Wednesday, 14 September 2016

The Limit Of the Incremental











My old friend and mentor from the Daily Telegraph comments section, Guessed Worker, has an absolutely blistering article up at Majority Rights so I thought I'd re-post it here too.




Trump in the USA, Hofer in Austria, the rise of the AfD in Germany and that of the Swedish Democrats, Le Pen and Wilders both leading in the polls, the Brexit triumph in Britain, and talk of Nexit and Frexit on the horizon … all across the West these are days of hope, even expectation if one is a patriot, and of definite glimmers of opportunity if one is a nationalist.

The worldly power of the liberal elites, of the political internationalists, and of the corporate players might not be waning just yet.  They are, for the greater part, still in government or forming government agenda across the West.  They still populate the global fora.  They still have the media class to sell their economic and social values, and shape the public perception of any opposition.  But despite all this they don’t have quite the control they once did over public discourse and, increasingly, over the electoral process.  From the ever-widening political margins they are under sustained and successful ideological attack.  Where this attack comes from the anti-austerity left, with its Achilles heel of anti-racism and open borders, it has proved possible for the Establishment to absorb it.  But where it comes from the populist right, with its anti-Islam and anti-immigration elements, that’s just not possible.  People start thinking the unthinkable, namely that these elites, who act like gods and dispose of the European life as they please, are nothing better than base criminals and deserve only our total contempt and, in the worst cases, perhaps a prison cell.


The most painfully and visibly destructive of the elite’s actions over the years since 1945 – the politically generated multiracialisation of the West, without consent - is especially corrosive of the public trust.  That this terrible deed should also involve pouring a cold and haughty contempt on our natural rights in the matter, as if we are not peoples of the land at all but some form of disease, simply beggars the imagination.  What healthy mind could even conceive of such a thing?  Yet examples abound at every level, like this from the liberal ideological end of the spectrum:

The simple narrative runs that if the AfD can win even in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, where Mrs Merkel has her constituency, it must surely represent a serious threat to German democracy as we approach the next year’s federal election where Mrs Merkel is expected to seek a historic fourth term.


But that misses a fundamental point about the appeal of parties like the AfD, with its nasty, narrow mix of nativist anti-Muslim bigotry and barely coded white supremacism – which is that the more white and mono-cultural the electoral district, the better they perform.

The middle-class urban liberal has considered himself entitled to judge his fellow man since early Victorian times, at least.  But in our time it has become a kind of competitive madness.  What would the liberal say about someone who claimed that “diversity” is morally uplifting for black people, while homogeneity among blacks (and blacks only) is somehow a progenitor of the “nasty”, “narrow”, “bigoted”, and “supremacist”?  Anyway, who dreamt up this ridiculous, priggish fantasy of non-whites as angelic dispensers of white moral salvation?  How did this grotesquely racist lie of an innate white guilt salved only by dusky thaumaturgy take hold?

Liberals plainly don’t believe a word of it applies to themselves.  The whole thing seems to operate as a crude, pseudo-religious, vestigially Christian device to grant themselves, by the fastidious exercise of the liberal moral sensibility, not salvation and a place in heaven but a superior place on earth.  The worldly white self, being lost to sin and, therefore, being without human worth, must be put away.  Just not their worldly white selves, of course.

Because he thinks “diversity” is so much more desirable than white countries the journalist Peter Foster sees it as a duty of the German government, and doubtless ours too, to build more roads, houses, schools, and hospitals so that the colonisation, dispossession, genetic dissolution, and replacement of the natives can proceed, as he supposes, with the minimum delay and inconvenience for all concerned.  After all, Mr and Mrs White can’t have any complaint when the infrastructure is so good and plentiful.  Complaint would be racist.

So, how very galling and disconcerting for Mr Foster and his ilk to see how immigration consistently tops polling of voter concerns, and to have to witness the emergence of a world in which a Daily Mail news journalist can write:


Yesterday Theresa May was forced to deny going soft on immigration following her apparent rejection of points-based entry rules. Aides said the Government was working on a far tougher system. Whitehall officials have been told that as a starting point EU citizens wanting to work in Britain must secure a job before setting foot here.
That would stop tens of thousands coming to these shores each year to trawl for often low-skilled employment.
Figures close to Mrs May’s top team are pressing the Prime Minister to bring in a full work permit regime in which migrants would be treated the same regardless of nationality. That would mean those from both inside and outside the EU would need to secure a job that a firm was unable to fill with a UK recruit.

In Britain the liberal ideology on race and immigration is rapidly losing its formative purchase on political reality because the reality is the Arab and African migrant by the boatload, and the vast change in the faces on the crowded streets of our towns and cities.  The reality is people are sick of it and sick of being told the mad, obvious lie that it is an Original Sin of White Skin to feel that way; and, eventually, every democratic politician, every liberal Anglican prelate has to acknowledge reality.

Consider the contrast with the secret machinations of the Blair clique who, only after three cautious years in government, embarked upon a process internal to the Whitehall machine to justify the sudden and complete opening of the borders in 2001.  They knew they could not operate in the light.  They knew they could not tell us the truth of what they planned to do.  They knew they could never explain its meaning for us, because then they would be unable to explain why they were going to do it anyway.  For a decade and a half that kind of thinking characterised the British political Establishment.  It took the referendum defeat to take that Establishment over the ideological edge, and now they can’t get back.

So, this is a propitious time to ask how far this process can take us under its own steam.  The commonplace presumption, not just in Western political thought but eastern too, that societal change manifests through the pretty mechanism of dialectic doesn’t help us that much in matters of expressing ethnic interest and consciousness.  There is much too strong a steer from that imperative which is human instinct.  Nature manifestly does not function by antithetical means.  Her imperative is unchanging and compelling, and is characterised by directness and urgency.  It eludes the historical question mark.  It is that quiet, consistent and insistent apprehension of what is fit (in Darwinian terms), or what is vivifying, or desirable or good and necessary for human being.  As politics, we may formalise it as nationalism or nativism or identitarianism.  But it is always the politics of the people of the land, and of their blood and self, and all that belongs to them.

So profoundly unlike the liberal Weltanschauung is it, so ethnic, so un-Jewish, so much not the abstraction, that it is tempting to posit it at all times and in all circumstances as the antithesis to liberalism’s thesis.  But there’s a hitch.  Yes, its gravitational force does weigh on the earth’s liberal crust in that manner, provoking within the polity minor pertubations and change by increment.  But changes take place strictly within the philosophical fundamentals.  It is only the political conventions which stretch and adapt.  There is some damage, of course, and even some political casualties.  But the system synthesizes accommodations, and thereby preserves itself.  And not everything and everyone has to adjust to a new station.  The elites remain the elites.  The career politicians mostly survive.  The parties mostly survive. 

Ultimately, though, as the nationalist thought world draws close, and its gravity on the polity grows ever more savage, any notional antithesis to liberalism is no longer answered by the synthesis of small accommodations but by a sweeping systemic revolution.  The dialectic proposition collapses.  The synthesis is swallowed whole.  The antithesis turns out to be the All.  Everyone has demonstrated to them what some knew all along: Life is indomitable and non-negotiable, and its expression in politics, as in everything else, is unanswerable.

So let’s set out some obvious limits to the current incrementalism.

1. The race project

The most fundamental characteristic of the Establishment’s step away from multiculturalism is that it is absolutely not any kind of expression of white ethnic interests.  Nothing ever reduces the Establishment’s attachment to multiracialism (ie, its unconscious service to the Judaic vision of the singular Jewish possession of ethnicity and difference amid a gentile sea of deracination; and, thereby, Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish supremacy).  The step away from multiculturalism is only ever strategic and intended to make the impossible possible.  Thus, out of desperation, Britain and Germany are trying to tweak the strategy of integration which failed in France.  Only one man – Sarkozy - has had the honesty (and sheer effrontery) to state, in 2007, that the only stable conclusion is to be got through a process of mass obligatory miscegenation - which, let it be said, he was perfectly prepared to countenance.

The holding to a racially destructive course for Europe’s sons and daughters, at all costs, is given cover by the supposed unconscionable nature of not holding to it.  Apparently, sending out racial aliens whose parents happened to be already on our soil at the time they were born is too too awful a thing even to contemplate.  As is oft said, these poor African and Asian souls have “never known anywhere but here” and are “as British as you or I”.  For sure, the permanent, ineradicable replacement and genetic dissolution of my people is also awful to contemplate.  But that is a crisis of the conscience which the elites can resolve merely by not contemplating it.  Instead, they loftily assume that we have no interest in our own peoplehood and our future.  If that sort of thing was ever also worthy of sympathetic consideration, not one person at any level in the British Establishment is considering it now.

2. The “racism” project

As with Peter Foster’s jarring assessment of AfD, the Establishment’s anti-racism is growing more, not less, strident.  Even while public criticism of immigration is having to be accepted and accommodated, a counter-balancing intolerance of nationalists, is taking hold.  In other words, for the Establishment it’s all about control, not the justice or otherwise of the native’s cause.

The very latest little Establishment stratagem, dated two days ago, is one step further than simply shutting out our claim on life in our own house.  The following quote is from a Telegraph piece written in advance of, and about, a study undertaken by Louise Casey, the government’s “tzar” for the trope which is “integration”.  Ms Casey’s very job title falsifies her own purpose.  Manifestly, there is no integration.  There is our physical dispossession.  There is our demographic replacement.  There is our genetic dissolution.  But integration?  It is not a function of human nature.

Here is that quote:


Only by promoting “core” British laws, traditions and cultures in every ethnic community can Britain hope to ensure that diverse communities integrate fully, and defeat the “hate mongers” from the far Right and Islamist extremists who want to divide the country, she argued.

So just the normal, universally human desire for our people to live is now defined as “divisive” and “hate”.  It is a classic case of state betrayal in which the crime is so heinous and runs so deep, it even extends to identifying the victims’ betrayal trauma, to use a term from psychology, with terrorism.  The next stage is to render the victims formally enemies of the state, and to employ the power of the state against them not just in their political role but as they go about their daily life.  And it’s already here:


Mr Robinson had travelled to the university city yesterday with two friends and their four children to watch his home town’s football club, Luton, play against Cambridge. Following the match the party of ten went to a local pub to watch another football match on the television.
 As they were enjoying the game they were approached by a number of officers from Cambridgeshire police who ordered Mr Robinson to leave the city, or face being issued with a Section 35 dispersal order.
When Mr Robinson protested that he was with his family and that no other Luton supporters were being ejected, another officer accused him of acting aggressively and told him “You’re going to get arrested in a minute.”
 Security staff at the pub approached the police to insist that Mr Robinson and his party had not been causing any trouble nor given them any cause for concern, but Police – who moved the security staff away to prevent Mr Robinson filming the exchange – were unmoved.
The party then elected to leave but were followed down the road by four officers who told Mr Robinson “we’re following you and there’s no way out of that,” causing his two children, both aged under 10, to cry in terror.

Many of us concluded very early on that “the war on terror” would be exploited to facilitate state persecution of dissenters, and there it is.

3. The Jewish project

It won’t stop.

The latest little outrage occurred in the town of Béziers in southern French, where the Front National mayor Robert Ménard has been charged with a hate crime (thanks to a pillar of the Jewish, sorry, French Establishment named Alain Jakubowicz, president of LICRA).  His sin?  Reading a passage from Charles de Gaulle’s speech from 1959 on Algerian independence:


It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation.  But on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.
… Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird. … Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-The-Two-Churches but Colombey-The-Two-Mosques.

Under LICRA’s pressure the courts are now expected to decide, in effect, whether the great 20th century hero of France would be a hate criminal today (ie, guilty of a Jewish-constructed category of political sin).  The Establishment, driven mad by the Jewish contribution to Western intellectual and political life (ie, Marxism, Critical Theory, postmodernism, freudianism, second-wave feminism, “gay” equality, anti-racism, immigrationism, holocaustism, etc, etc, etc)  is so sunk in its own blind, destructive bestiality, it is consuming itself the better to consume us.

No matter how healthy and promising the present political trajectory, no incrementalism will rein in the Jewish social and political project for our life.  Nationalism alone will do that.  Every single one of us knows it.

4. The globalist project

One aspect of the overall project for Europe’s peoples which is already being tested to breaking point, and on which the Establishment’s immobility is crystal clear, is Islam’s place in the West.

All across multiracial Britain young white girls possibly numbering in the tens of thousands have been abused, and many prostituted, by Muslim Asian gangs over the last three decades.  All those in positions of power preferred these children to suffer than to alert the English public to what has been happening in this land, and they are still doing it.  It’s not just that they showed no solidarity whatsoever with the victims, it’s that they actively colluded in covering up the crime from its beginnings to 2010, when one Times reporter broke the omerta with a feature on the Derby Trial.  By this uniquely offensive betrayal the political class made themselves material accessories (under The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861).  Needless to say, nobody has been held to account.  Nick Griffin and Mark Collett were twice sent to court for speaking out, however; and the courageous Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, was sent to coventry by her own parliamentary party for the same sin.

In Sweden there is another rape crisis, involving offences against young women.  But the Swedish Establishment has tried to suggest that this sudden epidemic is really a statistical uncovering of that well-known rapist class, the violent Swedish husband.  Naturally, Swedish feminists have jumped at the opportunity to condemn the Swedish patriarchy.  Deluded rape victims have appeared in the media (which tends not to be owned by Swedes) forgiving poor Adnan because he is a victim too.

In Germany, in response to a gathering rape crises, the authorities are teaching Muslim migrants how to be a bit more considerate when having sex with white women.  Something like, “It would be a good idea if you could cut back on the gang-rape, guys, and use our women this way ....”  Unsurprisingly, 60% of “Germans” (ie, not simply ethnic Germans) now say, contrary to Frau Merkel, that Islam does not belong in Germany.  But this sane and necessary reaction somehow eludes the governing class, whose only worry is whether Frau Merkel might have gone too far too fast with her migrant programme, and woken up too many future National Socialists.  Regardless, the lady is not for turning:


It would not be acceptable, Merkel said, for governments to say: “We don’t generally want to have Muslims in our country.”

Meanwhile in France, in excess of two hundred people have been butchered over the past eighteen months by Muslims who believe that jihad is a good deed, and a deed that is not just a defensive or interior, spiritual struggle.  But any connection to the Quran or hadith … any suggestion that Muslims are obligated to undertake jihad, and that this is understood as obedience to the will of Allah by many of them in the West, and not just troublesome imams and radicalised or brutalised young men … any suggestion to that effect is denied by the powerful point-blank without further debate.  Instead, they move the focus of national debate onto modesty-preserving beach-ware for Arab women.  It is truly surreal.

President Hollande’s latest words of wisdom on the matter shift the emphasis back onto the French to make the integration possible, or at least to stop saying it is impossible:


“Nothing in the idea of secularism opposes the practice of Islam in France, provided it respects the law,” Hollande said.

Secularism is not a “state religion” to be used against other religions, he said in the speech in Paris, denouncing the “stigmatisation of Muslims”.

So here is a Western leader who, we must believe, has no difficulty with the notion that Charles de Gaulle, if alive today, would be a “hater” and subject to a prosecution brought by a Jewish quango.  But two hundred people die and he and the rest of his class are fighting with everything they’ve got to protect Islam in the West.  OK, they have developed the thesis that Islamic scholars explain Islam quite differently from the Neocon narrative of relentless jihad and physical conquest in the name of the Prophet.  They have access to analyses which present Islam in its true hybridised form, enculturated as it is to vastly differing peoples across the world.  They understand that this flexibility and hybridisation is a strength when allied to a process of racially diversifying the ancestral lands of peoples, whether Europeans or not.  They understand, too, that the essential unity of Islam under one god, as a cohering influence in this ghastly genetic mess that they want to create, is also a strength.  Finally, they understand that the forces of militant Islam are not a spear of conquest pointed at the European heart, but a reaction against the hybridity of Islam and a desire in consequence to bring the faith to unity and truth.

They may be correct in all this.  But it doesn’t matter to us in the slightest.  The fact is Sayeed Qtub existed.  The Salafists existed.  The fact is that there is a vast popular anger in the Muslim world at the actions of “the West”, particularly since the first Gulf War in 1990/91, but also with the West’s support for Israel, which has been a running sore since 1946.  The fact is that polling indicates that between 15% and 25% of Muslims in the West sympathise with at least some of the aims of the jihadis.  Not long after 7/7 an ICM poll of Muslims found that a fifth of respondees said they felt “some sympathy” with the London bombers.  40% supported the introduction of sharia, while just a single per cent more deigned to allow that we could retain our own legal system.

Our concern is entirely justified.  As a race, we passed our verdict on Muslims and Islam long ago.  Neither have we entirely forgotten the verdict of our distant forefathers.  It makes no difference to the politicos.  Nothing makes any difference.  Why?  I would argue that globalism and the coming Globality rest on five pillars:

1. Unified government by a single class of internationalists.
2. Maximal economic power and freedom for international finance and the dateline corporations.
3. The de-nationing and deracination of humanity.
4. Societal cohesion wrought by Islam.
5. Jewish exceptionalism.

Islam is essential to the globalist project in a way that, to be frank, Jewish exceptionalism is not – which isn’t to say that Jewry’s own project isn’t a very close relative or isn’t advanced by strategising and exploiting globalism.  But the two are distinct in their character and in their formal objectives.

Islam, however, is not acting by its own power as Jewry is.  It enters the globalist frame only as a tool (albeit an unpredictable one) of, let’s say, the Money Power, the ultimate power in the world - another element which will be untouched by, and scarcely even notice, the heady incrementalism which so interests and intrigues us.

5. The civic project

I quoted Louise Casey earlier, from a DT article on her forthcoming study report.  Here is another quote from that article:


“I have become convinced that it is only the upholding of our core British laws, cultures, values and traditions that will offer us the route map through the different and complex challenge of creating a cohesive society.”

The trouble is that nobody can really explain what “cultures, values, and traditions” are actually British and still extant.  The more one seeks to define them, the more nebulous they become.  London’s Cockneys used to eat jellied eels.  Is that British culture?  But the Cockneys have gone from the East End now.  In the northern towns of England the industries and the hard, honest labour they demanded ... industries which produced characterful settled communities ... have all gone, and the life which those communities lived has changed completely.  In the countryside, farming mechanised and intensified massively during and after WW2, de-manning by 90% and breaking its ties to community in the years which followed.

For three decades at least the radical left … the Judaised left ... worried away at the interstices of our peoplehood, conducting a culture war against us, attacking the psychological foundations of masculinity, marriage, childhood and the family, and generating social failure, anomie and alienation.  The radical right … the Judaised right … likewise attacked the solidising politics that exercised the patriotic, conservative mind, advocating atomisation via the individual self.  Now, after all that, the idiot political class clasps a hand to its forehead in realisation that it has a race project on its hands which it cannot cohere.  Ah, but wait … isn’t there always a handy British value or British tradition or British something or other?

It was Gordon Brown, back in 2004, who began hand-signalling to the press and the politicos about “British values”, which he defined as liberty, tolerance, and fair-play.  Nothing concrete came of his efforts, and nothing will come now, or ever.  It wouldn’t have made any difference if he had told the truth.  But, inevitably, he lied.  He wrote:


... there is indeed is a golden thread that runs through British history of the individual standing firm for freedom and liberty against tyranny and the arbitrary use of power. It runs from that long-ago day in Runnymede in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1689 to not just one, but four Great Reform Acts in less than 100 years. And the great tradition of British liberty has, first and foremost, been rooted in the protection of the individual against the arbitrary power of first the monarch and then the state.

This from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the government which, according to Andrew Neather, opened Britain’s borders out of pure malignancy towards the “right-wing” English identity, in defence of which baleful event, presumably, dear Gordon had this to say:


It is because different ethnic groups came to live together in one small island that we first made a virtue of tolerance, welcoming and included successive waves of settlers - from Saxons and Normans to Huguenots and Jews and Asians and African-Caribbeans - and recognising plural identities.

The self-serving, historical ignorance of the man is quite astonishing.  The Saxons fought a long and evidently successfully series of pitched battles against the British tribes.  The Normans conquered, and conducted a killing campaign across the disobeying north.  There were only 50,000 Huguenots, of whom perhaps 30,000 shipped on to the American colonies.  The Jews were kicked out by Edward I in 1290, and only really returned in the 19th century, and then only 50,000 did so.  Their descendants have never allowed themselves to be assimilated.

Further, tolerance entered the British political lexicon in the Restoration, after a century and a half of religious pertubation culminating in the English Civil Wars.  It has no connection with immigration.

He is equally stupid or deceiving – take your pick – on liberty.


Liberty meant not just tolerance for minorities but a deeply rooted belief - illustrated early in our history by trial by jury - in the freedom of the individual under the law and in the liberty of the common people rooted in constantly evolving English common law.

Liberty never meant tolerance for minorities.  There is no such concept in English history.  Further, I think he is in danger of stretching a point with his claim that justice is intimately linked with individual liberty.  Social order, yes.  But then, stability as a foundation for freedom is a conservative, not progressive, value; and still not especially or meaningfully British.

If Gordon Brown and the rest of these intellectual titans cannot even make a clear, coherent and defensible argument for identifiable “British values” and their post-racial utility – and, of course, they can’t - then clearly they have no hope of concretising anything very much in the life of the people.  But that doesn’t really matter, because this Sisyphean task is all they have, and they won’t give it up until the racially alien populations in this land are governed – but briefly, we must hope – by nationalists.

6. The identity project

Hand-in-hand with a civic definition of national identity goes an appropriately deracinated personal identity, constructed for you, probably, by some very thoughtful Jewish academics, and good for all gentile colours and sexes (oh, yes, there are five now, I believe, though don’t ask me what they are).  That is to say, sans borders and boundaries between same.  All nicely “fluid”.  All terribly “open” and without any of that shocking “prejudice”.  An identity without actual identity, anything that actually belongs to you, comes out of you, cannot be taken from you.  Just a work of artifice, a personality thing.  Smile for the camera, won’t you.

What was that you said?  Identity is in nature and the genes, just as the sociobiology is ... just as the characterful elements of culture are, actually?  Because they are gifted from the nature of the people?  I couldn’t agree more.  Identity in any real sense IS genetic, at the end of the day.  The sum of the acquired is always only acquired.

But there is nothing in our changing world today – not the liberalism of right or left, not the Critical Theory, not the globalism, nothing – that could or would want to make use of your natural ethnic self-consciousness or the pureness of your witness to self.  Political power and cultural heft are being used to gene-kill the European people.  The future will belong not to you, European Man, but to Homo deracinatus, in whose brazilianised psychological person the contest between the constructed identity and the thing of the blood simply does not take place.  Academia and education, entertainment, television, radio, the press are powerful tools in the construction of identity, and are working at full bore today. In the Globality, diversity and cultural cross-overs, even gender cross-overs if enough confusion can be generated and if healthy gene-lines can be engineered out, will become routine matters of the self.  The conventional categorical necessities of him and her, us and them, black and white will become redundant.  Only those with serious power and those with Jewish identities will be distinct and aloof from the endemic, standardized dross.

Do you really think that Trump or the Brexiteers or AfD will grasp the sheer radicality and terrible permanence of this?  Do you really think it isn’t going to take our authentic nationalism and a very determined reckoning to give life to racial Europe again, and a decent prospect of freedom to the rest of ethnic Mankind?

Worth remembering when you vote.  But still vote, of course.

No comments:

Post a Comment