on the other side of the Mediterranean exists here. Of course, I’m appealing for a democratic revolution – and that’s also perhaps the role of the Front National – for a peaceful revolution by the ballot box, a patriotic revolution.
Where Hamilton with his unpredicatability thesis and Marine with her pre-revolutionary situation differ is on the question of time. Nationalists know something about revolution. We have been thinking on the problem for a long while. We understand that the opposing tectonic plates on which our lives are lived out – racial community and individualism/economism – move at certain moments, and not necessarily with the peaceful results for which Marine appeals. The American Civil War was perhaps the classic example. The rise of Hitler and NSDAP was another. The Kosovo War was the most recent.
So, following (Adrian) Hamilton’s Rule are there signs in the European world that history is on the move at last? Or is it just that the drive towards the Globality is pushing on and in turn nationalism, in its struggle to resist, is getting things a little more right with Marine, Wilders and associated civic and anti-Islamist politicos? In other words, the pressure is continuing to build but there’s no sign of any European earthquake, and no matter what happens in North Africa and the Middle-East our historic moment, if it is going to come at all, will come in its own sweet and, one must hope, demographic rather than geological time.
A small disagreement has arisen over the casting for the creakingly long-running ITV crime series, Midsomer Murders. The essence of it that the series, which is set in a rural idyll of middle-class gentility “somewhere in England”, naturally enough employs an all-white cast. The lead actor is being changed, and the series sexed up. But the skin colour of the actors remains all too white.
Well, the executive producer Brian True-May, 65, was interviewed by Radio Times and duly challenged. “We just don’t have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn’t be the English village with them. It just wouldn’t work … I’m trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don’t want to change it.”
The result has been a minor media frenzy, and the production company, All3Media, has rushed to distance itself from criticism by suspending True-May. The Daily Mail readership is probably closer to the viewer profile for Midsomer Murders than any other English rag, and its reader-vote on whether True-May should have been suspended records a 91% “No”. But it was one reader comment posted at 1.00 am tonight on the thread to Cristina Odone’s piece at the Telegraph that really caught my eye. It is by “Henbane”, and here it is:
I grew up in inner city Manchester (where I was the only white girl in my class), and have lived in West Yorkshire and more recently Leicester. A couple of years ago I moved to a small market town in East Anglia. Before this I had thought myself a multi culturalist, I was so used to being surrounded by people of many ethnicities, and often being the minority myself.
But having moved to an area with practically no ethnic minorities (one Indian family and one Chinese family run restaurants here) I have changed my mind. I feel far more relaxed here. Apart from the low crime rate and well behaved children there is such a feeling of community and belonging here.
Although I am an incomer to the area, I feel I belong here far more than any of the multi ethnic places I have lived in previously. It feels like one integrated community, not a town with many different communities. I have no plans to ever leave, it feels like home.
Nazis and Chinese, Palestinian Jews and Americans
by Alexander Baron
Back in the 1990s I spent a considerable amount of time reading the entire backfile of the Jewish Chronicle for the Nazi era, mostly but not exclusively at Colindale. Although I skimmed over a lot of the advertisements and local news, I read and took in most of the significant stories from 1933-45. Actually, I went back to the 1920s and beyond, and forward into the 1950s and beyond the other way, but the story with which I am concerned here appeared in the issue for October 25, 1935. On page 9, an editorial called Scrap the Transfer Agreement! made one of the most bizarre claims against the Nazis I have ever seen.
No, it had nothing to do with “gas chambers”, not at this early date, nor with pogroms, nor was it the usual whining and wailing about how wonderful are the Jews and how everybody has it in for them. No, it was something much more profound than that. The wicked Nazis were accused of engaging in a most sinister plot to undermine Palestinian Jews … by subsidising them.
Here is the offending paragraph:
These tainted German goods are often being sold … at … far below cost price, thanks to the German export bonus; and the infant industries of Palestine cannot compete with them. Worse still, the Transfer Agreement, by forcing Jewish merchants and commercial houses to buy or sell German products on pain of financial ruin, and at the same time offering substantial advantages for such practices, is … debasing the life of Palestinian Jewry.
I found the above passage so bizarre that I had to re-read it several times. We all know the Nazis had it in for the Jews; let’s leave World War Two out of this. Jews were progressively excluded from the professions; they were subjected to social ostracism; anti-Semitic propaganda … but the one “crime” of which the Nazis were surely not guilty was subsidising their colony in Palestine.
What is a subsidy? Broadly speaking, a subsidy is a sum of money paid by a government to a body – a company, an institution, etc – in order to reduce the price to the consumer or user. However, the word can be used in a broader sense. For example, some companies subsidise their staff canteens, or offer their employees special terms for certain of their products or services – a staff discount. One of the many complaints levelled against supermarkets today is that in some instances they sell alcohol below cost in order to attract custom, ie they subsidise it.
Subsidies are widely perceived to be unfair, but never – be it noted – by the party who receives the subsidy, unless the subsidy is considered to be too miserly. The one exception appears to be the Jews of then Palestine. Or that was then; the other night when I tuned into a current affairs programme I was greeted with the spectre of an American politician whining in similar vein, this time against the emerging Chinese colossus.
This story has in fact been running for some time; last October, the Washington Post – and doubtless many other American newspapers – ran a story about the Obama Administration launching an investigation “into whether the Chinese government improperly supports its alternative energy companies”.
A subsidy is by definition something that is given free to one party – in this case to American consumers who are buying Chinese goods. The downside is that subsidies do not materialise out of thin air, otherwise every government could subsidise everything, and we would have Paradise on Earth. But who is paying for China’s subsidies? The Chinese taxpayer. Right? So why are American politicians and economists complaining instead of Chinese taxpayers? Every cent of the subsidy to American consumers – whatever Americans are buying from China – comes out of the pocket of China’s citizens. How much is this subsidy? Five percent? Ten percent? If it were a hundred percent, they would be giving away goods for nothing. Would the Obama Administration complain about that? Presumably. In their perverted Alice-in-Wonderland world, totally free Chinese goods would cost American jobs.
They don’t stop to consider the reality that the money American consumers save by buying quality Chinese products can be spent on other goods, or invested. I say “they” don’t stop to consider the reality, but perhaps “they” do, depending on who “they” are. Back in the 19th Century, the French politician Frédéric Bastiat (1801-50) wrote a surreal satire on tariffs and protectionism called The Petition Of The Candlemakers; let’s leave aside the surrealism, and substitute something we call all understand – including our simple-minded politicians.
Back in the 1990s, a certain Bill Gates set up a foundation to promote – among other things – global health. Suppose instead he had decided to concentrate on abolishing urban poverty in America, and to this end he had bought up tens of thousands of acres in and around America’s great cities, and turned them into allotments. Then, instead of building a half billion dollar campus and staffing it with highly paid academics – as he has done – he had staffed these allotments with volunteer gardeners, who would grow and distribute food to the poor people of these areas absolutely free. Would this constitute unfair trade? Who do you think would complain?
Or – approaching the surreal – imagine Bill Gates or some other innovator was to develop a source of free energy, a wonder machine that defied the law of conservation of energy, and churned out enough energy to heat and power the average suburban home. Then he began producing these and distributing them to home-owners and tenants alike for free. Wouldn’t this damage the American economy in exactly the same way as, for example, subsidised, or even free, Chinese coal? Such a practice would certainly damage someone, but whoever is the bad guy in the looming trade war with China, it is certainly not the Chinese.