British Officials Don't Want White "Racist" Immigrants

[Haldís]

Thousands of white immigrants from eastern Europe are deeply racist, the head of the race relations watchdog has warned.

Speaking about the tensions in British communities, Trevor Phillips said many arrivals from former Soviet countries displayed prejudice against black people.

"Some eastern European people have attitudes to black people that date back to the Fifties," he told BBC television. "And that is not acceptable."

His warning came as Home Secretary John Reid prepared to impose curbs on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria when the two countries join the EU in January. The measures are expected to include a time limit on how long people who arrive looking for work can stay. Skilled workers will be favoured, with only a small number of unskilled labourers being allowed entry.


Controls

Ministers accept they made a mistake by not imposing similar controls when other countries including Poland joined the EU in 2004. The Government estimated that 13,000 would arrive but more than 330,000 actually flocked in. The new stance reflects heightened concern about race relations in the wake of the veil row.

Representatives of all the major religions will meet Education Secretary Alan Johnson for an "inclusion summit", to discuss how schools can help improve community relations. Johnson will press his plan to empower local authorities to make all new faith schools admit up to a quarter of pupils from different religions. But he will assure them he has no plans to backdate the power to cover existing schools.

Meanwhile, there were claims that the veil row could inflame inner city violence and risk a repeat of the riots in northern towns.


Conflict

Dewsbury Labour MP Shahid Malik said: "If we don't take a grip of this debate now, it will have serious social consequences, and politicians need to act more responsibly." He added: "The basic ingredients for conflict are out there. It takes only one spark to set things off."


Source: http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/10/24/10077146.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive. gulfnews.com%2Farticles%2F06%2F10%2F24%2 F10077146.html)

[Ascension]

I thought we were nationalists? Destroying Britain by bringing foreign elements, white or non-white in is destructive. They are both alien to the culture.

[Spjabork]

"Some eastern European people have attitudes to black people that date back to the Fifties," he told BBC television. "And that is not acceptable."Yes, the Poles in Germay despise negros, Turks etc. and now already despise openly the Germans for having let them in in such numbers.
Poland joined the EU in 2004. The Government estimated that 13,000 would arrive but more than 330,000 actually flocked in.
Nobody knows exactly or nearly how many ethnic Poles now live on German soil. And no government official wants to know. There are many fake marriages, many "happy" marriages, and many passport holders etc. But I guess the number is at least twice that in Britain.
Dewsbury Labour MP Shahid Malik said: "If we don't take a grip of this debate now, it will have serious social consequences, and politicians need to act more responsibly." He added: "The basic ingredients for conflict are out there. It takes only one spark to set things off."
In Germany there are already hosts of Turkish-Kurdish-what-else MPs, but - as it seems - no of Polish descent. So these MPs won't like the "racist" Poles either.

[ares]

While I agree that each country should mainly be for its own people, on the other hand I would prefer a fellow European over a Non-European, without exception.

[Spjabork]

While I agree that each country should mainly be for its own people, on the other hand I would prefer a fellow European over a Non-European, without exception.
In theory you are right and in theory I agree with you. But in practice there is little difference, or, to put it more precisely: the difference is optical. If you are a more "visual" type, this may please you and for a while even may give you the illusion everything is OK. The hammer will fall onto the head of your children, if you have any.

Same is true for the US. The "pure" (and wealthy) white Mexicans - small in numbers as they are - threaten and eventually will change Anglo-Saxon culture as much as just any "coloured" (and poor) mestizo Mexicans ever will do.

[Ascension]

I think adopting the 'lesser of two evils' would make way for a slippery slope argument. Nationalism as a political force is wanted for unifying it's citizens under a common belief-set that is an expression of their past, blood and ideals. There must be no giving way on this principles. Italians might be 'less different' in regards to the Swedish than towards Africans, but there is still a difference. We shouldn't say 'if it must be some immigrants, it might as be some 'white' ones,' because we don't follow the mindset of those that call for more immigration. If someone called for shorter prison sentences, you wouldn't say 'Well we should shorten the thiefs' sentences rather than the rapists'. We shouldn't change either, and I certainly won't stand for anyone destroying the spirit of my nation, whether it is through African immigration or any other European immigration.

[Thruthheim]

And all those Muslims they're letting in, I guess they aren't "racist" then!

[Æmeric]

United Kingdom

Published: 10/24/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)

Watchdog warns over 'racist migrants'

Evening Standard



London: Thousands of white immigrants from eastern Europe are deeply racist, the head of the race relations watchdog has warned.

Speaking about the tensions in British communities, Trevor Phillips said many arrivals from former Soviet countries displayed prejudice against black people.

"Some eastern European people have attitudes to black people that date back to the Fifties," he told BBC television. "And that is not acceptable."

Has it ever accured to these multicultural bureaucrats that non-Europids can also be "racists" & anti-Christian. But that is not important, because in transforming Britian into a truely multiracial society it is Whites who must be stifled. The British establishment is using immigration to transform the electorate to one that will support the multicultural agenda, not one that will oppose it.

[Carl]

Published: 10/24/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)




London: Thousands of white immigrants from eastern Europe are deeply racist, the head of the race relations watchdog has warned.

Speaking about the tensions in British communities, Trevor Phillips said many arrivals from former Soviet countries displayed prejudice against black people.


Well I can certainly see why HE might be worried! I guess everyone could. The situation is certainly interesting as more and more nonEuropeans are granted decision powers over us all and then begin to exercise this power in a way that is favourable to themselves. Oh, I am sure they would argue that they are making the decisions on behalf of the whole community but I am afraid it won't feel like that to people with their eyes open. If I had to choose between a Baltic and Trevor Phillips, I think I know where I would be!

[Aeric]

Madoc is correct. The bleeding heart white liberals who bend at the knee to 'multi-culturalist values' really do believe, deep down inside, that only white people are capable of holding racist views. They practise a form of 'double think' and impose their own non-logic on others.

In their language, Blacks and Asians don't start riots or kill lone white people on the streets at night - they 'unite to defend themselves against racism'. Moslems don't perpetrate 'honour killings' - they 'express their richly diverse cultural values'.

I think that the 'Thought Police' will swiftly go to work on any new immigrants who aren't yet able to kiss the backsides of Blacks, Asians and Turks with sufficient enthusiasm.

Aeric

[Spjabork]

The bleeding heart white liberals who bend at the knee to 'multi-culturalist values' really do believe, deep down inside, that only white people are capable of holding racist views. They practise a form of 'double think' and impose their own non-logic on others.(...)
I think that the 'Thought Police' will swiftly go to work on any new immigrants who aren't yet able to kiss the backsides of Blacks, Asians and Turks with sufficient enthusiasm.
I think about it, and think and think an rethink it again and again.

And I do not understand how this could come so far.

Is it really that they believe in their own ****？I doubt. Nobody can be so stupid. They tell lies and they know it is lie what they tell.

But they can make a good living from that. The system, as it now runs is good for them. And they expect, that the others will give them a good reward for what they do now and will not dump them. Well, at least for the next twenty years or so they are still needed to accomplish the full schedule. Then, they will get their reward, as they deserve it.

The dilemma for us Germanics is: we are between two fires.

Maybe, the Anglo-Saxons can't understand that well. But the Germans had to deal with Poles, Czechs, Serbs etc. since more than 1000 years.

Now the Germans have forgotten that. "History" in German classrooms merely is holo-logy. Real history is taught much better in those small rubbish countries nowadays. They didn't forget anything. They are waiting for their "finest hour". And it will come.

While the Germans do have this "good" excuse, the Anglo-Saxons do not. Or they ask us to take the blame for them either.

Culture is based on education. "Behaviourism" may have been a "false" theory - but in any case they have realized and recognized the eminent importance of what people get to hear and see each and every day.

[Aeric]

The other day, somebody asked me a question (he asked it in a very belligerent way)..."So" he enquired "the Germans just woke up one day and decided to start hating Jews?, is that how it worked? I mean, was it just as simple as that? Hitler told them who to hate and the Germans obeyed?"

I shook my head and I told him this:

No, the Germans had a long history of tolerance and open-handed generosity towards Jews (and other foreigners too, for that matter). In fact, when Jews were persecuted in Eastern Europe, Germany was the place where most of the displaced Yids wanted to relocate - it stood in stark contrast to other, far less liberal societies where Jews were never really accepted, no matter how long they had been resident. Germany had laws which gave rights to Jews and protected them from discrimination. They were allowed to become full citizens too.

Now, you might think that they would do their best to repay Germany by fitting in and interacting with something like the same 'let's meet halfway' spirit. But no, the Jews remained a people apart - they stuck to the same practises which had made them hated in every other country where they'd installed themselves. They respected only their own culture and viewed outsiders as cattle - they bore false witness in courts; they traded dishonestly; they took over banks and speculated with other people's money; they gained monopolies in medicine, journalism, the law, literature and theatre - often by unfairly restricting the chances available to gentiles and keeping 'closed shops' for their own kind.

When Germany was forced to accept humiliating and ruinous peace terms in 1918, the Jews fell upon the starving and shattered Germans like wolves. For example, Otto Frank and his brother siezed the opportunity to break many of the gentiles who used their bank by criminally foreclosing on loans and mortgages - their victims had no chance to save anything before the heartless thieves sold their homes and farms to other Jews at miniscule prices. The Franks were charged with a string of fraudulent offences and escaped justice by fleeing to the Netherlands. This was later portrayed as 'fleeing from Nazi tyranny' - a tale as false and hollow as the 'diary' alleged to be written by Otto's daughter - the NSDAP was not yet in power at that time.

The Germans had their eyes opened in horrible ways. Joseph Goebbels graduated from university with no hatred for Jews in his heart - one of his favourite teachers was Jewish and Goebbels had always hotly defended him from 'bigots' - but when he wanted to work as a journalist, the talented young man suddenly found out how things worked in his country. Most of the newspapers belonged to Jews; Goebbels wasn't a Jew, so he was not employed.

Germans took a while to see the Jews for what they really were - locusts in apparently human form. The German's giving and sympathetic national character made them ideal victims; little by little, the Jews took over the professions, the police forces and a host of other trades - always preferring their own kind, never giving Germans an even break. They smoothed the way for themselves by pushing through legislation and rules which gave them special advantages. The soft, liberal and corrupt Weimar Republic did nothing to stop this process of Jew-ification (did I invent a new label?). On the contrary, the government set up 'initiatives' to ensure that Jews got special treatment and viciously silenced patriots who opposed their bizarre appetite for national suicide.

It is frightening, isn't it?...but not as frightning as the fact that History is repeating itself in Britain - here and now. A gutless, liberal 'democracy' is selling us out to aliens; it is handing the country over to foreign invaders who won't be satisfied until they have taken everything we hold dear and sacred.

Aeric

[Carl]

Same is true for the US. The "pure" (and wealthy) white Mexicans - small in numbers as they are - threaten and eventually will change Anglo-Saxon culture as much as just any "coloured" (and poor) mestizo Mexicans ever will do.

America is in a mess with its own immigration and you are quite right to make this point. It isnt just the AngloSaxon culture that concerns me....though I know what you mean! American Scandinavians, Germans ... all part of the mix... and as if the blacks were not problem enough, they then begin the wholesale swampage by permitting super-massive, largely uncontrolled influx from the south. If they think that building a fence NOW will save them , they are crackers! But given all the capital and economic advantages of having cheap labour its hard to see the American dream doing much about it! So then, onto the nightmare - and yes, an increasingly alien America. Nodoubting the economic advantages -- but I do wonder at what point the American Jews begin to feel a bit unsettled and nervous? The blacks were bad enough....

Meanwhile back in FESTUNG EUROPA, let look forward in hope to that general Awakening!

[Carl]

Has it ever accured to these multicultural bureaucrats that non-Europids can also be "racists" & anti-Christian. But that is not important, because in transforming Britian into a truely multiracial society it is Whites who must be stifled. The British establishment is using immigration to transform the electorate to one that will support the multicultural agenda, not one that will oppose it.

Trevor Phillips , former boss of race-relations , is of course black...thats how it is in Britain now. People used to speak of them gaining the whip-hand; now they don't bother. But The System throws up its own problems as when, for example, muslims start bombing and the black integrationists (like Phillips) themselves begin to get nervous ( fearing of course a more widespead general reaction.). Its an unholy mess! (And alas, England is in an advanced practice of it!!)

Perhaps , if they all became truly radicalized, the community could get round to legally removing the younger ones - en masse and leaving the elderly ones to die off > But it is not easy to imagine this actually hapening!!

[Ice Fae]

This seems like an excuse to me to further destroy the indegenous Aryan folk of the isles. East Europeans would keep the Aryan population of Britain high, but stopping them from arriving here will reduce whites. ZOG intends to make white/Aryan Britain extinct in favour of a black and hybrid coffee-coloured population.

[OneEnglishNorman]

I am not keen on Polish migrants either. Whatever they may look like, they are less assimilable than Germans, Dutch, Italians... they are from the East, which has always been backwards compared to the West.

[Oskorei]

Yes, the Poles in Germay despise negros, Turks etc. and now already despise openly the Germans for having let them in in such numbers.

The situation is similar in Sweden. European immigrants, from Serbs to Albanians, despise the Swedes for allowing so many Africans to immigrate, and for mixing with them. This might yield interesting results in 10 years time. ;)

[Agrippa]

I am not keen on Polish migrants either. Whatever they may look like, they are less assimilable than Germans, Dutch, Italians... they are from the East, which has always been backwards compared to the West.

These days being "more backward" than the West is not that bad at all if looking how "the West" looks like - and thats the No. 1 problem. If European immigrants complain about non-European ones, thats still justified no matter where they are, since they just express what all Europeans should feel in the same situation and whereas European migrations happened inside of the racial, genetic, cultural and geographical borders of Europe, non-European MASS-IMMIGRATION is a very different thing. Mass migrations of Europeans are no good thing neither, but can never be compared.

Europeans moving means just a change of proportions - this might be bad, but it is as a rule no really fundamental change, whereas the mass immigration of non-Europeans means to destroy what was build up for more than 10.000 years already and that of non-Europids to seriously harm or even destroy what was established in 30.000 and more years!
And yes, I think that makes a difference.

Distance x quality x numbers. Its typical how the British government thinks, its so sick, one can't even describe it any more. Europeans being excluded from immigration for not hurting poor Negroids in Great Britain, whereas in France European people being burned alive by foreigners. Thats the logic of the last decades of true Europe and the so called "European" Union...what a perversion. I know what will come in the end, foreign, at best Negroid police men to control "anti-democratic and racist indigenous movements..."

The situation is similar in Sweden. European immigrants, from Serbs to Albanians, despise the Swedes for allowing so many Africans to immigrate, and for mixing with them. This might yield interesting results in 10 years time.

Europeans can be integrated, even in larger numbers. It happened before, it can be done again if necessary. Non-Europeans in larger numbers never without losing much more of the own base, identity and in most cases potential.

If a district is only one quarter European any more, every healthy European should be glad about all Euro-faces he sees and all helping hands he might get. Great Britain is so close for losing its European character that its finally the least country in which people can be too picky honestly. Forget individualism, the "we are better and different from Europe" rhetoric and the idea that an English speaking Negroid is closer than new coming Europeans or Great Britain will serve Europe probably only for own purpose, namely to show the rest how the end will look like and that some Europeans were too weak and not intelligent enough to stand up against their own transformation or better substitution, before they became just a mixed mass for of one of the first plantation for the plutocratic Oligarchy.

I'm not saying that they should say welcome to every European immigrant at the moment, but there should be priorities and the No. 1 priority is to make Britain a truly European country again by race and culture. A great task that is and if failing there will be no truly Anglo-Saxon or Scottish people in the middle future for sure.

[sheriff skullface]

I thought we were nationalists? Destroying Britain by bringing foreign elements, white or non-white in is destructive. They are both alien to the culture.

I must say you have a very good point Ascension, it would only be traditional and ideal for England to only allow a quota of Scandinavian and Germanic immigrants into its nation, but as much as this point still remains those liberal wack job officials had no business calling the eastern europeans "racist" as they are problobly no more racist than anybody else is

[Haldís]

Has it ever accured to these multicultural bureaucrats that non-Europids can also be "racists" & anti-Christian. But that is not important, because in transforming Britian into a truely multiracial society it is Whites who must be stifled. The British establishment is using immigration to transform the electorate to one that will support the multicultural agenda, not one that will oppose it. but why are they doing this? I never understood it. :(

i created a thread about it:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=81190

[Carl]

I am not keen on Polish migrants either. Whatever they may look like, they are less assimilable than Germans, Dutch, Italians... they are from the East, which has always been backwards compared to the West.

Yes... but this has to be seen in context. WE ARE IN A MESS....if decent Poles & Balts want to be here and work, then that will perhaps means there is LESS ROOM for Africans what whatever. That sounds like an improvement to me...and if even I can say it , there must be some virtue in allowing northern Europeans into the country. It will also strengthen the Britain -Europa link which I suspect may well be part of the solution rather than a problem, although I am not necessarily thinking of the EEC's over-regulation!

I am less sure about immigration from SE Europe - but thats not quite such an issue (?). We live in dire times and need to think more radically about the way forward.

[Carl]

. I know what will come in the end, foreign, at best Negroid police men to control "anti-democratic and racist indigenous movements..."

----------------

I'm not saying that they should say welcome to every European immigrant at the moment, but there should be priorities and the No. 1 priority is to make Britain a truly European country again by race and culture. A great task that is and if failing there will be no truly Anglo-Saxon or Scottish people in the middle future for sure.

sorry to return so soon - but I missed this bit. The rise of Black & Muslim Police - even in the officer class - is a wonder to behold. We already have before the strategy of bias promotion and exclusive admissions to the Police Force. We already have good people going to law to object at non-selection merely because of being White! And this in Britian today. It is not surprising therefore to find black & muslim officials calling the tune to some extent on matters of political and policy importance.

I agree : we need to move on ; we need greater continental solidarity at least in these issues.


> * * * STRENGTH IN UNITY : FESTUNG EUROPA * * *

[Aeric]

The British Government is already preparing the 'Thought Police' in anticipation of new immigrants who are not ready to show proper appreciation for our dark-skinned guests.

They imply that racist attitudes and criminality go hand in hand and then 'reassure' us by promising to set the forces of 'law and order' and re-education loose on those bad, nasty people.

http://money.aol.co.uk/money-news/secret-immigration-crimewave-memo/article/20061101023109990001

Aeric

[Carl]

I am less sure about immigration from SE Europe - but thats not quite such an issue (?). We live in dire times and need to think more radically about the way forward.

Topical!! my ISP news reports that Gov. Ministers are today being warned to expect a significant rise in hard finance crime when gangs from Romania & Bulgaria gain admission following on from the forthcoming EU expansion. Well if that's the case - and I don't doubt it, then they can join the crowd ; there's really no shortage of immigrant crime up to drugs & gun running. Wasn't quite like that in the old days!

[RedJack]

It will also strengthen the Britain -Europa link which I suspect may well be part of the solution rather than a problem, although I am not necessarily thinking of the EEC's over-regulation!

I don't understand why British people are always claiming that we need help to put our house in order. All that is required is that we exercise the old Bulldog spirit and demand an end to immigration. This island is full. No further immigration from anywhere, not even other EU countries.

[Carl]

I don't understand why British people are always claiming that we need help to put our house in order. All that is required is that we exercise the old Bulldog spirit and demand an end to immigration. This island is full. No further immigration from anywhere, not even other EU countries.


Yes. You do raise a tricky subject here which goes to the heart of current British Nationalism. Do we co-operate with like minded nationalists in Europe or "go it alone". Some groups are certainly arguing to decisively distance ourselves from the EU and its regulation mania - which manifestly gets in the way of our freedom of action. Some time ago, it was suggested as a mere hint in official circles that we may need to tighten our borders up somewhat --only to have some Euro_ bureaucrat hint heavily that we have already "signed agreements" that would forbid such action in Euro-Law. (Some of our national newspaper were really furious!!) It may not be easy to get round this - but I guess where there's a national will, there's sure to be a way. Strengthen the borders and reinforce the ejection of troublemaking aliens -- that would be a good start surely. And if fellow Europeans were also then at the same game ( ?? Holland, Denmark , Germany ...), well - why not then seek joint or co-operative working. There may be advantages in doing so (eg. direct sharing of Police operational intelligence) . The French could also be quite helpful - if they wanted to be!

Might be worth looking at the thread On Nationalism - some further discussion there.

[OneEnglishNorman]

Yes... but this has to be seen in context. WE ARE IN A MESS....if decent Poles & Balts want to be here and work, then that will perhaps means there is LESS ROOM for Africans what whatever. That sounds like an improvement to me...and if even I can say it , there must be some virtue in allowing northern Europeans into the country...............
I am less sure about immigration from SE Europe - but thats not quite such an issue (?). We live in dire times and need to think more radically about the way forward.

No no. I disagree. Forget how blond or northern they are. I would oppose 5 million Polish immigrants in 10 years and do the same for Dutch or any other northern Germanics.

Such mass migrations are bad. It just encourages a "world citizen" melting pot situation.

Limited numbers of Europeans, surrounded and enveloped by English people is perfectly OK.

To me, Polish language shops in England are just as bad as Swedish or German speaking premises. It represents division and invasion. On a very small scale OK, but you should see the areas where the Poles are.

10% of Southampton's population is estimated to be Polish! 20,000 (no doubt more since that was calculated) out of 220,000. It's good and bad. Maybe you are right, maybe they are pushing out or replacing a need for third-worlders.

But sometimes I hang about with these Poles, and because there are so many, they are speaking Polish much of the time. Their workmates may be Polish, they may have a Polish hairdresser, a Polish shop, live at a rented house amongst Poles, etc etc etc. It is not entirely healthy.

[Carl]

Limited numbers of Europeans, surrounded and enveloped by English people is perfectly OK.

10% of Southampton's population is estimated to be Polish! 20,000 (no doubt more since that was calculated) out of 220,000. It's good and bad. Maybe you are right, maybe they are pushing out or replacing a need for third-worlders.

But sometimes I hang about with these Poles, and because there are so many, they are speaking Polish much of the time. Their workmates may be Polish, they may have a Polish hairdresser, a Polish shop, live at a rented house amongst Poles, etc etc etc. It is not entirely healthy.

We always said it was a question of numbers. If these Poles are really just here to make money and then to return, well that may be reasonable.Poles from the wartime have assimilated generally and thats the future for those who remain - for many its early days. But I would still prefer the country to be taking in Poles & BALTS rather than Indians & Blacks . Somewhere I posted some comments on recent non European immigration - which is at an all time high!

I know what you are saying - its one of the current themes in our Nationalism, to be with or against Europe. I fear that if we are against Europe, we will end up being FOR the Third World. They are already considering how to further tax us all with that in mind. :thumbdown

[Agrippa]

Nobody says mass immigration of any kind is great, but whats worse, thats the first question, and who can be integrated even in larger numbers without too much harm done, thats the next. Immigration, even larger one, of Europeans was nothing foreign or that harmful in history so far most of the time, so its in no way comparable to non-Europeans even if its a problem on its own. I totally agree on the difference of single people and some families or a foreign group building up their own structures, own microcosmos in a nation, thats a huge difference as well without a doubt.

Concerning the British: No, you are not just full, you are full of the wrong people and its not enough to stop foreign racial mass immigration, one must revert trends, population policy which strengthens Europeans and in this case truly British birth rates, especially of the more valuable segments of society and repatriate those which are non-integrable in larger or even in smaller numbers, won't contribute anything really valuable Europeans can't and should therefore leave as soon as possible.

To just stop immigration without changing the society, reverting degeneration, mescegenation and destructive social and demographic trends. But there are enough threads about that already, dont want to repeat it - the same problems in most European countries, just worse in some like Britain, here again.

[Carl]

Nobody says mass immigration of any kind is great........

Concerning the British: No, you are not just full, you are full of the wrong people and its not enough to stop foreign racial mass immigration, one must revert trends, population policy which strengthens Europeans and in this case truly British birth rates, especially of the more valuable segments of society and repatriate those which are non-integrable in larger or even in smaller numbers, won't contribute anything really valuable Europeans can't and should therefore leave as soon as possible.


Alas some people in Britain clearly do think that mass immigration is a wonderful thing...mix us all up & make a glorious one world! Its laughable but that's what has happened all my lifetime and here we are. This isn't Austria - this is the Victor of WW2 , the Great British Commonwealth which has at last come "home"!!! They now rule the roost - cities are more or less fallen to them with increasing majorities. Perhaps there will be a reaction but for the moment at least, the "third worlders" are increasingly running the liberal-left parties in the cities - and calling both the tune and the elections. Patriots who speak up risk prison! Conservatives retreat into the comfort of their money, indifferent to the plight of the white poor who are left stranded in alien environments. Believe me, the cities are now as Hell if you want to be with Europeans. That's why fellow Europeans coming seems like a ray of light to some; One Fake's Southhampton on Hampshire's South coast (-- I worked there briefly long ago) is a poor example - its not a major non-European Immigrant area in any way ! Look at London, Look in the Midlands and the North. This is what confronts the nation : this is the source of my despair , decades of this, entrenched! in a populus that's lost its will to survive! No major party takes this seriously; British Skadi's are mostly content to give in as far as I can see......do correct me if I am wrong!!!.

[RedJack]

Concerning the British: No, you are not just full, you are full of the wrong people and its not enough to stop foreign racial mass immigration

I agree, but it's a necessary first step. A mass movement to stop immigration of any kind, including people from other EU nations who currently have the right to move to England, is possible based simply on the dangers of overcrowding. Then a movement to encourage non-whites to leave can be started.

[Agrippa]

This isn't Austria - this is the Victor of WW2

Well, this was no war or victory for the English or British people, but one for a certain system and plutocratic ruling class! Thats something a lot of people in Germany, but even more so in Britain never really understood and have still problems to comprehend.

the Great British Commonwealth which has at last come "home"!!! They now rule the roost

But thats not primarily the fault of the immigrants which just exploit a given situation in one way or another and to expect them to simply adapt, assimlate themselves to the British decadence is something absolutely irrational especially for the better newcomers among them.
Thats again the result of a false system and leadership which doesnt care for the common people nor for the folk and greater whole, but only to keep up a certain system, structures and means of power & control over the British people and in fact all of mankind if they can. This plutocratic oligarchy rules Britain for a long time already and they control the city of London as they control the minds of mass. If those in charge would feel seriously threatened by those masses of immigrants, you would see a change in policy and concentration camps or whatever means they need in just some months! But they know that they are not in serious troubles by immigrants, even on the contrary, its better to have a fractionised, individualised, hedomatic mass in a "plural" society which can't and dont want to rise against the idea of a human plantagement of the plutocracy which is definitely on the rise in Britain - even more so than in the US of A probably.

In fact, all those in Britain fighting against the EU should think about the role of their nation internationally and in the EU, because it was too often like a 5th cohort of the US of A and the plutocracy in Europe and still is. In fact by using this "anti-Euro" mentality they always get through with asocial measures. Because the British media speak about "the bad EU-bureaucracy" always if they want to prevent social or community oriented and responsible steps, but dont raise their voice if they use the EU for more control and exploitation of the own people! Thats a great hypocrisy of many parts of the British public and policy in fact.

Similar things happened in Germany when the government first supported or even demanded the Liberalisation and downgrading of social and economic standards of various Eastern European countries and spoke about "the pressure coming from this dynamic Eastern European nations" for downgrading the own system afterwards...

Patriots who speak up risk prison! Conservatives retreat into the comfort of their money, indifferent to the plight of the white poor who are left stranded in alien environments.

Think about it, why is that happening? Because the immigrants were and are that powerful? They are only the mean for other, more important forces to control the common European people!

I agree, but it's a necessary first step. A mass movement to stop immigration of any kind, including people from other EU nations who currently have the right to move to England, is possible based simply on the dangers of overcrowding. Then a movement to encourage non-whites to leave can be started.

I might agree on that for Germany to a certain degree, but never for Great Britain! For Great Britain such a movement will be corrupted from the beginning, absolutely useless and finally a mean working against the common Brits even! Because in Germany its still quite clear for most people, even the majority of Liberals, who is a German and who's not, a Negroid cannot be a "true German" without a doubt. In Great Britain the mentality which says "if you accept our laws and customs, you are a Brit even if coming from the jungle of Africa and your ancestors lived in tribes of gatherers two generations ago."
So if just arguing against the immigration of all foreigners, this will be even supported if the social and economic tensions will increase, by the plutocracy, but in this way: "Those which came before the crisis are true Brits now, and every European even is totally foreign and has no place here, but the black Mbanbe is a good citizen of our state and should be accepted by all as such." So they will cement the status quo and make it even worse with such a mentality of "the boat is full" which just emphasise the economic and social aspect without even considering other, more racial, ethnic, cultural and community etc. aspects which being excluded and downplayed.

Even true English coming from South Africa or America might be inacceptable then "because the boat is full", whereas the "good citizen and tax payer Mbanbe" will stay and reproduce, might even still has all rights to let his family come and further asylum seekers will flow in as well because to change that is not possible in the current Liberal-Individualist system of law and justice.

So I dont believe in such populist movements of "anti-immigration" and "anti-EU" sentiments without looking at what a real healthy community and nation is about. A collective-social movement will lead to better long term results if its about immigration even than such half-hearted movements of people which still just want to keep the system they have and are not ready to really change anything even though all problems coming from this fallacy. One has shift the accentuation from individual and economic problems to the problems of the community and majority as whole first, after doing that and seeing how individual and collective problems being interconnected, most other steps would be just a matter of time. Thats why "they", the defenders of Liberalcapitalism and slaves of the plutocratic oligarchy, will allow even "anti-immigration" and "anti-EU" sentiments if they can instrumentalise them against elements (Islamists, European racists and nationalists, social revolutionaries, social movements etc.) they fear, but won't allow any collective movement, fight it as long as possible.

[Spjabork]

I agree, but it's a necessary first step. A mass movement to stop immigration of any kind, including people from other EU nations who currently have the right to move to England, is possible based simply on the dangers of overcrowding. Then a movement to encourage non-whites to leave can be started.
Yes, you are absolutely right.

For tactical and psychological reasons, it is not just necessary, but it is perhaps the only way out at all. You can't argue at the moment who's a good boy & who's a bad boy, who is "useful" & who's "superflous": if you start to "make trouble" this way, they just will talk you down with the old crap "all are equal" and "they aren't so bad really" etc. and "we are no Nazis who are going to select people" etc. pp.

But, that the country is full everybody understands and nobody can deny in the long run. That this country is Britain and not Oneworldistan also everybody knows and understands and nobody can deny. Even the jews can't. And they won't.

My advice: speak out - with loud and clear voice - that you are British and that you intend to remain British till the end of time.

Tell them: "We are no Nazis - we are just British, that's all."

You will see: if you only are determined enough - though this is the one condition - the jews & co. will shrink back from their machinations.

As you can see in the USA: one faction of the jews now suddenly strongly supports building a fence and concedes that it is up to the US-americans to do what they want if they want.

@ Thorburn, this is for you (on the Nazi-watch-thread you asked for jewish bloggers supporting non-immigration):

Rosner's Blog
Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondentt
www.haaretz.com/rosner (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerMain.jhtml)
Posted: May 23, 2006

Israeli advice on the Mexico fence: be ruthless

New York Notes: I guess this time it's really going to happen, says an Israeli expert. "It," meaning the separation fence between the U.S. and Mexico. He has been following the debate surrounding this fence with curiosity, and some amusement. So, he asks, "what should we call it? A fence or a wall?"

The Washington Post had a long story last weekend about American and Mexican communities along the Texas border. These communities will be influenced by the new fence - if it is built - and by any force trying to interrupt the daily flow of people and goods from one side of the border to the other. It's a story reminiscent of the one of Palestinian workers and commuters and farmers finding it difficult to adjust to the reality of an actual, not imaginary, border.

Two weeks ago, I attended a panel discussion during which a New York Times editor explained why the paper chose "barrier" as the word to best describe the Israeli fence and wall along the West Bank. The word's not perfect, but it's somewhat more neutral. The anonymous Israeli expert is eagerly waiting to see what kind of barrier the Americans will be building. And he is more than ready to offer some advice (free of charge, but also of commitment). And he is not the first or only one to do so. American officials, and even more so, politicians, sought some advice from Israel on this matter in the past ? and according to some knowledgeable people, are expected to do so even more in the near future. Former California Governor Pete Wilson cited the Israeli fence as a model for the U.S. in an article he wrote for the Investor's Business Daily. So here is some of what our Israeli expert has to say about it:

Money: It will probably cost more than you think. Why? Because that's always the way it is with such projects. Americans, the Israeli says, tend to be very structured in their work, in a way that has many benefits but also some limitations. It means that they waste a lot of money on "process" and "management" and "studies" before they really act. They make no short-cuts, thus save no money. In the last issue of The National Journal, the Israeli fence is mentioned as the example to use when calculating the cost of such a fence (2000 mile fence = $6.4 billion dollars). The Israeli expert thinks the Americans will end up paying more.

Efficiency: It can work, the expert says ? and other Israeli know-hows agree. Don't buy the argument of liberal opponents who say "no fence can stop people from coming." If done in a proper way, the fence can work. It can achieve whatever goal the U.S. wants it to, "100 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent prevention. Just make the right commitment and you?ll get results."

Tactics: Don't just rely on sophisticated machinery and equipment. You need people on the ground using the equipment to pursue the invaders. They need to react fast, they need intelligence, and they need to be tireless. It will only take a couple of months before the flow of immigrants will become much weaker.

Intelligence: Recruit people on the Mexican side to be your eyes and ears and to tell you what the smugglers are up to. Make sure you can communicate fast, and react even faster. Good intelligence can be the key factor for success.

Routine: The smugglers will be inventive and will look for ways around you. If you stick to some regulated routine, you'll end up wasting your time and your money. Surprise them where they don't expect you, make them understand that no place is safe, no route out of reach. "Don't police them, fight them."

Ruthlessness: Is it really important for the Americans? If it is, they should be prepared to show it. "Make the other side understand that this is no game - that life can be in danger," says the expert. "I know this is the toughest advice of all, but short of doing it the Americans will end up pretending to stop illegal immigrants rather than really doing it. At the end of the day, it is very simple: America is more powerful than the smugglers - meaning, it can deter them from doing what they do." But there's one condition necessary to keep this preponderance of power working: "It should be as important for America to stop the illegal new comers as it is for them to come."

Danger: You mean they have to shoot the smugglers? "No, they have to stop them. But if they run away they have to chase them, and if they resist they need to use force. Eventually, they'll end up doing things you don't want people to watch on television. I'm not sure if they have the resolve and the stomach to do it. Maybe it's not as important for them as they claim it is."

Conduct: Corruption can be a serious problem on the sealed border. As it gets tougher to enter the U.S, people will be ready to pay a high price for it, and the temptation to help those people in something one shouldn't underestimate. Take it into account while devising the system.

[Agrippa]

Tell them: "We are no Nazis - we are just British, that's all."

One doesnt have to be "a Nazi" to see racial and basic ethnocultural differences as well as general problems of degeneration and decadence in Western societies. Immigration alone is just one symptome out of many others and one can't just trying to treat one symptome and hoping for everything else becoming fine soon...
Who is "British" then? Can every Mr. Mbanbe be a "good British" who is a rightful passenger of "full boat"? If yes, such an attitude is just destructive and sick, because there can be never a preference for a black African before a British by blood, for example from South Africa. If so thats so sick this can't be even considered! Furthermore with such an attitude, as I said before, one won't change the laws for asylum seekers and immigration in general, just provoke a "populist movement" which will change close to nothing to the better.

If they would say so, thats fine, but if they say we are "British Liberals and just dont want more immigration because 'the boat is full', we dont care about what happened with this society otherwise and about all those non-integrable individuals being already present or the idiotic 'political correctness' and the economic exploitation and social-mind control of our people in an already half-totalitarian state in the hands of plutocrats", than this is no solution but even worse! Because many "common people" might believe in that crap and see it as the right "solution", because any real and fundamental alternative isnt visible. Thats just another trick and illusion, distraction from whats crucial!

And if some plutocrats even would support it, well, this would just mean that I'm right and this wouldnt really change anything of importance but they just fear certain immigrants and their attitude towards THEM!

If honest Jews and wealthy people would support a real movement which will control the high finance for the better of the people, revert Neoliberal reforms where they hurt and harmed the people, are for social responsibility and solidarity, will support repatriation of non-integrable masses and accept the dominance of one leading culture and the demand for a homogeneous and group oriented nation which got rid of the decadence of the past decades, then they are welcomed by me. If supporting human Eugenic programs even - great - but still they should know who actually owns the lands of Europe and this can be only true Europeans, they are the only ones who have the right to determine the future of their people and nations and nobody else! If they will be accepted or at least tolerated, possible, but never in the position of those which actually decide about Europe's and the Europeans fate because that is not their business and if they think it is, there is a problem which can't be overcome!

I personally would negotiate with everyone and giving everyone a chance from the beginning to the end, but one must prove good will and a honest readiness to change the own attitude and the system.

[Aeric]

I am a simple man - not so simple that I fail to grasp arguments based upon the alienation and exclusion models of Marx and Weber - but simple in the sense that I recognise the fact that an intricately-woven knot is sometimes best undone with a single sharp cut rather than a subtle process of disentanglement.

There seems to be some confusion amongst our non-British comrades about the racial integrity of white nationalists in these islands. Please allow me to clarify this very important point. I (and I think I speak for my fellow countrymen here) definitely do not regard any dark-skinned person as British. The artificial and unnatural nationality rules introduced by liberals, race-traitors and outsiders have no value or legitimacy in my eyes.

RedJack's simple, yet effective suggested course of action is the only sane policy that any future nationalist administration could (or should) adopt. Blacks, Asians and other unwanted aliens should be re-educated about their status then actively encouraged (and ultimately compelled) to leave Britain.

There are very good reasons why ordinary Britons feel that the EU is a foreign, unwanted institution - if explaining them would not upset many of our continental cousins, I would gladly do so. We really don't need manipulation from the plutocrats to feel sentiments which have been part of the British character for centuries. As I have said elsewhere, it is a shame that we receive such little credit for being able to look beyond our traditional prejudices. I honestly feel that Skadi will eventually lose many of its British Members if our comrades over the water can't control their tendency to consider us as 'spoiled goods'.

Aeric

[Agrippa]

Actually I respect and value the British and can just stress that its exactly this attitude which makes me saying that the British must wake up and that this
We really don't need manipulation from the plutocrats to feel sentiments which have been part of the British character for centuries.
if no argument because the British being under control of a plutocratic minority for centuries already. I dont attack certain aspects of the English identity in particular because I generally dislike the English, what I obviously do not, but because I think that those ways of thinking, living, ordering society and making policy are harmful for both the English, British and all Europeans the same time!

Otherwise I suggest to look at things in detail. F.e. I'm against the European Union as it is too obviously, because its not only but primarily a mean for plutocrats, multinational corporations, lobbyists, Liberalcapitalists and radical egalitarians. But as I said, its not about being critical about what makes the "European" Union bad for the people, but about a generally negative attitude if its about a common path for Europeans and the well being of our people and the tendency of a lot of Brits to defend radical Individualism, Neoliberalism-Liberalcapitalism, "political correctness" of the American sort in many areas of society, US-influence on Europe, the power of the high finance, fighting any common European strategy, real social, economic-financial and ecological standards, European strength and independence in the world, American and Jewish influence etc., etc...

Honest British nationalists which see what mistakes their politicians made not just decades, but already centuries ago and which desastrous development were possible again not just decades but already centuries ago (Boer Wars, concrete colonial policy, social and economic policy etc.) and are willing to participate in a European struggle and strategy for securing our survival and people's well being (really the people, not just a plutocratic minority!) are natural allies to me as a German and European.

[Carl]

There seems to be some confusion amongst our non-British comrades about the racial integrity of white nationalists in these islands. Please allow me to clarify this very important point. I (and I think I speak for my fellow countrymen here) definitely do not regard any dark-skinned person as British. The artificial and unnatural nationality rules introduced by liberals, race-traitors and outsiders have no value or legitimacy in my eyes.

RedJack's simple, yet effective suggested course of action is the only sane policy that any future nationalist administration could (or should) adopt. Blacks, Asians and other unwanted aliens should be re-educated about their status then actively encouraged (and ultimately compelled) to leave Britain.

There are very good reasons why ordinary Britons feel that the EU is a foreign, unwanted institution - if explaining them would not upset many of our continental cousins, I would gladly do so. We really don't need manipulation from the plutocrats to feel sentiments which have been part of the British character for centuries. As I have said elsewhere, it is a shame that we receive such little credit for being able to look beyond our traditional prejudices. I honestly feel that Skadi will eventually lose many of its British Members if our comrades over the water can't control their tendency to consider us as 'spoiled goods'.

Aeric

It is a good statement of the counter-European Nationalist position - you are clearly not a simple man! I note that you identify yourself not as a Patriot but more specifically as a National Socialist. I wonder if, knowing this, you really would have the following of your countrymen which perhaps you might wish for. I do think that there could be some considerable difficulty in getting people to follow that particular banner in this country. I do vividly recall that it has been raised in the past without too much success - and this, by fairly forceful and articulate people . I assume that being part of this political or cultural Movement, you would not be tempted by the arguments of the British (UK) Independence Party who would, I suppose, tend to broadly agree with you, at least on the matter of the European Union. As things stand , if the Tories do not make the advance they would like too soon, it is well possible that UKIP will itself increase its support considerably . It could indeed then become a viable "national" party - though not of course having the full "nationalist" ticket which you might wish for! They too would argue for greater control of immigration, as well as Independence from Europe - and might, for all we know , pick up support from other similar Parties.

If you are right that most British people do not accept Blacks as truely British, then when (if) the breakthrough comes , it will not be too difficult to make the point politically....leading on too more decisive conclusions about the future.

It is however more difficult to speak of British attitudes towards continental Europe itself with any real conviction. Whilst people may not go along with decisions made in European institutions at present, this would not of itself imply any hostility to fellow Europeans as fellow Europeans . One indicator of this must surely be the level of emigration of (white) Britons into Europe itself. Another would be the extent to which Britons do actively seek to be in Europe during their holidays. Trivial perhaps, but an indicator nonetheless. Handled carefully, I am not at all sure Britons would find Europe that alien to their own well being. Why don't you consider a Skadi poll on this issue? :)

[RedJack]

Well said, Aeric! Agrippa, I am opposed to the EU in any form. England has been a sovereign nation for 1000 years and I see absolutely no reason to throw that away now. Co-operation between sovereign nations is all that is needed. Nothing boils my blood faster than seeing citizens of the white Commonwealth who flocked to the colours when they were needed treated as foreigners while EU citizens enter the same queue as native British. Members of the A-S diaspora should be allowed to live in England if they wish, but non-whites and foreigners will have to find somewhere else to live. I'm not about to wait around for some continental revolution to start doing something about our problems. We'll get it sorted ourselves. First we close the door and then we give the bum's rush to the wogs.

[OneEnglishNorman]

I am not at all sure Britons would find Europe that alien to their own well being. Why don't you consider a Skadi poll on this issue? :)

Good idea for a poll. My view;

France f.e. is obviously more foreign to the British than the USA or Canada.

Britons chiefly move to France because it is so close. If the USA was equidistant with France it is a no-brainer, Britons would holiday & live in the USA for obvious reasons which scarcely need re-stating.

[Aeric]

I note that you identify yourself not as a Patriot but more specifically as a National Socialist. I wonder if, knowing this, you really would have the following of your countrymen which perhaps you might wish for. I do think that there could be some considerable difficulty in getting people to follow that particular banner in this country. I do vividly recall that it has been raised in the past without too much success - and this, by fairly forceful and articulate people

You are correct, the 'National Socialist' label is certainly emotive and a stumbling block in Britain. However, I use the term in the same practical sense that Hitler originally envisaged. He needed a name for his movement which would convey both its nationalist aims and its volkish/socialist principles - it was a balancing act that was made even more important by the presence of people within the Party who had recently been wearing different coloured shirts and fighting each other.

I anticipate that any successful British movement will have to surmount much the same kind of problem. I am a patriot who believes in the sovereignty of my own nation; though I honour my germanic kin, I see that our differences and homegrown attitudes are part and parcel of what it means to be British. Though our people are forced to be silent by evil laws which restrict public statements about the dark-skinned invaders, I can assure you that the vast majority of the REAL British people do not consider people outside of our race to be British.

There is a lot of garbage offered here by continental and American 'experts' who imagine that they understand the British and their way of thinking. As a people we are slow to hate and we often have to feel the wall pressing against our backs before we turn to aggressive action - but when the British do turn to hatred, we are capable of unspeakable ruthlessness.

The origins of our present problems lie in the two World Wars which we supposedly won. Even though our Empire encompassed a quarter of the planet, we were essentially a small nation which relied heavily upon a tiny and well-defined elite for leadership. In those conflicts, we lost entire generations of those natural leaders and - more importantly - the common man lost faith in the old order of things. The resulting vacuum drew forth people who had appetites for power and wealth, but no sense of duty or responsibility to the nation.

I can offer no simple answers - the road ahead is going to be long and hard, that's for sure, but (on a purely tactical level) British nationalists stand a better chance of making an impact if they defend our nation's traditional preference for separate development. The fastest way to lose the support of most audiences here is to advocate closer links with the rest of Europe.

Aeric

[RedJack]

Hail, Aeric! :thumbup

Your post reminded me of Kipling's poem "When the English began to hate"

[Carl]

I can offer no simple answers - the road ahead is going to be long and hard, that's for sure, but (on a purely tactical level) British nationalists stand a better chance of making an impact if they defend our nation's traditional preference for separate development. The fastest way to lose the support of most audiences here is to advocate closer links with the rest of Europe.
Aeric

I agree that at one level it makes more immediate sense to argue for a national solution to our problems - and this is now certainly in the lead at the present time. I do concede that it must feel really awful for British KIN abroard to take second place to other folk. But this is the world that has emerged since the near breakdown of Britain after WWII. We lost our capacity to stay ahead and were obliged to seek out closer regional alliances. Equally, the former Imperial states sought out greater Independence ( & I don't blame them here) - although Canada tries its best ,I know, to keep the neighbour properly respectful!!! It is perhaps less of a problem for Australia - a country which certainly does punch its weight quite well in the world!

But my positive feeling about Europe (North anyway) is also a deep thing for me and qua AngloSaxon represents "the source and origin" - quite irrespective of the ghastly wars which have been thrust upon us by "misfortune". Quite a bit of the culture I would wish for in the future has roots in these lands - through which the Gods have wandered! They face very similar problems to us - I think of how Holland has suffered its own Imperial past when I recall the alien presence which has washed up there over the years. And the situation in Scandinavia is equally grotesque and also calls out for our active concern! We are not as a nation without powerful and deep links to these lands.

As for America, I am very pleased it is not too close! I much prefer France to be where it is ( for all the problems! ;) ). America is the source of many of our worst difficulties - even if they did save us in WWII (!): we are so much influenced by their culture that it really becomes part of the problem - not the solution. Love & Hate , I guess, and it goes quite deep.The entire apparatus of Race-Chaos is surely something which came out of America into Britain rather than from Imperial Europe - its natural to them so it must become natural to us! I am not sure the Russians think like that -- and we know, of course, that many Americans also strongly reject the recipe!

We all agree that European Political institutions at present constitute a major problem; being told that it is now illegal for us to tighten up our borders should do wonders for the nationalist vote! But I still think that we can assist each other as nationalists and in a sense that is what Skadi is doing - sharpening opinions and attitudes, clarifying issues even further. Agrippa's contributions are stunning in many ways - if he doesn't exactly see things in a British way, well - there is an easy explanation for that!! But he is in many places and I have seen throughout Skadi such versatile handling of issues that I really do think we should respect and think about what he has to say! To this end , I have printed out some of the denser arguments in order to consider them more carefully.

[RedJack]

It's no accident that Britons have been taught to believe that they can no longer stand alone without help from Europe. This attitude has been deliberately instilled so that the population won't object to ever increasing control from the EU. I find it very interesting and not a little disturbing that Agrippa is hostile to Britain handling it's own problems. Waiting for the collapse of the entire system to begin making needed changes is a recipe for disaster. :thumbdown

Remember Carl that the European nations that Britain had the closest ties to were Denmark and Norway. Denmark had to follow Britain into the EU to avoid losing out like NZ did. Norway still isn't a member.

[Agrippa]

Waiting for the collapse of the entire system to begin making needed changes is a recipe for disaster.

Thats not what I said of course, since I know that even if "a collapse" would come, one need to prepare oneself, the movement and the people for that occurence.

Furthermore I criticise the British for working against the "European" Union and national corporations whenever its useful and good for the people and states, whereas they support the EU-regime when it exploits it people and introduces asocial Liberalcapitalistic principles or demands for a pro-immigration, "multiculture", "political correctness", Individualisation, Pluralisation, downgrading of homogenous communities and national movements etc.

If the British search for a "customised solution" for their island, than thats perfectly ok as long as they really work for the own people and race on their island and not against the people "on the continent". But from what I see they downgrade their own people and betray their European brothers in the name of a US-GB political strategy which was designed for the interests of the minority of the plutocratic oligarchy. Whether the British recognise that or not doesnt matter, but if they really think that Liberalcapitalism and "we are the British and dont care for the rest" mentality is part of the solution, the British are in a worse condition than any other European nation because they dont even recognise how ruined they are in "the national resistance groups".

Honestly there were various occasions in which I wished the British being out of the "European" Union, because they always sided with Neoliberals and "pluralists" in the Union and worked against more healthy movements and groups in it. But not because I dont want the British to join once they recovered, but if they prefer to be plutocratic slaves which follow their mass media and national prejudices, they dont do any European a favour by joining and influencing others.

Germany is close to Britain if its about its harmful role in the "European" Union by the way...seriously, at the moment I'm perfectly aware of the desastrous role the FRG is playing in the current EU-regime which is a catastrophy for all of us and doesnt really work for the European interests. But THATS the main problem, that its no real union of the true Europeans and for the actual European interests, not the idea of European nations working for common goals and their well-being in a more complex world in which the single European nations are just part of a greater concert or will have no important voice at all.

[OneEnglishNorman]

Honestly there were various occasions in which I wished the British being out of the "European" Union, because they always sided with Neoliberals and "pluralists" in the Union and worked against more healthy movements and groups in it.

Generally speaking, Britain & France existing in the same political union is bound to fail, or at least be a recipe for conflict. The two peoples/political culture are opposites (within the European realm).

---------------

I have two views on Britain... at the domestic, micro (national) level, Britain has many positive aspects, freedom (historically), uncorrupt law and so on.

But at the international level, Britain is the number 1 supporter behind trans-national organisations, such as the WTO, UN, NAFTA, NATO. Japan, USA, France, Germany, China, are all more parochial/protectionist than Britain. Britain's non-membership of the Euro is a "red herring". The British elite are the most remorselessly internationalist, remorselessly multi-cultural of all nations.

That is my description of Britain's attitude towards the world, parts of it I agree with and parts I disagree with.

[RedJack]

The EU is never good for the people and member states, Agrippa, and I'm opposed to it at all times. I know you like to blame the British for all that ails modern society, but I'm not buying it. If you recall, France considered Algeria to be an integral part of metropolitan France before the Algerians rebelled. I reckon they brought all that Moslem immigration on themselves.

[Agrippa]

The EU is never good for the people and member states, Agrippa, and I'm opposed to it at all times.

"Was never in its current form", would be a better evaluation. The current "European Union" has an image of "Europeans" which is opposed to any truly European people and values in my opinion. Its not about this political construct, but the idea of a common European policy and structure which I think of being a good idea.

I know you like to blame the British for all that ails modern society, but I'm not buying it.

I dont. The British people were rather one of the first victims with many perpetrators in their upper ranks though and many naive helpers in the lower, so they played their role, as did others, they were just more important and still are for a certain policy of the plutocratic oligarchy in the West. One thing is for sure, this plutocratic Oligarchy's power grew with the British and later American system and the British upper class, even aristocracy itself was influenced and mingled with those merchant (false) "aristocracy" of Jewish and European roots which is so obviously dominant in the USA and less openly, but still, in GB.
Compare with:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=63613

If one state represented this idea and plans best, it was the British and thats for sure.

Whats a healthy and good body worth if speaking about the British, if the head is rotten and corrupted? Good soldiers and workers fighting for their "masters" which dont care for their real interests as individuals, bloodlines and groups? Nothing to be proud of. Old Anglo-Saxon spirit of value was abused by the plutocratic oligarchy of the island over and over and over again - against the true interests of the British people and Europeans.

If you recall, France considered Algeria to be an integral part of metropolitan France before the Algerians rebelled. I reckon they brought all that Moslem immigration on themselves.

Nothing wrong with that. Northern Algeria was part of the Roman Empire too. Algeria was a French colony with many French and European settlers actually which lived mostly in their own European communities and districts, so its just natural that they thought of it being part of France. Islamism was weak at that time too and it was a colonisation of North African areas by Europeans and not vice versa. The Arabs colonised it too, the French were just less successful. The French made many mistakes in Algeria and it was a complicated issue I have to say, could discuss about that at length and some French members could elaborate even further.

It would be just natural to me if the British in the 19th century considered Anglo-Canada, Australia and New Zealand being integral parts of the British wider nation too, everything else would be a strange look at things in my opinion.

[Aeric]

The European Union is managed by non-elected officials and it is generally a faceless entity which represents nothing but foreign interference to most sane Britons.

Carl is correct to point out the degenerate influences which flow from the USA. That great nation did, indeed, save us from defeat in two World Wars, yet it also deliberately bankrupted us in 1945 by withdrawing all of the loans and credits extended to Britain during World War II (at the same time as it won new friends in Europe by handing out loans and grants to our former enemies).

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the British are in love with the USA. It would be an even bigger mistake to assume that most of us run around like headless chickens, giving our loyal support to the dictates of the socialist/liberal/multiculuralist/zionist conglomerate which has taken over the political life of our nation.

The average man in the street in Britain knows exactly what is wrong with our country and holds no flattering illusions about the selfish, unworthy pigs who pretend to speak for us at Westminster. Walk into any factory, office or pub in this land and ask any bunch of REAL Britons what they think of the government and the state of the nation and the temptation to write about naive, trusting souls who march to the tune of cunning plutocrats would vanish forever!

The truth is very different. If you knew Britain, really KNEW it, you would see a country that is bowed and bloodied, but undefeated - a land full of people who hold on to their core values, who instinctively loathe the stain of multi-culturalism and who await only effective leadership before their long dammed-up passions are released.

We WILL set Britain free; it will be an independent, sovereign and proud nation once again...and we will do it without waiting for others. This is a new age and the British no longer automatically respect leaders who do not EARN the right to rule. The price of setting our own house in order will not be small, yet it will be paid - the alternative is slavery under the heels of foreigners (either within or without our borders).

Aeric

[Spjabork]

Denmark had to follow Britain into the EU to avoid losing out like NZ did. Norway still isn't a member.
Norway's independence from the EU is solely based on the oil fields in its territorial waters.

And, of course, on the will of its people. But this will must have some backing. Having their own energy ressources is quite a strong backing.

[Carl]

The British people were rather one of the first victims with many perpetrators in their upper ranks though and many naive helpers in the lower, so they played their role, as did others, they were just more important and still are for a certain policy of the plutocratic oligarchy in the West.
..................
Whats a healthy and good body worth if speaking about the British, if the head is rotten and corrupted? Good soldiers and workers fighting for their "masters" which dont care for their real interests as individuals, bloodlines and groups? Nothing to be proud of. Old Anglo-Saxon spirit of value was abused by the plutocratic oligarchy of the island over and over and over again - against the true interests of the British people and Europeans...............

It would be just natural to me if the British in the 19th century considered Anglo-Canada, Australia and New Zealand being integral parts of the British wider nation too..... everything else would be a strange look at things in my opinion.

This thread is almost too demanding . So many deeply conflcted ideas whose gears just fail to match up -- so many missed opportunities! None of us think that the EU is a brilliant thing as it is... its law already make things more difficult for nationalists of all kinds. The idea (above) of some Imperial British world wide order may have once been feasible - but surely no longer? This was the province of the old guard's Empire Loyalists - it is hard to see it having much impact anymore. For true Patriots (and not Yankie-Doodles!!), the British Imperial Kin was, I guess, a very real thing -- how that concept was replaced by the " anyone whatever" policy - which lead on to millions of Africans & greater Indians arriving - I shall never, never understand. It was(is) the racial betrayal at the heart of the Commonwealth. The usual argument is that "plutocrats" ( of various orders and kinds! ;) ) used the open borders as a simple device to exploit just about everyone- simply to increase their profits. And Possibly also as a means of reduction & control (Agrippa's notion). I am sure there were black hearted villains all over the place who didn't care a damn about the people or its future...look at Officer Maxwell as the kind of crooked corporate thief we are up against! And these magnates come much bigger. Even now, our Euro-Steel giants are falling into rich Indian hands. What do they care about folkdoms, integrities, loyalties - whatever!? Profits, Powers, Controls,"Principalities" -& what hope for little folcish-hobbits and their dreams. In some way, it really reminds me of the onging industrialization & rise of China - the little people who are poisoned & crushed count for nothing--- which is just about where I see current "patriotic sentiments" as being, quite irrelevant to the ongoing Colossus of WorldWide Finance.

If we are divided we really will be even more readily picked off & crushed! They will simply play off one nation against the next , moving money & jobs around at their will. Britain is seriously vulnerable to this - being so much more enmeshed through years and years of subjection from on high.

And now I see the rise of SCOTTISHNESS on Skadi! Scotland is essentially these days very proEU....that is, it is almost entirely Liberal-Leftist + Leftist Nationalist. And this spells out EU as it is + multi-racial hegemony! -- so that's QED for the Internationalists, I take it!!!! OK ??? :thumbdown

or am I wrong about that?

[Spjabork]

Generally speaking, Britain & France existing in the same political union is bound to fail, or at least be a recipe for conflict. The two peoples/political culture are opposites (within the European realm).
Why? From 1815 till 1965 France and Britain have mostly cooperated. It was a sort of world-condominium, France being second to Britain, Britain being second to none. :D See the list of instances:
1830 Oriental Crisis
1853-56 Crimean War
1877-78 Russo-Turkish War
1900 Boxer Uprising
1904 onwards "Entente Cordiale"
1911 Second Morocco Crisis
1914-19 First World War
1920-1940 League of Nations
June 1940: Union of France & Britain, proposed by Churchill
February 1945: Churchill pleads for a French occupation zone in Germany
1956 Suez Crisis
1960 African Year

It all ended seemingly in 1965 with the death of Churchill. In the following year DeGaulle attended the detonation of the first French A-bomb and cheered "Vive le Quebec libre!". Well, DeGaulle also is dead now.
But at the international level, Britain is the number 1 supporter behind trans-national organisations, such as the WTO, UN, NAFTA, NATO.

Japan, USA, France, Germany, China, are all more parochial/protectionist than Britain.
It's impossible to top Germany in that respect. :D (Why should Britain support NAFTA??)
Britain's non-membership of the Euro is a "red herring".
No. It makes exactly the difference.
The British elite are the most remorselessly internationalist, remorselessly multi-cultural of all nations.
At the end of the 19th century, some British prime Minister said "the world daiy is is getting more and more British!"

The Empire was a hard and soft power machine. The soft power still exists. Oxford and the BBC exist. The Crown exists, the Pound exists. One could claim, the soft power wasn't touched.

[OneEnglishNorman]

And now I see the rise of SCOTTISHNESS on Skadi! Scotland is essentially these days very proEU....that is, it is almost entirely Liberal-Leftist + Leftist Nationalist. And this spells out EU as it is + multi-racial hegemony! -- so that's QED for the Internationalists, I take it!!!! OK ??? :thumbdown

or am I wrong about that?

The SNP are pro-EU primarily because it represents an alternative "framework" to exist within other than the UK.

---------------

On the broad EU point;

Supporting the EU just because there is a vague 0.5% chance it will turn into a pan-European peoples safeguard is foolhardy. The EU is even more politically correct and left-liberal than the USA.

The British do not hold pie-in-the-sky notions about the EU being a counter-weight to the USA. This is to their credit. The British support the EU insofar as it allows the British to trade with the Europeans and buy holiday homes on the Continent. The British do not care about an EU foreign policy or EU armed forces or any of that rubbish. Maybe the French & Dutch people think about this stuff, I do not know.

The British elite, that may be a different story. They are heavily in favour of Turkish membership. The British ruling classes are 100% internationalist, they do not want a "Fortress Europe" which is opposed to the USA.

---------

@ Spjabork; I do not disagree with your points. On the other hand, previous British-French co-operation had been more military/diplomacy based, whereas the EU is an intimate, day to day relationship, which fuses the two together.

[Carl]

The SNP are pro-EU primarily because it represents an alternative "framework" to exist within other than the UK.

On the broad EU point :

Supporting the EU just because there is a vague 0.5% chance it will turn into a pan-European peoples safeguard is foolhardy. The EU is even more politically correct and left-liberal than the USA..........


The British elite, that may be a different story. They are heavily in favour of Turkish membership. The British ruling classes are 100% internationalist........

The SNP want to be independent within the EU. Overall, they have a completely tolerant view of immigration, they even encouage non-European members. They are that kind of nationalist. They do fit into the broad Scottish framework in this regard. Perhaps you are happy about this position. I'd call it FAKE Nationalism m'self! ( & so would many Scots!)

The EU is PC : this we all admit! That's why it is in the way of truely nationalist thinking - even "PanEuropean Nationalism". There is little sense of Folk protection about its policies! I'd call it FAKE European in much of its thinking!

We know about the British "elite" ( your word.) We see what they have achieved over the last five decades ( & beyond) . I am none too happy with that!! I call it FAKE CARING !! Do YOU want Turkey in Europe ? -- if they join in , I'd call it FAKE Europe and would prefer to see Germany & France leave it! Enough of FAKES!!!

[RedJack]

"Was never in its current form", would be a better evaluation. The current "European Union" has an image of "Europeans" which is opposed to any truly European people and values in my opinion. Its not about this political construct, but the idea of a common European policy and structure which I think of being a good idea.

And I strongly disagree, Britain's sovereignty is not up for negotiation. Co-operation between sovereign nations will have to suffice.



Whats a healthy and good body worth if speaking about the British, if the head is rotten and corrupted?

We'll sort out our scumbag politicians, never fear. You tend to yours.


Nothing wrong with that. Northern Algeria was part of the Roman Empire too. Algeria was a French colony with many French and European settlers actually which lived mostly in their own European communities and districts, so its just natural that they thought of it being part of France. Islamism was weak at that time too and it was a colonisation of North African areas by Europeans and not vice versa. The Arabs colonised it too, the French were just less successful. The French made many mistakes in Algeria and it was a complicated issue I have to say, could discuss about that at length and some French members could elaborate even further.

You're missing my point. Algeria wasn't simply thought of as part of France, it was part of France. They weren't simply colonizing in one direction as you claim. The Algerians didn't move to France in large numbers in those days but they sure could have. That's why so many moved there after Algeria was granted it's independence. IOW, you can't blame Britain for France's huge Moslem population.

It would be just natural to me if the British in the 19th century considered Anglo-Canada, Australia and New Zealand being integral parts of the British wider nation too, everything else would be a strange look at things in my opinion.

Not the same thing at all.


Norway's independence from the EU is solely based on the oil fields in its territorial waters.

And, of course, on the will of its people. But this will must have some backing. Having their own energy ressources is quite a strong backing.

This is true, but Britain has the other half of that oilfield.

[Agrippa]

That's why so many moved there after Algeria was granted it's independence.

The same people who were against a French colony in Algeria were supporters of the mass immigration of Algerians. Furthermore many of the first Algerians who came to France, especially after the country's independence, were war veterans and people who supported the French! So this kind of responsibility for war veterans, some actually who looked quite European and/or were of Berber descent. However, the whole development from the loss of Algeria, to the expulsion and humiliation of the French and European (not just French!) settlers to the beginning of the mass immigration was a French and European catastrophy.

And I strongly disagree, Britain's sovereignty is not up for negotiation. Co-operation between sovereign nations will have to suffice.

Right, but no European nation and people should act against their European kin and true European interests. If a people did so too often, it was, unfortunately, the British.

IOW, you can't blame Britain for France's huge Moslem population.

When did I blame the British for everything? Actually they are the first victims rather than anything else. But like its often the case, the first victims become the second perpetrators.
The problem with the British and Americans is they helped to build up an anti-European Liberalcapitalistic cultural, social, economic and political system controlled by a plutocratic Oligarchy and defended it against all who tried to challenge this corrupted system, be it from the out- or the inside. Some of the elements of this sick system were even "invented" or at least "refined" by Europeans, a lot of them being again from Anglo-nations unfortunately. After they did so and helped to establish "subsidiaries" in other nations, those other nations went their own way to destruction and downgrading of course, no direct influence needed any more.

Thats like infecting someone with HIV more or less consciously and then saying, "oh, I didnt had contacts with you the last 10 years, so dont blame me now if you have AIDS and die in 2 years..." Thats a little bit short sighted. Or do you really think things would have run for Germany, France or Europeans in general that way, with the demographic catastrophy, mass immigration, degeneration, mental and cultural downgrading, social and economic exploitation as well as social, economic and political control by the (to a certain degree foreign ethnoracial, non-European) plutocratic Oligarchy without GB-USA defending and actually spreading this sick system and its false "elite".
They do so to this day, look to Iraq and what they are doing there, the poor trial to repeat the re-education of Germany and continental Europe with ineffective means and in another time & context.

[Carl]

Right, but no European nation and people should act against their European kin and true European interests. If a people did so too often, it was, unfortunately, the British.

When did I blame the British for everything? Actually they are the first victims rather than anything else. But like its often the case, the first victims become the second perpetrators.
The problem with the British and Americans is they helped to build up an anti-European Liberalcapitalistic cultural, social, economic and political system controlled by a plutocratic Oligarchy and defended it against all who tried to challenge this corrupted system, be it from the outside or the inside.............
( forgive the Abkurzung!)

I can't quite see that it will that easy to "deal with" the politicians who have so messed things up!! They seem to me to be riding quite high still - even if things around them are none too rosy. When we look at how Britain is, it is clear that it has little to do with ordinary people in their everyday lives. One suspects that the pressures on the system from within and from beyond are largely out of the control of everyday folk. We may not like whats happening - but there never seems to be anyway to influence things correctly - or at least , in ways that make for significant change.

Immigration must be a serious matter ; both major parties here are now acting ( in their way) to head off any nationalist ferment . But these parties are BOTH the toy-things of greater forces ( see Agrippa!!) and it is these forces which ultimate call the fateful tunes! Unless this is understood , the electorate(s) will simply go on swinging from one side to the other of essentially the same coin! Nothing much will change - and therefore things will in reality become steadily worse.

OK. The Tory plan for immigration (today) This will interest you, Redjack. Immigration will be drastically controlled for all unskilled workers from outside the EU (N.B.) except for highly skilled workers in special categories. Borders etc will be strengthened. ( It is worth adding that overall immigration is currently at record levels : c. 200,000 net per year !!). This is the Conservative opposition ( or what's left of it!). Nothing about Imperial Preference I am afraid! And the Lib/Labour government is even more proEU - but less inclined to control immigration. That's how the cards are in reality, that's "the working base" for any would be radicals to act upon. Good luck - you'll need it.

Agrippa. I don't see you as being anti-British. We are all victims of the same rotten mess; ideally we should all work together to sort it out. It won't be easy if the extremes want to make difficulties just for the sake of it. If we run with America exclusively then we won't be allowed to think for ourselves - and we won't even be allowed to sort out our internal difficulties.And as I have said, the situation will become even more entrenched. Perhaps turning towards Europe will be a brave new attempt to re-affirm who we originally were; yes, we need the markets of the world of course, but we need also to secure our own lands into the future.

[Agrippa]

I can't quite see that it will that easy to "deal with" the politicians who have so messed things up!!

The whole system is a problem case. I mean, just assume a British premier would have the gutts, will and insights to change things, what do you think, without a strong domestic movement and support from other nations and movements, how long would he last? Now think of all those MP's without real power, if one of those would raise his voice against injustice, exploitation, control, destruction of the British people and whats going wrong in the nation, without any "politically correct" or simply strategic considerations, what would happen with this individual? One thing is for sure, he won't change too much with his sacrifice as long as their is no bigger change at sight.

One suspects that the pressures on the system from within and from beyond are largely out of the control of everyday folk.

Even under the plutocrats and in the political class there are just a few who really matter and could make a difference. The "common people" are just dust and have no voice at all without being united in a greater and more collective, group oriented movement.

But these parties are BOTH the toy-things of greater forces ( see Agrippa!!) and it is these forces which ultimate call the fateful tunes! Unless this is understood , the electorate(s) will simply go on swinging from one side to the other of essentially the same coin! Nothing much will change - and therefore things will in reality become steadily worse.

Thats the catastrophy of the majority voting system, mainstreaming and politically correct mind control together with a simple dichotomy of political alternatives for the masses (mainstream "right" and mainstream "left") in a "swing democracy" with just two choices finally which are now mostly different if its about "soft topics", but agree if its about the general course and most "hard issues".

I don't see you as being anti-British. We are all victims of the same rotten mess; ideally we should all work together to sort it out.

Exactly. Even if the "ideal way" has no high probability, its still worth to strive for it and not giving up hope and good will for worthless defeatism and worse alternatives.

[RedJack]

The same people who were against a French colony in Algeria were supporters of the mass immigration of Algerians. Furthermore many of the first Algerians who came to France, especially after the country's independence, were war veterans and people who supported the French! So this kind of responsibility for war veterans, some actually who looked quite European and/or were of Berber descent. However, the whole development from the loss of Algeria, to the expulsion and humiliation of the French and European (not just French!) settlers to the beginning of the mass immigration was a French and European catastrophy.

The point I was making about Algeria was that France didn't need any encouragment from Anglos to welcome non-Euros as their brothers.



Right, but no European nation and people should act against their European kin and true European interests. If a people did so too often, it was, unfortunately, the British.

Like France, Germany and Spain have never done things that weren't in the best interests of their neighbours. :blueroll:
Remember, Agrippa, that Britain is a part of the Anglosphere, and that those people are even closer kin to us than Europeans.



Or do you really think things would have run for Germany, France or Europeans in general that way, with the demographic catastrophy, mass immigration, degeneration, mental and cultural downgrading, social and economic exploitation as well as social, economic and political control by the (to a certain degree foreign ethnoracial, non-European) plutocratic Oligarchy without GB-USA defending and actually spreading this sick system and its false "elite".


Yes, they would. It's rather obvious that France and Spain have always been more tolerant of miscegenation than the "uptight" Anglos, for example.

I can't quite see that it will that easy to "deal with" the politicians who have so messed things up!!

It won't be easy, but it can be done, and we'll have to do it. People can do more than vote for one party or the other, you can also join one of the parties and automatically increase your influence.

Turning to Europe and further turning our backs on our Anglo kin would cause our ultimate demise.

Agrippa, it's amusing that you would call my suggestion "giving up hope and good will for worthless defeatism and worse alternatives". It's a necessary first step to changing the situation. Britain has a unique opportunity because it is a heavily populated island. Fortune has dealt us an ace and we'd be mad not to use it.

[Aeric]

Redjack's philosophy is entirely in keeping with the traditional Nordic system of priorities - Family, Kin, Nation, Race. Whether our European neighbours like it or not, during the days of Empire, the Anglo-Saxons planted their seed in distant lands and the white inhabitants of those nations are closer to us in kinship than any of our cousins in Germany or Scandanavia - they are our own blood, it is as simple as that.

The British people have, in truth, been falsely led by (to borrow Agrippa's label) treacherous plutocrats. The biggest lie that they ever told us was that we needed to be part of the EU. In fact, we were informed that we were only engaging in a trade agreement - no mention was made of ceding sovereignty - and it took drastic and underhanded manipulation inside Parliament in order to ensure that the original link was made in the first place. A tiny handul of influential MPs wanted us to join the EU - they used trickery to ensure that the acceptance vote was passed.

In reality, Britain had oil, the contacts and influence of the City of London's financial sector and a vast range of potential trading partners within the Commonwealth to turn to - these advantages were enough to give us a free and independent place in the World. The traitors who accepted power and wealth from our enemies in return for selling us out deserve to be put against a wall and shot.

It is disheartening to see posts from ill-informed comrades who persistently trot out the notion that the British have never really been full members of the 'Germanic Club' and/or that we are generally tolerant (or even enthusiastic) about race-mixing. I have addressed these issues before - my retort remains the same...those who really KNOW Britain, the British and our culture know how erroneous those myths truly are.

In 1966, a sign was put up at Hastings commemorating the 'union of the English and french peoples' - it was hacked to pieces before it had been in place for a single day. Every so often, the sign is put up again and it suffers the same fate. The people in our islands have long memories - our plutocrats can impose as many foreigners upon as as they wish and it won't change a thing in the minds of real Britons. We know who we are and there is no confusion in our hearts about our kin overseas either.

Aeric

[Kaiser]

I thought we were nationalists? Destroying Britain by bringing foreign elements, white or non-white in is destructive. They are both alien to the culture.

"We Americans are accustomed to say that we are 'a new race.' Englishmen insist that we are 'a new race,' as if the branch that hangs over the wall is not as old as the branch that hangs over the garden. Both branches are as old as the tree that bears them. Their roots are the same. We americans are as old as our roots. We are indeed a very old race, much older than our American nation, older than the settlement in England, older than our first appearance in Europe. And never a barbarous or enslaved race!"

"Nevertheless, race is a great fact and can not be evaded. It is here. Men belong to various races, as trees belong to different varieties. The races are different and they do fulfill different destinies. I am not speaking of nationalities. National divisions are largely artificial, they are constantly changing and with the increase of civilization will tend more and more to disappear. But race is not artificial; it is a basic natural fact. Take the Anglo-Saxon, for example, a distinct and easily distinguishable race. You will find Saxons who call themselves Germans or Bohemians; and in France, Frenchmen; and in Holland, Dutchmen; and in northern Europe Scandinavians; and in England, Britons. All belong to one race stream, but divided by national names and language. Yet touch them on the intrinsic racial nerve, and their response to Liberty, Reverence, Orderly Social Life and Progress, are everywhere the same. The same ancestral voices speak in them. Take the United Sates and Canada- two nations of one blood, who before the Revolution were one nation. Do their national divisions really divide them in the things that matter? Not in the least."

W.J. Cameron, James H. Anderson, and Edward W. Tullidge, OUR DESTINY

This is why Skadi Forum is "the largest Germanic online community." Not the largest online community of Germany. Nor the largest online community of Germans. But the largest online community of Germanics.

It is our racial enemies the jews who wish to divide and conquer us by placing arbitrary lines upon our soil and having us spill blood in fratricidal wars. Brother against brother. No greater perversion of our ancestor's lineage of the racial concept of Blood and Soil could be perpetrated upon our Kin than this zionistic swindle. And there is a huge difference between uniting with racial brothers and sisters from around the globe, and race-mixing with non-white foreigners.

First, we must establish the survival of Whites worldwide. Then we must establish Liberty and Freedom; Folk and Family. Then, and only then, can we start cleaning up our own racial stock in earnest. I don't know about others here on Skadi. But as for Der Kaiser:

Our Race is my Nation!

[Horagalles]

United Kingdom
Published: 10/24/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)
Watchdog warns over 'racist migrants'
Evening Standard

London: Thousands of white immigrants from eastern Europe are deeply racist, the head of the race relations watchdog has warned.

Speaking about the tensions in British communities, Trevor Phillips said many arrivals from former Soviet countries displayed prejudice against black people.

"Some eastern European people have attitudes to black people that date back to the Fifties," he told BBC television. "And that is not acceptable."
...Perhaps they just react normal?! I also noticed that the Eastern Europeans are quite outspoken about Negroes. They not have lots of patience with them;) .

Actually you have more then 100.000 South African Whites in Britain now - How are they behaving:D .

[Thruthheim]

Perhaps they just react normal?! I also noticed that the Eastern Europeans are quite outspoken about Negroes. They not have lots of patience with them;) .

Actually you have more then 100.000 South African Whites in Britain now - How are they behaving:D .

Haven't noticed they're here ;) Other than the odd individuals, So I guess they've assimilated quite well ;)

[Agrippa]

@Aeric: Interesting comment, but one thing MUST BE POINTED OUT (!) because your arguments are a contradiction in itself:
In reality, Britain had oil, the contacts and influence of the City of London's financial sector and a vast range of potential trading partners within the Commonwealth to turn to - these advantages were enough to give us a free and independent place in the World. The traitors who accepted power and wealth from our enemies in return for selling us out deserve to be put against a wall and shot.

Does "Britain" have the 'City of London' and its high finance as "an ace" for the British? Not really, in fact the high finance largely owns Great Britain and certain plutocratic clans are exactly the ("our enemies") force which corrupted the nation! The whole Empire was a large degree the result of the rotten and corrupted union of European plutocratic clans with the British aristocracy, similar to what happened in the USA with Anglo, mostly Calvinist plutocrats having an union with the Jewish ones and working together against the true interests of the common people, race and nation as a whole on the long run.

So Britain's greatest strength and weakness is the same, its in the City of London and from there the same people who financed the Empire also corrupted it. The whole Empire was mainly to only good for the British folks if it was about the colonies with settlements, but on the other hand those were corrupted by a false spirit (religious sects of un-European and low character) and influences (the same as in Britain) too.

Every nation can care for its own, but the British, if they truly want to recover, must disempower the plutocratic oligarchy, without doing so, they will be always minor slaves (probably "the No 1 slaves", but still not much more) rather than a free and proud Germanic and European nation, with or without immigrants...

Today largely the same is true, even if not that extreme, for most other (Western at least) European nations, but still the seed came from the islands because such an extreme system which is now already relatively stable for centuries didnt exist elsewhere.

Yes, the Anglos were not generally fond of miscegenation, but dont fool yourself, its not just about actual race mixture, once the true group oriented and natural moral, the consciousness of blood and real honour faded, everything else is just a matter of time and certain forces and interests might work on the people on a very long run, step by step, but still in the end, it will be even worse than being "somewhat tolerant" about race mixture. Because the fate of more consequent people is that there is always just a "whether this or that", so they will jump fast from "racism" to "multiracialism" than those which are usually not that dogmatic (about anything).

However, the British state was never really interested in racial matters, which is quite typical. Common English, British people might have been, but thats another matter since they were quite often even the healthy body on which the rotten head of the plutocratic Oligarchy could comfortably sit and rule from it. Just send the English into all wars for profits and power...they will die for you and some might even believe they did it for "their fatherland and people". Thats the real tragedy of the real British who are now being substituted and some still think they were "victorious", but in reality, for whom did they fought and won for? For sure not for the common English people nor the folk and race, the condition in which they are speaks for itself.

So nothing against English, British who fight for their interests as nation, folk and race, for the interests of the common (real) British people, but hey, when was THAT THE CASE AT ALL? There is no tradition of that to revive it...at least not if its about Great Britain as a state in modernity.

[Carl]

So Britain's greatest strength and weakness is the same, its in the City of London and from there the same people who financed the Empire also corrupted it. The whole Empire was mainly to only good for the British folks if it was about the colonies with settlements, but on the other hand those were corrupted by a false spirit (religious sects of un-European and low character) and influences (the same as in Britain) too.

Every nation can care for its own, but the British, if they truly want to recover, must disempower the plutocratic oligarchy, without doing so, they will be always minor slaves (probably "the No 1 slaves", but still not much more) rather than a free and proud Germanic and European nation, with or without immigrants...


Alas, I think Das System is already getting the better of us in any case! When the old Patriots spoke out against the way the EU was and was going - and has now become , they were often just dismissed as reactionary trouble makers. But Significant POWERS wanted us into the "new Europe" of their own making - not what we might think of as a Germanic Europe or even a Europe of secure Folks, but a Europe of subservient slave-fodder for Industrial exploitation by International Conglomerates. Now, the jobs are often going elsewhere anyway, where the labour is even cheaper in the world market. (I read of significant skilled German emigration? well, that's the pattern being discussed elsewhere - leave Europe, its already sinking!)

In my response #56 which I posted earlier, I spoke of the broad agreement here of LIB-LAB & (now) CONS towards the EU as it is - and not as We/Agrippa might like it to be. So How could the EU be reformed in a way that would perhaps make it more convincing to Patriots? Because if there is no way that it can be made more convincing, people (here) who oppose it so forcefully will merely have their arguments confirmed. Of course they will still have to pit themselves against a solidified "plutocratic-establishment" which appears now to be heading for the EU as it is in any case !.

We will all confront two problems - not one , namely :

1) the EU as it is - which is of little use for EU patriots - and

2) a new British "plutocratic-establishment" which has now decided to join the said EU as it is !

What a dilemma.... especially for those European nations which are , for the moment , still semi-detached.

Agrippa. Can you see an EU of the future (? - as you might wish it) taking decisions in the interest of EuroFolks --rather than (merely) following HumanRights mantras? Would it not be easier for Germany ( or France) to take such decisions as an independent state rather than one seriously enmeshed in an (?) anti-patriotic SupraNational "EU-as-it-is"?

[Spjabork]

However, the British state was never really interested in racial matters, which is quite typical. Common English, British people might have been, but thats another matter since they were quite often even the healthy body on which the rotten head of the plutocratic Oligarchy could comfortably sit and rule from it.
The state does not have to interfere with each and everything.

Virtues and values must be implanted into the hearts of the youth by their parents. And by self-training, self-conditioning.

Wilhelm von Humboldt wrote an essay "On the Limits of the Efficiancy of the State" ("Über die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates").

Likewise, Nietzsche remarked: "Where there is still folk, they despise the state and regard it as the "evil eye" ("böser Blick").

More and more I realise, that state-structures are part of our problems, not of our solutions. If there is a state "apparatus" as distinct from the "inhabitants" of that state, it is inevitably that this apparatus will first beget, then cherish, and finally enforce their own ideas onto the subjects.
Just send the English into all wars for profits and power...they will die for you and some might even believe they did it for "their fatherland and people". Thats the real tragedy of the real British who are now being substituted and some still think they were "victorious", but in reality, for whom did they fought and won for? For sure not for the common English people nor the folk and race, the condition in which they are speaks for itself.
German princes sold their underlings to Britain.

The British soldiers at least were under the impression to fight for Britain in British uniforms, being paid with Pounds.
So nothing against English, British who fight for their interests as nation, folk and race, for the interests of the common (real) British people, but hey, when was THAT THE CASE AT ALL? There is no tradition of that to revive it...at least not if its about Great Britain as a state in modernity.Agrippa: And when did the Germans really fight for their interests?

The "common people" never "fight" for their interests. It are always active minorities which do, and they do it first for their own interests - to retain power being the foremost - and then, hence, maybe, they will do something for the "people".

My parents never in their life "fought" for their interests. They were just mocking birds. They had their "opinions", but never ever they did anything to enforce their opinions upon others, which would be political action.

This of course partly was due to the existing political structures - the state - which had deprived them of their self-determination before they were born.

We, thus, must strive to seize political power: there is no other way.

It isn't enough to blame others: one must be prepared to take the blame.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa. Can you see an EU of the future (? - as you might wish it) taking decisions in the interest of EuroFolks --rather than (merely) following HumanRights mantras? Would it not be easier for Germany ( or France) to take such decisions as an independent state rather than one seriously enmeshed in an (?) anti-patriotic SupraNational "EU-as-it-is"?

Honest answer: I dont know. The real question would be if inside of the current EU-states new mass movements would come up which would exchange the political and economic establishment, various crucial aspects of the current system - its not just about the EU, things went wrong in many ways - and make the European Union an alliance of European people and folkish nations which will defend the states, people and continents position in the world and well-being for the future. "Human-Rights-Mantras" are faked anyway and most of the time hypocritical, because if its about real power and profits, the current plutocratic Oligarchy doesnt care for that anyway. If they would really care for it, in Europe and abroad, things would be even easier to manage, because that would reduce their power and influence, would give more power to the people and local, regional decisions in my opinion. Apparently thats not the case and will never be. The whole "human rights issues" are mainly for naive "Useful Idiots (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=65868)" rather and for helping the leaders to justify certain decisions rather than the reason and base of whats going on in the state of Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

The problem will be that it might be the case that just in certain states folkish, racialist, collectivist, social revolutionary or generally more nationalist movements will come up. Its crucial for those to unite in front of the rest and in front of the world, USA and plutocracy in particular. Otherwise they won't stand ANY REALISTIC CHANCE in "a hostile world of enemies". Germany lost at its peak and with various European allies and it would have been crushed sooner or latter with this expansionist policy or without. The same will be true any other European nation which would decide to leave the path of Liberalcapitalism and plutocratic control.

Like I wrote on Stirpes at length:
The Pan-Europe of Coudenhove-Kalergi existed between 1920 and 1940 and propsed a form of Pan-Europeanism which opposed Nazi 'aryanism in favour of a united European race.

This was a Liberal approach which wouldnt have cared for European racial unit neither. Not just panmixture of Europeans, but Eurasians and beyond being accepted or even promoted. So European panmixture rather as a first step to worldwide panmixture without any real efforts to care for the Europeans further racial existence even.


Coudenhove-Kalergi held some controversial, less known, opinions about race mixing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_mixing) and the role of the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews). In his book Praktischer Idealismus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Praktischer_Idealismus&action=edit) (Practical Idealism, Wien/Leipzig 1925, pages 20, 23, 50) he wrote:
"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_%28mixed_ancestry%29)-Negroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid) race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race) of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."
"Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility through spiritual grace. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_Graf_Coudenhove-Kalergi#Race_and_the_Jews

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=63613

This ideas coming clearly from a Liberalcapitalist who wanted a plutocratic rule of a bourgeois society which main "values" would have been centered around economic success and gaining profits.
He recognised a truth but evaluated it in a very specific way. A good example of how the same facts can be interpreted differently morally from a subjective point of view.
Its anti-biological, even self-destructive, but what to say against someone who just accepts individual actors and thinks of humans as individual actors in the bourgeois cultural facades he prefers? Obviously that leads again to the great distinction between individualist and collectivist approaches to political evaluations.

Just to make clear what this Kalergi "Pan-Europeanism" is about. This idea of a petty minded bastard masses living under the control of a Jewish dominated Liberalcapitalistic plutocracy being obviously the opposite of my ideals.

There could be other Pan-European or better just European approaches though and they being seen by me much more positive on the very long run. However, the preservation of the national and racial diversity seems to be a good and natural protection against the Liberalcapitalistic occupation and degeneration, of course, thats the reason they want to destroy it. In later times, in many centuries or even thousands of years, this entities might be replaced by a larger organisational unit, but now this wouldnt make any sense, especially not in the context of a Liberalcapitalistic system which is highly destructive and dont just leads to mixture but long term outbreeding of everything relatively pure and of real value in Europeans.

The state does not have to interfere with each and everything.

Well, usually if one group doesnt have demands for the state, others have. If the state doesnt interfere at all, it will be settled down in another way and usually, if considering how things are going, in most cases if its about population policy and long term goals, things become worse then, even more so if the socio-economic sphere and "mind-control" (via media etc.) is in the hands of a few which have no responsibility to and legitimation from the people, but have the same or even more influence than elected representatives. THATS the problem especially in later modern mass societies. Its not about a council of the elders to decide things for the clan, but the mass being simply manipulated by a few this or that way and their elected representatives - even if they voted for something which would make sense for them, can be corrupted by the oligarchy.

Virtues and values must be implanted into the hearts of the youth by their parents. And by self-training, self-conditioning.

Sounds nice, works for some, but doesnt work for a big society and modern nation, especially NOT if starting from WHERE WE ARE NOW!

More and more I realise, that state-structures are part of our problems, not of our solutions. If there is a state "apparatus" as distinct from the "inhabitants" of that state, it is inevitably that this apparatus will first beget, then cherish, and finally enforce their own ideas onto the subjects.

Its not wrong to have goals and plans, this would be determined by a state, senat, council of elders, plutocratic oligarchy, religious groups or whatever, its always the case. State is just a more neutral instrument of administration, can be, usually, more rational, at least if being guided by the right people and ideas. But thats the real question, which state, which order, which leaders, moral, goals and ideals.

Those making "the state" as such responsible for all problems simply have no idea at all, since they attack what was in some ways poisened but is finally just a hull. The people and political movements make up what the state is and should be. Our problem is that the wrong people and ideas have too much influence in our states.

German princes sold their underlings to Britain.

Some did. Well, they at least knew what it was about, nobody of them could trick himself by saying "I do it for my folk"...

However, its interesting you mention it, because the main reason for that were depts and negative influences in the state. Well, who were the creditors? Which relations had those monarchs AND their creditors to great Britain? Actually certain networks worked NOT JUST in Great Britain, but Britain BECAME THE CENTRE and MAIN DEFENDER.

The British soldiers at least were under the impression to fight for Britain in British uniforms, being paid with Pounds.

Thats what making it worse, I hope you got it now because thats exactly what I meant! A true mercenary is just that, he knows he gets his pay and that he fights for the money and probably glory alone. The British often fought with the treacherous idea of "defending their empire", in fact they defended the high finance of the City of London and plutocratic rule, helped those plutocrats to implement their ideas of a "new world order" to people from America to China. How proud some of them were to fight for "the King and Britain"...the mercenary at least knew and fought for his own interests.

Did they have any share "of the Empire", was it really used to help the British people which paid for it, sent their sons into wars and let their poor daughters work in the factories for producing "British wealth"? In the end "the Empire" was just a mean for transforming the world into something else, namely "a world market". This was an achievement even I have to admit in some ways, but first:
Others would have managed that sooner or later too, just under different premises which might have been better for European and the world.
Secondly: This was not at all just something good for the British in every respect as can everyone see if looking at the islands.

If a folkish state and collective, group oriented moral would have guided Britain, what would they have done? They would have settled all areas which were suitable for Europeans, as they did, but beside that, they would have done almost everything in a different manner, in a better one for Europeans and the world as a whole.

The "common people" never "fight" for their interests. It are always active minorities which do, and they do it first for their own interests - to retain power being the foremost - and then, hence, maybe, they will do something for the "people".

You underestimate the factor of 'Idealism'.

My parents never in their life "fought" for their interests. They were just mocking birds. They had their "opinions", but never ever they did anything to enforce their opinions upon others, which would be political action.

Of course, the mass is usually passive, what else? Still there are movements and systems in which they can participate which are better for and objectively more in their interests than others - for their individual well-being and perspectives as well as for that of the various collective aspects (region, nation, race, culture, species, ecosystem).
The mass of the majority can in the best cases just decide which active political minority they are following, which path they think will suit them better.

This of course partly was due to the existing political structures - the state - which had deprived them of their self-determination before they were born.

Thats true and untrue at the same time, because even in primitive societies some are more active and interested in others first and such "tribal councils" are hardly enough for a modern society. However, I considered that in my concepts and suggested to form local networks, "Nachbarschaften" and councils. Actually a state build up in from the lowest to the highest cells with all being constantly in communication, so that the leading elements can get a response, feedback from the roots and at the same time the lower cells can organise by themselves for what no higher administrative order is needed.

But finally a certian idealistic approach and to really care for longer term interests, not just individually but for the bloodline, region, group etc. is something which is determined by personality traits too, not just the question of more or less state interference actually. Because certain personalities would support or fight the state and oppose or support certain decisions more actively all the time, whereas some people will always just care for their most personal issues and not thinking much beyond that. If this is the case, they shouldnt really decide whats better for the group anyway, but mainly participate on the low level of course.
That should be true no matter how intelligent, productive or wealthy they are, they simply should not be allowed to influence the decisions being made for the group too much, since such egoists without any idealism, especially higher and rational idealism, will do harm.
Thats exactly what happened in Europe and Britain in particular now for too long already.

Furthermore you can't expect even more idealistic, intelligent and educated people to care for everything in a society with a strong division of labour. If you have some herders meeting each other for 10 days in a council every 3 months or something like that and deciding about issues concerning the group, thats one thing, in a complex and big mass society of modern times in which there are much more decisions, options and potential things are different.
Even an intelligent engineer might mainly care for his work, or some simple workers will have to work the whole day and dont want to bother themselves with "too complicated issues" afterwards. What these people want, most of the time, is just that "everything is ok" from their perspective and as far as they can judge it. Thats why a political class and greater ideological context is always needed in a modern mass society, which is the most effective form of organisation - producing a lot for the individuals and group - at least in theory, now.

In the future, if people would work much less than they do now and being interconnected in wide networks, having all high intellectual and educational standard, being informed and up to date, have a certain higher idealism deeply rooted in their hearts, things could be different from whats possible now, but to say NOW that its probably "just right to reduce state influence" and thats probably even "most important for a good solution" is pure madness! (Just a general comment not directed at anyone particular for the moment)

It isn't enough to blame others: one must be prepared to take the blame.

Agreed. But at the same time its wrong to say "everybody is just responsible for himself" because this individualistic attitude is what leads to many problems and catastrophies of the modern West. Because every group member not just can, is allowed to, but should care about what others are doing IF THEY MIGHT HARM other individuals or the group as a whole. If such an attitude of common responsibility is lost, this is the result:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80346
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80273
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=81686

This means to make those groups and individuals responsible for what they did in detail, its wrong however, to blame them in a very general and unfair manner for almost everything. The best example for that are Jews, which can be blamed for many things in detail and as individuals or more specific (sub-) groups, but for sure not all as individuals nor collective nor for all whats going wrong in the Western world.

But to use the example of a disease again: Those carrying the contagious disease first are the root of the evil, even if others are infected now too or already spread it to others again, thats doesnt change the fact...

For real political actions thats of secondary importance though, its just useful for a better understanding how things came up and took place.

[Spjabork]

@ Agrippa: What do you think about this?:
[quote start]

Paul Wolfowitz: Beijing Summit is a terrific idea
(People's Daily Online)
Updated: 2006-11-01 14:01
Correspondents: What do you think about China-African relations given the upcoming China-Africa summit in Beijing?
Paul Wolfowitz: I think the summit is a terrific idea; and I have been saying over and over again in speeches that Africa needs to be following the example that has been pioneered, especially in East Asia; where 400 million people have escaped poverty in the last quarter century. That makes it the best quarter century in the history in the fight against poverty, and 70-75% of that number is in China itself and that example is truly inspirational for poor countries in Africa.
So, if China did nothing else just by showing that it is possible to succeed in that way, just by showing that no matter how awful your colonial history may have been - and certainly China's was pretty awful - you can take charge of your own destiny. And also by showing, what I believe the economic reforms that started late 70s and early 80s show, is that getting the right policy environment is crucial to success. I have in many audiences enjoyed quoting the famous saying from Deng Xiao Ping, "That doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice." The essence of success here is to see what works and not be doctrinaire.
Now that China has achieved what I call middle income status-- and it is long way from being a rich country but it is no longer a poor country, there is a lot that China can actually do in Africa in terms of bringing resources that are badly needed, and in terms of bringing expertise that's badly needed. So, I think if the last quarter century was the chance for East Asia to turn the corner in the fight against poverty, I very much hope that this quarter century will be the chance for Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa to do the same thing. It is the only part of the world that's really been left out of this progress in recent years and it is very important that it be brought into it.
[quote end]


Let me guess: at once you will say "This man doesn't want to help China, he wants to spread and strengthen the rule of a plutocratic world system."

Thereupon someone will reply: "But China really is poor. It has been poorer before. Now it has become better, a little."

And? What to say then? Which advice you'd like to give the Chinese?
To turn back to the "Iron Rice Bowl"? Back to Mao?

And look into the face of this man. Is he evil? Or is he just serious?

[Agrippa]

Let me guess: at once you will say "This man doesn't want to help China, he wants to spread and strengthen the rule of a plutocratic world system."

He doesnt speak as much about China as he does about Africa which was the main adressee. I hate this person in general, but in this case his main deficit is his hypocrisy. We all now that Africa has a lot of problems and the black African states are simply not comparable to East Asia in any way, neither by climate, subsistence pattern, cultural and economic development before the Western influence etc., etc. So even if the Chinese or Koreans were poor, they had not the same status in almost every respect as had the Africans. And if speaking about Africa "being left out", well, that was what the USA always did with former colonies of low political and geostrategical importance: First they got rid of the former colonial power which, almost as a rule, invested more in the country than what was invested after independence. Then they installed a corrupted dictator or political group which did what they wanted, tried to eliminate all fundamental opposition to the US and multinational corporations interests and tried to make as much profits as possible by exploiting the natural ressources of the lands.

So actually they didnt "left them out", they just took away everything they could need and didnt cared for the rest as long as they shut up - the refugees coming to Europe anyway...
France was sometimes not that much better, neither Belgium etc., but the USA have a typical method which is somewhat different with their Dollar Imperialism world wide.

Thereupon someone will reply: "But China really is poor. It has been poorer before. Now it has become better, a little."

I hope you know that I know something about China, so I will hardly say that "Mao was right and Deng wrong in every economic respect", which would be absurd. Capitalism can be a great mean and way of organising economy as long as it is controlled for the good of the greater whole and not by some plutocrats and their very personal interests. China is a very complicated manner, we could discuss and write about China for days in various threads, but thats just a distraction from what it is really about.

The Chinese simply exploiting a weakness and given situation and the Western plutocratic Oligarchy allows it, which is a very dangerous game for both sides and I'm still not sure how they will deal with each other on the longer run.

And look into the face of this man. Is he evil? Or is he just serious?

I'm no general Antisemit and Jew-hater, but if I hate a people, its because of persons like him. He is neither serious nor evil, he is just another hypocrite and fanatic at the same time, I think sometimes he is and was serious about what he said, but what he and ideas like those coming from him do to the people is just harmful.

Like with the state, the same can be said about Capitalism and extended markets, worldwide economic relations. It must not be bad per se, its the context and the exact way of executing things that matters most. Just you open your markets somewhat doesnt mean you are a "slave of the plutocracy" automatically, one has to look at details.

About my stance - again - just compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=73299&postcount=27

More later probably...

[RedJack]

Excellent post, Aeric, you said it better than I could have. Carl, Agrippa has admitted that he doesn't have a plan to fix our problems. So, lets get started without him. I don't see anybody but Denmark doing anything at the moment anyway, so we aren't missing out on any master plans from the Euros.
One thing that we all need to remember is that we can make a difference if we just give it a try. Things have got as bad as this largely because people haven't tried hard enough to stop it. They wouldn't spend so much time trying to demonize the opposition if they were unassailable. ;)

[Aeric]

The multi-culturalist traitors are scared (as RedJack said - they would not be trying so hard to demonise people like us if they did not see chinks in their own armour). Only today the BNP leaders were cleared (YET AGAIN) of a dozen trumped up charges under the race hatred laws. What is the government's reaction?...they immediately announced that the laws need to be changed...i.e. made so restrictive that failing to kiss the ass of every passing Paki will get you 6 months in prison.

Does this sound like the logic of a police state to you? The legislation will be changed - it will be done quietly, behind closed doors and without consulting the people...in the same way that they propose, second and pass motions to increase their own payments and allowances.

It seems clear to me that we will be like pebbles thrown against the waves if we aim to first overthrow the faceless octopus that is the EU. We must cut our cloth according to our means. The fight should begin within hearts and minds and extend to friends, community and upwards. Logically, it is easier to close the borders of an individual nation (and thereafter sweep it clean) than to attempt this feat with a collection of nations, borders and peoples.

At present, the EU does not represent people like us; it is a tool of the forces which oppose and enslave us. It should be our aim to dismantle and rebuilt it in our own image; but that won't happen until we control the building blocks - the individual member nations.

Agrippa is correct to state that the City of London is controlled by Jews and conglomerate forces - however, Hitler faced the same kind of problems in the 1930's and solved them in remarkably direct and simple ways. When outsiders opposed his measures, he froze their bank accounts and resources in Germany - in the knowledge that they could not afford to risk the resulting fall in their share prices. Hitler didn't give a hoot about the stock market and that gave him a tremendous advantage over men who swung in the breeze of the exchange floor.

Aeric

[ChaosLord]

What is funny is that the article says it will restrict immigration from Eastern Europe and puts up statistics as to the number coming in, but it doesn't care about the number of Africans and Muslims coming in who are the REAL THREAT!

[Agrippa]

Carl, Agrippa has admitted that he doesn't have a plan to fix our problems. So, lets get started without him.

Actually I have various plans which are better than what all populist and most current nationalist groups are doing, but still I know that it will be hard and the exact strategy in detail should be open to debate. If I would be in charge of a movement, I would give advices, but here, I'm on a forum and message board, so I can discuss openly whether I think this or that might be better and what weaknesses each solution might have.

@Aeric: You are on the right track, but seriously, Hitler was more in charge and control over the high finance than anybody else (probably the Bolsheviks too), but still, all of them played the game after certain rules most of the time. At the moment I just say: Things are NOT that simple. The problems of currencies, interests, high finance, stock markets and national economy are very complicated and difficult to grasp, we shouldnt make the mistake to simplify all things to a degree from which a real policy can't profit anyway - this makes sense for the sake of some basic rules and argumentations, but if going into detail there are a lot of things to consider at the end. In such areas its easier to state whats going OBVIOUSLY wrong than coming up with a fantastic alternative which has to be worked out by more than one people with excellent qualities.

Just because I'm careful and try to be correct doesnt mean I dont have better ideas than the current populists in Europe have, which is an easy task in fact...

[Carl]

Logically, it is easier to close the borders of an individual nation (and thereafter sweep it clean) than to attempt this feat with a collection of nations, borders and peoples.

At present, the EU does not represent people like us; it is a tool of the forces which oppose and enslave us. It should be our aim to dismantle and rebuilt it in our own image; but that won't happen until we control the building blocks - the individual member nations.



You are right to call attention to the good news of the BNP leader's acquittal - I thought he would be in prison. The police were themselves cautious about proceding - fearing it would bring them publicity & support - which it has. And now it seems 12 Yorkshire Souls have set them free! Great! We do have a thread on this - but it gets a bit heavy as well :

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=82101

Closing down the borders is one thing - the tories are saying they want to do that!! Ejecting "aliens" ( ?citizens) is more difficult - for they need to be taken. What if they are not taken back? In some ways, immigration constitutes the major problem now - in terms of our integrity as a people(s). But after that, there could well be chaos as international markets close down against us and we are left increasingly short of provision. This is where having co-nations in the task would be valuable. Yes , that's how the Empire used to work perhaps - but I think they would not go along with a new Britain pushing ahead on its own with an internal aggressive nationalism. In fact I think they would actively work against it . Look at Suez for example -the plug was pulled very promptly! Action co-ordinated on a larger scale , though more tricky to arrange , does have a better chance of thriving. But not going it alone surely?

Would it be easier to co-ordinate scattered former Imperial lands who are now strongly indendent - or adjacent lands in NW Europe (perhaps)- which increasingly have a lot of problems in common? However I must add that ideally, the whole thing would need to be co-ordinated as a joint action where it is possible --bringing in both positive former Colonials together with nation-loyal Europeans.

[Aeric]

Securing the cooperation of 3rd World nations who don't want their own people back would (as Carl suggests) pose a problem for a democratic/liberal administration that was, as a priority, concerned about the health, welfare and future of the potential emigrants.

On the other hand, if the task was tackled from several directions (with escalating measures to remove any blockages in the system) the results might turn out to be less stressful than anticipated.

1) We begin with immigrants and ethnics who have criminal records. In some countries people lose their right to vote if they are convicted of a serious offence. Who could object if we deprived crooks and perverts of certain social rights? That is only a short step away from deporting them as a matter of course - either after their jail time is up or instead of jail time if the court is feeling generous.

2) We follow up by testing immigrants (and their descendants) against sensible yardsticks to determine how much 'need' they have to remain in Britain. These tests would cover a wide range of factors...Is this 'asylum seeker' really still in danger from Idi Amin's regime? Does this person have any skills that are unique enough to make us wish to keep him? How much English does he or she know (and what good is he/she able to accomplish without real fluency?) and so on - a battery of simple common sense criteria which would, in many cases, identify the immigrants and ethnic layabouts whom we can easily live without and who have no legal or moral right to be here.

3) Immigrants (and their desendants) who are proven to be without skills or language fluency will no longer be eligible for State Benefits - as we can't leave them to starve (or give them excuses to steal and riot), work programmes can be set up for them. They can be given hard manual labour and paid with coupons that can be redeemed only for food and other necessities at the shops.

4) We offer financial incentives for all immigrants who leave of their own accord before a set date. All who leave after that date will receive zero compensation.

5) We reverse the insane 'Positive Descrimination' policies and make it a rule to give jobs to non-whites ONLY if no white people are available or willing to do them.

After a while, immigrants (and their descendants) will be getting the message. The ones who protest will be arrested, convicted and thus immediately eligible for deportation. The wise ones will take the money and run (we can afford to be generous because an awful lot of money will swiftly be saved by not paying 'useless eaters' or subsiding bogus asylum-seekers).

Of course, countries like India and Pakistan will dig their heels in for a while and refuse to accept their long lost kith and kin - but we (insane as it sounds) are keeping their countries afloat with millions of pounds in aid every year and threatening to take that away will provide a big bargaining lever. An even bigger lever would be in the form of deliberate freezing of their national assets in British-controlled banks and exchanges, plus hostile trade taxes and bans preventing British companies from exporting raw materials, machinery, expertise; etc into their markets. Even though they could turn to other nations to remedy some of these losses, they would not be given the traditionally easy credit terms they have come to expect from the British taxpayer/subsider and foreign traders would gladly raise their prices because they would have much less competition.

After four or five years' taste of the new policies, most of the blacks, asians; etc. would not even remember the good old days when they had it easy in our country. The complaints from abroad would be muted to a whisper and it would be time to clear out the last remnants of the dark tide.

I am sure that there are holes and flaws in the above musings, but I feel that they are generally steps in the right direction.

Aeric

[OneEnglishNorman]

After a while, immigrants (and their descendants) will be getting the message. The ones who protest will be arrested, convicted and thus immediately eligible for deportation. The wise ones will take the money and run (we can afford to be generous because an awful lot of money will swiftly be saved by not paying 'useless eaters' or subsiding bogus asylum-seekers).

Interesting thoughts.

If enforced repatriation was carried out, the honourable way is this;

1) Recognise that the immigrants have a right to their property and livelihood.

2) So they are given 6 months to sell up. That is ample time.

3) After that period, they can leave to any nation of their choice.

4) If they refuse to leave, then the UK government makes the decision for them.

The major difficulty is in determining who to target for repatriation. A person who is 1/4 black or 1/2 Indian is not a clear case, either morally or from a basic identification POV.

[Thruthheim]

Interesting thoughts.

If enforced repatriation was carried out, the honourable way is this;

1) Recognise that the immigrants have a right to their property and livelihood.

2) So they are given 6 months to sell up. That is ample time.

3) After that period, they can leave to any nation of their choice.

4) If they refuse to leave, then the UK government makes the decision for them.

The major difficulty is in determining who to target for repatriation. A person who is 1/4 black or 1/2 Indian is not a clear case, either morally or from a basic identification POV.

Ofcourse, those of mixed-race are the unfortunate ones, but a product of Multiculturalism, and paramount in representing Multiculturalism's inroads into Britain's future.

Would it be plausible for a Multi-Racial state to emerge somewhere, for all those Marxists, Mixed Race and Ethnics to move to.. Similiar to how Israel was created?

[Spjabork]

Would it be plausible for a Multi-Racial state to emerge somewhere, for all those Marxists, Mixed Race and Ethnics to move to.. Similiar to how Israel was created?
This state already exists. Just send them to France. :D

[Renwein]

I'm kind of suprised how hostile some of the people here seem to europe. I don't think anyone suggests that Britain should be ruled by Europe, and neither do I think anyone thinks the current EU is working well. Suggesting it's somehow impossible to for English and French people to work together seems ridiculous to me... I don't think people would be leaving this shithole in record numbers and going to places like France & Spain if they really hated europe so much. As for some guy down in Hastings vandalizing a sign... so what... I can see graffiti saying all kinds of bad things about peope in nearby cities / towns based simply on football rivalry... maybe you know of someone who has been seriously injured after getting the crap beaten out of them in a pub or wherever by a gang of men just because he was wearing a football shirt from a rival team... stuff like that is exactly the same thing, only on a more 'local' scale... the fact that they are 'close' doesn't make them hug as brothers, in fact it makes them want to fight and so forth... never mind that the football teams' players aren't local, or at the top level many of the players might not even be european... and then the superstar african footballers then go and marry local girls who, whatver you think of them, are the most desirable to most native men. Yay football... but if it's an England game then they will put differences aside... so why not as 'Europe'... they already did it with France re. the last few wars, etc.

Several people said they feel an anti-english sentiment here, actually I think it is very mild compared to other forums (I've seen some v. bad stuff on sites that have nothing to do with 'nationalism' etc!), and when you talk to people here they are reasonable about it, able to joke etc. Compared to the other high-quality euro-nationalist site I know, where the amount of English hatred is off the scale (members and moderators talk about 'kicking saxons off the isle'). Then there's Stormfront where they say 'why are Britons complaning about Poles? Aren't Poles are white?' - a typical american WN attitude - works fine for them (because they are of mixed european backgrounds themselves), but I don't think it's so great for 'us'. Being 'closer' to the USA really means that more and more of our culture is buried by US culture, due to speaking the same language, and their much superior size. I think people over-estimate how 'close' Britain and America really are (outside of the obvious political closeness) and I don't think it's true to regard america or white americans as 'anglo' today (again maybe there it has a political historical influence etc), as far as I am aware English isn't even in the top 3 ancestral groups in the US (and neither is Scottish or Welsh, 'British' fans). I don't feel especially 'close' to americans compared to europeans, neither does anyone I know, in fact the opposite, there is a stronger anti-american sentiment. I only think we are 'close' at the top level politcially, and it's not as if that is working in our favour. At home I'm already more likely to be blown up, gassed horribly, etc. as a result of this closeness (and away British troops are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq for... what purpose exactly?). I feel the USA today has little positive influence on Britain and a large negative one, and we should be trying to be more distant from the modern USA, regardless of past ties (emphasis on past!), instead of 'floating the island away from europe and closer to the US' as one poster here put it (!!!). On the other hand I do feel that there is a closer relationship with Australia and New Zealand, and it's quite possible to strenghten this in the future...

I find it bizarre that people seem think it's better to 'go it alone' (as if that is somehow possible) rather then work with other Europeans... a bit like trying to dig your way out of a prison, and refusing to go with you other cellmates and skulking off to the other corner to start trying your own tunnel with your spoon... then if while they got out, you were still not even 1/4 of the way there, the prison guards came and found you, took away your spoon, and moved you in with your corpulant, smothering new cell-mate 'uncle shaaaaam' :(. The problems facing most of europe are more similar to the problems in Britain than America (Islamization, falling birth rates), plus 'national' movements in europe are much stronger in europe than america, no doubt in part because of the fact that this is 'home'. If they succeed there, they are much more likely to succeed here (I would like to think they would help us out as well :)). In fact Britain is lagging behind Europe in this regard, still (imagine if the BNP was as large as the FN...). I can't see any national movement gaining strength in the USA anytime soon, and the chance of some meaningful US inclusive 'world anglo' movement gaining significance is somewhere close to 0%. In fact it's almost funny to think about it. I think people with Robert Kilroy-Silk posters on their wall and 'vote UKIP' window stickers are stuck in old modes of thought (like most tory voters).

[Thruthheim]

Startide, You summed up my views very strongly there. Rep for you. :thumbup

[RedJack]

It always amazes me to hear British people slamming the Yanks and cuddling up to the Euros. Let's remember who really helps us when the chips are down. Remember France selling Exocets to Argentina during the Falklands War? You can call it old modes of thought to remember who our kin really are but isn't that the whole point of a forum like this one?

Also it puzzles me why people think the US is more in favour of multicult than Europe. There's one hell of a lot of Americans who despise these policies and a lot of Euros who like them. The French and Spanish have always been more tolerant of miscegenation than any Anglo country.

As I see it we don't have any choice but to go it alone since the EU is a multicult organization bent on Britain's destruction. I sure don't see anybody in Europe making any headway against the tide, except for Denmark. Surely we can muster as much gumption as they can.
I'm not worried about missing out on any Euro escape tunnels, because there aren't any.

[Oswiu]

It always amazes me to hear British people slamming the Yanks and cuddling up to the Euros.
It's not about slamming the Yanks, it's about the despair at being able to do what is required HERE without being obstructed by the STATE MACHINE of the USA. It rides roughshod over its own people's liberties, and yet the two-party PC system carries on regardless. I don't see much chance over there in the near future for a victory of people with my sort of mindset. I hope they'll surprise me, but I don't expect to see much assistance from a US government in our struggle. Australia and New Zealand are a different matter, as they're still far more British. Canada I'm less sure about - all I hear from over that way is a mad rush to ape the USA's deAnglification/deEuropeanisation process as fast as possible.

You've probably noticed I'm not the most politically minded person on here, and these are tremendously difficult and emotional questions, so I am open to argument.

[RedJack]

Well, Oswiu, I'm gobsmacked that you think the US gov't would interfere if GB stopped allowing immigration into an overcrowded island. I'm amazed that you think the US Gov't is more pc than the EU!?! :-O

Anyway, why this belief that we need assistance to do anything? All we need is to do it. Nobody will send gunboats to stop us.

[Agrippa]

Well, Oswiu, I'm gobsmacked that you think the US gov't would interfere if GB stopped allowing immigration into an overcrowded island. I'm amazed that you think the US Gov't is more pc than the EU!?! :-O

The EU is more "politically correct" in a honest way, even though hypocrisy rules finally, but the US-establishment just uses it as an argument for interventions in the persons private and other nations spheres primarily and not much more. Same is true for the EU to a large degree, but still the system is not as corrupted, sophisticated and "stabilised" in comparison. They wouldnt allow GB to go another path and of course, the plutocratic Oligarchy of Britain itself wouldnt allow it and would mobilise their American forces!

What the EU was and even more so now became, is mostly the result of this influences from the plutocratic Oligarchy and states they control for quite some time now. So the "European Union" became just another mean, like the USA or Great Britain themselves. So its rather not "EU vs. Britain vs. USA" but the plutocratic Oligarchy and their followers vs. the rest. Thats the REAL decision! Everything else, even nationalism, racialism, socialism or whatever is secondary in comparison!

Compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=682090#post682090
Did you watch this great movie? If not, please do so!

If you dont understand who really controls the financial system and "public" at the moment and what the plans are - they can be read in papers of the USA, as in those of Great Britain and the "European Union", just look in the future policy plans they even proclaim now publicly (!) - you missed the point. Seriously.

If the USA would go another path and they can't control it from the inside any more, the plutocratic Oligarchy would try to use the EU against those movements inside of the US - making pressure from the outside. Same is true vice versa - same game for GB vs. EU.

Its not even about being "politically correct" or whatever, but as soon as you might become a real threat for their oligarchy, they will try to eliminate you, first with soft, later with hard measures. Then you better have strong forces behind you, or you can just commit suicide - be it as an individual or nation...

[Oswiu]

I'm amazed that you think the US Gov't is more pc than the EU!?! :-O
Maybe less so the Government than the reigning attitude of the establishment there, which is very securely dug in at the moment. I think that the EU being younger and still forming, is much easier to topple [or maybe even transform into something useful], once PC dies its own death [there are already many signs of this] paving the way for a more nationalist - friendly form of European cooperation.
All we need is to do it. Nobody will send gunboats to stop us.
They may make life VERY hard for us at first. They can do all sorts of economic and diplomatic mischief. I'd want some sort of group to fall back on in that case, and I see it as being more readily achieved in Europe [east and west].

[Carl]

So its rather not "EU vs. Britain vs. USA" but the plutocratic Oligarchy and their followers vs. the rest. Thats the REAL decision! Everything else, even nationalism, racialism, socialism or whatever is secondary in comparison! ...............

Its not even about being "politically correct" or whatever, but as soon as you might become a real threat for their oligarchy, they will try to eliminate you, first with soft, later with hard measures. Then you better have strong forces behind you, or you can just commit suicide - be it as an individual or nation...


And as I put it in item #73:

"Action co-ordinated on a larger scale , though more tricky to arrange , does have a better chance of thriving. But not going it alone surely?"

Surely ? - meaning that if you did , as a small and independent nation, you would very soon be overpowered by the international financial hydra....or plutocacy! And I really can't help concluding that this plutocracy really is ultimately centred in the USA since, after WWII , that is where the power ended up this time. I am sure that is why Europe never seems to be that important because Europe was broken - and because the power lies elsewhere. And its so easy for the British to try to play the same card - following suit after America so to speak. I would really like to move on - but I fear that if it (our World) is all set up as Europe v. America - with Britain drowning somewhere in between , then we will all loose out. It isn't that I don't want for Folks in their Lands to stand up and be counted - but that I feel they would carry more weight with more chance of success if they did so together, in co-ordination of their intentions.

But I can still hear Aeric saying that this can't happen because its just too much to expect of the historically competing groups! So therefore better to go it alone.
And that's the divide I take it? :(

[RedJack]

Maybe less so the Government than the reigning attitude of the establishment there, which is very securely dug in at the moment.

Whatever term you wish to use the shock that you think the US is the prime mover behind PC policies remains. Europe has it much worse than America does.

I think that the EU being younger and still forming, is much easier to topple [or maybe even transform into something useful],

No chance of that, mate, it's a supranational organization, you're in or you're out. Either you are a sovereign nation or you're a province of a sovereign nation.

once PC dies its own death [there are already many signs of this] paving the way for a more nationalist - friendly form of European cooperation.

I agree with you that PC is cracking, so now is the time to strike.

They may make life VERY hard for us at first. They can do all sorts of economic and diplomatic mischief. I'd want some sort of group to fall back on in that case, and I see it as being more readily achieved in Europe [east and west].

Like starting a run on the pound to get us out of Suez? Why would they bother to interfere if the British want to stop taking immigrants into an overcrowded island? I cannot understand this notion that the US will fight us and the EU will help? Where do you think the Bilderbergers are located?
Remember where Argentina got it's Exocets? :(

[Aeric]

There are uncomplicated answers to our problems - the trick is to change the way we think - to stop debating using the kind of language and terms of reference handed down to us by our enemies and to cease playing the game by their rules.

We need to be single-minded. In the beginning, numbers are less important than determination and purpose of action. When Hitler was locked in prison and one of his associates bemoaned falling membership levels, he explained that this was not going to be a handicap. As he put it, in every society there is a small hard core of individuals - the hard cases, the 'doers', the ones who stick to their goals and beliefs; where they go, the rest of the population follows - particularly the ones who, like sheep, wait to see which direction the flock takes before following. If we have those people, victory will eventually be ours; in the early days of the fight, anybody who does not match their zeal is likely to be a burden, not an asset.

If the EU was genuinely a force for the preservation and expansion of European culture, I would follow its banner in a heartbeat - but in the real world (as opposed to the world of 'what if'), the EU is a faceless monster which seeks to run like a steamroller over individuality, national differences and the racial values which we regard as sacred. Its mission is to pacify, deflect or crush national characteristics, national pride and to blend and blur the differences between the races. I see nothing that any sane white person should be supporting in the EU's current system of values.

The lady who mentioned the tolerance that football fans allegedly have for foreign and coloured players seems to have missed a few things. Millions of pounds have been spent on attempting to brainwash the average fan, young and old alike, into curbing his tongue about racial matters; lifetime bans were imposed on the people who used to throw bananas onto the pitch when 'darkies' came within range. I do not doubt that a lot of guys (the kind of people who are either 'sheep' or politically unaware) do come to adore negro players. However, an honest man should have the capacity to recognise talents and abilities in other people...regardless of creed or colour. I recall being in a pub and seeing Brian Lara on the TV behind the bar as he finished a record-breaking innings; one of my companions referred to him as a 'dirty nigger' and I quickly stated that I would be honoured to shake his hand and buy him a drink. I am a racist, not a hypocrite.

I see no reason to hate immigrants who are here just because our government was stupid enough to attract them (and make them comfortable) with grants, jobs, houses and legislation to protect them from criticism. In the same spirit of fairness, I feel that the time has come to put our own people first and to send the outsiders away from our overcrowded islands - WITH their wealth and possessions IF they are willing to cooperate with a just and honourable repatriation programme.

Oswiu is correct to believe that the American government would seek to interfere - past history and the mentality of that State indicates that poking noses and fingers into what should be a private matter will prove to be too great a temptation. Many thousands of deaths in India and Pakistan, in the wake of independence in 1946, can be justly laid at the door of the US Government. Britain wanted to make better arrangements to avoid bloodshed, but the USA insisted on immediate withdrawal...leaving the different factions on the sub-continent to start 'ethnic cleansing' long before that term was invented.

The Americans tried to force the pace in Northern Ireland...and they did so with a complete misunderstanding of the realities of life in that province. I recall an American writer (a man who wrote loud editorials about 'Liberating Ireland') being completely astonished when I explained to him that a) the Provincial IRA's political philosophy was so Marxist in orientation that the old Official IRA would have nothing to do with them...and b) the real reason why our troops had to stay there for so long was that only their presence prevented the Protestant majority's para-military extremists from launching a blood bath (against Catholics) just like the American-induced massacres in India.

The remedy for any American interference would not be hard to find. We could simply ignore them; they have few allies in the World these days and they don't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose any more - the days when they could buy new friends overseas are gone. If the USA feels that it no longer needs (or wants) Britain as an ally, it would not be a disaster for us; in fact, it would quiet a lot of argument and strife within our own borders.

I apologise for this long, meandering post. As some compensation, I offer a poem by RedJack's favourite verse-maker:

Aeric

The Stranger

Canadian

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

R. Kipling

[Kaiser]

Wolfowitz:



And look into the face of this man. Is he evil? Or is he just serious?

He is jew. Therefore, he is serious evil.



The major difficulty is in determining who to target for repatriation. A person who is 1/4 black or 1/2 Indian is not a clear case, either morally or from a basic identification POV.

They should be sterilized and shipped out. Along with BOTH their parents. Otherwise, we are allowing the breeding of our future killers. Smarter than their non-white parent/more savage than their white traitor parent. No thanks.

[OneEnglishNorman]

They should be sterilized and shipped out. .

Although I am open to suggestions on how to deal with mixed-race cases, sterilisation is totally barbaric. In fact it is the sort of action which would cost a nationalist movement support! and even topple it.

------------------------

Re; the EU. There is no more logic to securing Britain's border within the EU than outside it. Britain is an island, just for starters.

I am utterly unconvinced by any pan-European movement co-operation beyond the normal low-level co-operation between states (criminals / sharing defence intel, etc).

[Kaiser]

Although I am open to suggestions on how to deal with mixed-race cases, sterilisation is totally barbaric.

No. Sterilization is not "barbaric" at all Oh Fake One. It is rather scientific and there exists modern, painless, readily available scientific methods available to us for this precise purpose. Other undesirables should be sterilized as well. Mental retards, genetically handicapped, rapists, child molesters, thieves, the weak, and gang bangers come to mind. I did not post to euthanize them, Fakey. Although, they really are oxygen thiefs. A council of Seers could decide who was in need of sterilization based on numerous criteria.

To me it is quite barbaric not to clean up the human race. We apparently have more respect and understanding for the good of trees and animals than we do the purification of our very human race. With trees, arborists prune and trim the bad branches for the health of the tree. They cast them into the fire. This is scientific. With humans, the diseased branches and even the foreign poisonous vines which do not belong on the tree to begin with, are permitted to suck out nutrients; rob light and life from humankind. This is sick. In animal husbandry, the best specimens are chosen to breed to insure more suitable offspring. This is logical. On the human scene, the best stock are force-taxed to promote the extreme worst of our species. From handicapped programs in public schools robbing our children, to jails housing derelicts, bums, and the psychopaths, to welfare generation after genration to rabble breeders, we are being forced to fund our own annihilation. This is assinine. The superior people with superior intelects and stunning looks, strong physiques, and athletic prowess are punished to raise up a generation of derelicts, mullatos, illiterates, slobering idiots, criminals, and welfare whores. This is not only wrong, it is morally irreprehensible! In fact, it is cruel to allow these creatures to breed, thus raising up a whole other generation of suffering and misery for humankind.

As for the political front, of course we are not developed enough yet to present these reasonale measures to the populace at large. Humankind is not evolved politically enough to except even common scientific facts. Littleless advanced genetic and racial theories. Too much jooish "equality" propaganda has bombarded this current generation. It will be up to we enlightened ones here to prep the next generation to purify our gene pools. With limited natural resources, mass polution, overpopulation (of the wrong kinds of people), and environmental concerns, this sound concept should not be a hard sell for most people by then. Granted, we must first band together and coalesce power. So of course we will not publically announce the sterilization of Johnny Retard and Oreo the Mullato at the next townhall meeting.

I did not know that posting these logical scientific ideas would generate "barbarian!" responses from mature folks anyway. Then again Fakey, I thought that we were dealing with mostly high brow, intellectually superior, and racially aware individuals here on Skadi. Not a bunch of slobbering retards in need of sterilization.

We have to wait until the power structure is right to insure progression of our human species. Not more stagnation and degression. It is this noblest of goals which should occupy our minds every waking moment. Bt the way, for the highly religious amongst us who feel it moral and noble to waste resorces on mentally, socially, and physically defunct individuals, go ahead and do so. Just do so with your own private monies. Not from other's hard earned tax money. To do so privately is called "charity". To do so through the "law" at the end of a gun is insidious avarice. That is called plunder. That is called treason of the human race. And we all know the just punishment for treason. It is not mere sterilization. That would be way too "barbarous"! Hee hee.

[Thruthheim]

No. Sterilization is not "barbaric" at all Oh Fake One. It is rather scientific and there exists modern, painless, readily available scientific methods available to us for this precise purpose. Other undesirables should be sterilized as well. Mental retards, genetically handicapped, rapists, child molesters, thieves, the weak, and gang bangers come to mind. I did not post to euthanize them, Fakey. Although, they really are oxygen thiefs. A council of Seers could decide who was in need of sterilization based on numerous criteria.

To me it is quite barbaric not to clean up the human race. We apparently have more respect and understanding for the good of trees and animals than we do the purification of our very human race. With trees, arborists prune and trim the bad branches for the health of the tree. They cast them into the fire. This is scientific. With humans, the diseased branches and even the foreign poisonous vines which do not belong on the tree to begin with, are permitted to suck out nutrients; rob light and life from humankind. This is sick. In animal husbandry, the best specimens are chosen to breed to insure more suitable offspring. This is logical. On the human scene, the best stock are force-taxed to promote the extreme worst of our species. From handicapped programs in public schools robbing our children, to jails housing derelicts, bums, and the psychopaths, to welfare generation after genration to rabble breeders, we are being forced to fund our own annihilation. This is assinine. The superior people with superior intelects and stunning looks, strong physiques, and athletic prowess are punished to raise up a generation of derelicts, mullatos, illiterates, slobering idiots, criminals, and welfare whores. This is not only wrong, it is morally irreprehensible! In fact, it is cruel to allow these creatures to breed, thus raising up a whole other generation of suffering and misery for humankind.

As for the political front, of course we are not developed enough yet to present these reasonale measures to the populace at large. Humankind is not evolved politically enough to except even common scientific facts. Littleless advanced genetic and racial theories. Too much jooish "equality" propaganda has bombarded this current generation. It will be up to we enlightened ones here to prep the next generation to purify our gene pools. With limited natural resources, mass polution, overpopulation (of the wrong kinds of people), and environmental concerns, this sound concept should not be a hard sell for most people by then. Granted, we must first band together and coalesce power. So of course we will not publically announce the sterilization of Johnny Retard and Oreo the Mullato at the next townhall meeting.

I did not know that posting these logical scientific ideas would generate "barbarian!" responses from mature folks anyway. Then again Fakey, I thought that we were dealing with mostly high brow, intellectually superior, and racially aware individuals here on Skadi. Not a bunch of slobbering retards in need of sterilization.

We have to wait until the power structure is right to insure progression of our human species. Not more stagnation and degression. It is this noblest of goals which should occupy our minds every waking moment. Bt the way, for the highly religious amongst us who feel it moral and noble to waste resorces on mentally, socially, and physically defunct individuals, go ahead and do so. Just do so with your own private monies. Not from other's hard earned tax money. To do so privately is called "charity". To do so through the "law" at the end of a gun is insidious avarice. That is called plunder. That is called treason of the human race. And we all know the just punishment for treason. It is not mere sterilization. That would be way too "barbarous"! Hee hee.

This sounds far too extreme. Similiar to SF talk. Sterilisation of the weak? What constitutes weak? Sounds like a nasty society to be living in, with the threat of sterilisation knocking at your door.

[Kaiser]

Not at all. There is nothing at all scary here friend. I do not know this term SF?

Anyway, not only would this eugenic program insure that the weak did not pollute the human gene pool, moreover, the strong would strive better to improve themselves. Imagine a world where diabetes, muscular dystrophy, blindness, deafness, mental retardation, obesity, scoliosis, alzheimer's, ugliness, buck teeth, cross eyes, poor vision, even criminality, and schizophrenia could be cured through eugenics. How grand! Sterilization does not mean a person could not live an otherwise productive life. Get married to another sterilized person, adopt children, work a good career, go on fun vacations, whatever... Just the geneticly dangerous genes would be mitigated through sterilization and selective breeding. That's all. This is not cruel.

Instead, it is rather cruel to keep bringing inferior children into this world with these same types of defects over and over again. It is cruel to we who have to pay for them. And it is extremely cruel to those who have to suffer with these painful ailments. Don't paint Der Kaiser out to be some kind of mean castrating ogre sending his goons in the middle of the night to chop off you nuts or anything like that, Bruder. I am only speaking of acting scientifically, logically, reasonably, ethically, and frankly morally to finding reasonable solutions to our current genetic delima of the stagnating and festering human gene pool. We can do so much better than we curently are. We have the technology. We have already mapped out the human genome. It is high time we start caring as much about our future genetically as we do about breeding fruit flies. I simply think the human race deserves to be upbred more than a poodle or a cow. Not less.

We only lack the courage at this point in time to constructively take our human species into the next realm of existance. Into a brighter more positive future free from diseases and suffering for all living creatures. A cleaner environment. A stronger, more intelligent, more thoughtful man. I aim to help change that paradigm.

Of course, here is the alternative:

http://www.nurple.com/modelkits/Elephant-Man-Model-Kit.html

[Carl]

Eugenic measures are already with us anyway... much to the disgust of Christian elements . ( I am not too sure how Agrippa stands on this issue - but in other threads, he has certainly argued the possibility that the stock might be gently improved by the careful use of these scientific methods. But we have to be reasonable about this which isn't , in any case, the first political priority is it! Once (!!) a nationalist community has been stabilized through the control and proper regulation of immigration and the implementation of effective state mechanisms for repatriation of those people "who do not belong" , it will become a matter of public debate for the government and the folk to consider who best might be "the breeders" of the future. In a sense this is already happening when it comes to abnormal babies and genetic disorders. There is already a current debate and these are real issues. But the DARK matter is surely more pressing - & for that we shall need a suitable political instrument.
Sine qua non - as they might say in Rome!!

[Spjabork]

A council of Seers could decide who was in need of sterilization based on numerous criteria.
I'd rather be a member of that council. :D

Yeah, the term "weak" is not quite clearly defined, nor is it clearly to define. And by whom BTW?

Nietzsche says: "The Weak offers itself to the Strong, to get its satisfaction from the Weakest." ASO.

SF means "Science Fiction" ;)

I'm afraid, if this should really happen one day, the jews will judge us as "too weak" since five hundred years. Maybe we all here on Skadi are already earmarked, who knows? :D

[Kaiser]

I'm afraid, if this should really happen one day, the jews will judge us as "too weak" since five hundred years. Maybe we all here on Skadi are already earmarked, who knows? :D


Thank you. Of course you will be invited on the Kaisers' Kouncil of Health and Human Development. KKHHD.

As far as the jews are concerned with stalwart Skadi members, you can bet your family jewels that we are already earmarked for extermination. Just look around you as to wHAt they are doing to our Race ALREADY. It is time to fight for our survival though.

As for being "afraid", don't be. Fear is a great sign of weakness. And pain is just weakness leaving the body. Do not become the only eunuch on the Kaiser's Kouncil. I don't want to have to take you to see the play "Nutcracker" for Christmas this year! Haha!

[Æmeric]

As for sterilzation it should be a form a punishment for some classes of criminals," persons who commit sex crimes, criminal illegal aliens, gangmembers."

I favor a voluntary sterilization program (for noncriminals) where people would be paid to have themselves sterilized. This would appeal to the social underclasses which are disproportionately non-Europid. There are many persons who undergo sterilization & the chance to become parents for the price of a HDTV.

[RedJack]

Excellent post, Aeric, we need more like you. Although the US has certainly interfered in British business in the past, I really can't see them getting too wound up about this issue, especially since they are facing a similar problem with unwanted Mexicans. At any rate, as you say, we need to do it anyway. :thumbup

[RedJack]

The EU is more "politically correct" in a honest way, even though hypocrisy rules finally, but the US-establishment just uses it as an argument for interventions in the persons private and other nations spheres primarily and not much more. Same is true for the EU to a large degree, but still the system is not as corrupted, sophisticated and "stabilised" in comparison. They wouldnt allow GB to go another path and of course, the plutocratic Oligarchy of Britain itself wouldnt allow it and would mobilise their American forces!

Politically correct in an honest way!? Good grief, mate, LOL.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that the people who would oppose us are as omnipotent as you seem to think they are. If they didn't require our aquiescence they wouldn't spend so much time, money and energy trying to brainwash us to their way of thinking. If the people of Britain demanded an end to immigration would your plutocrats really fight tooth and nail to prevent it? Why?

What the EU was and even more so now became, is mostly the result of this influences from the plutocratic Oligarchy and states they control for quite some time now. So the "European Union" became just another mean, like the USA or Great Britain themselves.

It did not become courrupted, it was always an internationalist project.

Thanks for the link to the movie, I'd missed that.

If you dont understand who really controls the financial system and "public" at the moment and what the plans are - they can be read in papers of the USA, as in those of Great Britain and the "European Union", just look in the future policy plans they even proclaim now publicly (!) - you missed the point. Seriously.

Go on, give us some examples of what you're talking about.

[Agrippa]

Eugenic measures are already with us anyway... much to the disgust of Christian elements . ( I am not too sure how Agrippa stands on this issue - but in other threads, he has certainly argued the possibility that the stock might be gently improved by the careful use of these scientific methods. But we have to be reasonable about this which isn't , in any case, the first political priority is it! Once (!!) a nationalist community has been stabilized through the control and proper regulation of immigration and the implementation of effective state mechanisms for repatriation of those people "who do not belong" , it will become a matter of public debate for the government and the folk to consider who best might be "the breeders" of the future. In a sense this is already happening when it comes to abnormal babies and genetic disorders. There is already a current debate and these are real issues. But the DARK matter is surely more pressing - & for that we shall need a suitable political instrument.
Sine qua non - as they might say in Rome!!

I argued for Eugenic measures in various threads, but my position is in that case like in many others that the real policy should be "as hard as necessary and as human as possible".

Like I wrote in a thread about Eugenic measures in another forum:

Which means there are no easy ways and one shouldnt decide to fast about other humans fate in reality - discussions and debates in theory are one think, practical implementation another, for the latter a lot of things have to be considered and cleared up, and I'm for 'a conservative approach' which means the usefulness of a measure has to be proven or having at least a very, very high probability.

I'm not for forced measures as long as its not necessary: F.e. majority participates anyway and there is no extreme overpopulation which could cause serious social and ecological problems.

The only exception would be sterilisation for people which have extremely negative and dangerous traits (if its proven its genetic: F.e. violent criminals which can't control themselves), highly pathological defects which would just produce a suffering and useless individual if the defect can't be eliminated-corrected with the available means etc.

For the latter I would suggest to allow people with defects reproduction only if they follow the "normal path" with all measures. I would make consultations and prenatal medicine for free for everyone, help for people which have defects from the group should be self-evident, but only if the parents or individual shows "good will" which means they used modern medical methods to avoid a defected child.
I have no problem with measures, such as medicine and surgery, that help people with genetic problems. We're on the same page there. However, I do have problems with measures such as involuntary sterilizations for people who are deemed "unfit" to reproduce. Of course, I abhor forced mating too. That's what I meant by playing God by deciding who should reproduce. For point of clarification, I'm referring to such atrocities as the Lynchburg Project and the subject of this thread. Such actions are inevitably fraught with tragic consequences. Third parties shouldn't interfere with other people's reproductive actvities under most circumstances..

Everything is justified if its really necessary for the majority of people and group, but like I always say: As hard as necessary, as human as possible.

Which means there are no easy ways and one shouldnt decide to fast about other humans in reality - discussions and debates in theory are one think, practical implementation another, for the latter a lot of things have to be cleared up and I'm for a conservative approach which means the usefulness of a measure has to be proven or having at least a very, very high probability.

I'm not for forced measures as long as its not necessary: F.e. majority participates anyway and there is no extreme overpopulation which could cause serious social and ecological problems.

The only exception would be sterilisation for people which have extremely negative and dangerous traits (if its proven its genetic: F.e. violent criminals which can't control themselves), highly pathological defects which would just produce a suffering and useless individual if the defect can't be eliminated-corrected with the available means etc.

For the latter I would suggest to allow people with defects reproduction only if they follow the "normal path" with all measures. I would make consultations and prenatal medicine for free for everyone, help for people which have defects from the group should be self-evident, but only if the parents or individual shows "good will" which means they used modern medical methods to avoid a defected child.I have no problem with measures, such as medicine and surgery, that help people with genetic problems. We're on the same page there. However, I do have problems with measures such as involuntary sterilizations for people who are deemed "unfit" to reproduce. Of course, I abhor forced mating too. That's what I meant by playing God by deciding who should reproduce. For point of clarification, I'm referring to such atrocities as the Lynchburg Project and the subject of this thread. Such actions are inevitably fraught with tragic consequences. Third parties shouldn't interfere with other people's reproductive actvities under most circumstances..

Everything is justified if its really necessary for the majority of people and group, but like I always say: As hard as necessary, as human as possible.

Which means there are no easy ways and one shouldnt decide to fast about other humans in reality - discussions and debates in theory are one think, practical implementation another, for the latter a lot of things have to be cleared up and I'm for a conservative approach which means the usefulness of a measure has to be proven or having at least a very, very high probability.

I'm not for forced measures as long as its not necessary: F.e. majority participates anyway and there is no extreme overpopulation which could cause serious social and ecological problems.

The only exception would be sterilisation for people which have extremely negative and dangerous traits (if its proven its genetic: F.e. violent criminals which can't control themselves), highly pathological defects which would just produce a suffering and useless individual if the defect can't be eliminated-corrected with the available means etc.

For the latter I would suggest to allow people with defects reproduction only if they follow the "normal path" with all measures. I would make consultations and prenatal medicine for free for everyone, help for people which have defects from the group should be self-evident, but only if the parents or individual shows "good will" which means they used modern medical methods to avoid a defected child.

We are humans, the self-domesticated species, the primary goal of evolution, if wanting to say it that way, is survival of genetic lines - better developed and higher organised forms of big mammals will have better chances. We are big mammals, there is no alternative for going on reduction and saving, we have to work on the general potential.

Something "natural" is not better or worse, we are humans and manipulate our environment all the time, we just have to obey to basic biological rules which means that we should recognise whats better for our individuals and group and whats worse. Defects are worse, higher versatile potential better, simple as that.

Natural developments can be gruesome and catastrophic for a lifeform, this means nothing. Whats important is if the result is good or bad for it. We manipulated animals and ourselves for a long time already, modern medicine did so too by letting individuals survive which wouldnt have otherwise, so we influenced domestic animals and our environment. What we lacked so far is deeper understanding and long term planning, thats what a biological worldview and Eugenic measures are about.

Its about preventing individuals and the group as such from coming into a dead end of low potential and minimal opportunities. Which sane person wants to be blind or having amyotrophia?
If you would have to live with a group of people, probably even surviving in a hard environment, would you prefer people with such defects if its about those characteristics alone? For sure not, so all that brabbling is useless and misses the point of such traits being undesirable for both individuals and the group and we should try to eliminate them therefore.

Humans used "Eugenic measures" of rather primitive and inhuman nature in the past too, just think about infanticids. Now we can really solve the problems with human measures and in an effective way. To miss that opportunity is idiotic.

Another question is how you approach people and what you tell them. I might add I have negative traits too, most other people I know have, even the better and best ones have quite often in themselves or their extended family at least negative traits. So some are just closer to a positive standard and higher level, others further away, but Eugenics is an issue for all of them even on a very personal level - if they are aware of the problem. So nobody - with the exception of extreme, suffering, dangerous etc. subjects, will be screened out completely. Its just about the defects they have primarily. Over many generations one gets that way - even without manipulation-correction, which I consider a possibility - reach much better results than by simply eliminating the individual from reproduction alone.
This is rather a topic for populations with a generally low level which live in areas which are extremely overpopulated, not for Europe. But thats something they must know themselves as long as they dont harm the ecosystem which is the base of all human life.

And of course they must not be inferior in every respect, they might just have a defect or undesirable traits - its about getting rid of those. Just imagine an infantile, short statured and obese individual which had a taller and more progressive father, he still has the traits and might know very well that he is just the worse version in his family. Today many people being told "its just everything the same", but thats crap and finally, deep in their heart they know it most of the time. Once the general public opinion and outlook of society changed, most people will change their very personal perspective on such things too.

One might distinguish in a simplified manner between:
Obvious defects
Clearly negative traits
Undesirable traits
----
Less desirable traits
Neutral
----
Positive traits
Desirable traits
Very desirable traits

F.e. in this scale just compare that with an intelligence rating from moronic to very intelligent.

Obviously a moron might refuse to accept that his condition is less desirable or might decide to have dumb children too, but of course the more reasonable moron - being reasonable and more rational is in my opinion not just the result of higher intelligence and education, but also personality traits - will agree that "something has to be done" if it would be explained to him in a sensitive and friendly way.
The one who doesnt has two major negative traits at the same time (stupid and irrational).

The moron might even have a good body and otherwise good personality traits, might in extreme cases come from a valuable bloodline - his deviation being just the result of a recent mutation. Of course there is no need to eradicate his whole bloodline - this would be even negative then, at least if its possible to explicitly target "his problem" for the next generation (!).

As one can see, there is always a tripartition of negative, neutral and positive. One has always to keep that in mind. Not being "ideal" doesnt have to mean worthless, f.e. some traits would be negative if the majority would have it, but if its just part of the normal variation, they are good and valuable. Others are neither for the majority nor in the variation good for anything...the latter is what should be targeted primarily. The best trait combinations being rather mandatory for the leadership and elite of course. Those which want to be a member or seeing their children standing a chance have to participate.

Just imagine TV programs and school instructions in which people learn how different traits came up, how useful they were or are and how things can be improved for the better of themselves, their children and the group.

But thats the case, its no lie like the crap superstitious and "politically correct" people are telling their children. Certain variants would have never survived and reproduced successfully without the help of others in the situation of stronger natural pressure or competition.
Now we dont need to be brutal or falling back to the Stone Age, just making things better for the individuals and group by targeting negative traits and favouring desirable ones on the long run with human Eugenic measures which work mainly prenatal.

and

To get rid of those negative traits would mean you would have to stop him from breeding.

Only if there is no option for eliminating the negative trait alone by selecting zygotes/blastocysts which dont have those negative traits or to correct them with genetic techniques.

Recall, I stated to set your eugenics plan in motion as society is now.

Well, now I would just do whats possible: Stop the immigration of negative variants, repatriate those which are foreign and in the European populations a pronatal policy with special motivations and care for positive couples to get more children. Otherwise prenatal measures to get rid of all known genetic and prenatal determined defects as well as the exclusion from reproduction of very extreme, dangerous and heavily defected variants which would produce just extremely negative, dangerous and suffering individuals with a very certainty.

For low level defects and just "not as desirable variants" I would just not promote them having more children and make it clear that we will deal with that in the future with modern techniques, but wouldnt do much more for now since its not really necessary. Eugenic plans if being taken seriously are not there to get rid of some cost intensive or "problematic" individuals for the moment but really improving humans and society, getting really rid of defects, negative traits and unnecessary human suffering caused by ill genetic predispositions.

I get the impression, from reading your responses, that you would automatically know if an indivdiual will grow to be fat, have dyslexia, etc. However, this is something you wouldn't know at birth today.

For some traits we already know, for others we will know and have already very different probabilities, again for others it will still need more time to come to any serious conclusions, to even distinguish between genetically determined, predispositions and modification.

Other threads about Eugenic measures on Skadi:

"The Eugenic challenge":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=34768

"Interesting posting about Eugenics":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=12749

"Genetic engineering and cloning":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=30411

"Are humans still evolving":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=13075

"Birth rates":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60647

"Nordicism":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=80705

"Nordicism and Eugenics":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40375

"Negative Selection, Contraselection through modern wars":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=74552

"Negative effects of farming":
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43007

[Kaiser]

" I would make consultations and prenatal medicine for free for everyone..."

This is a false very concept Kamerad. Tax payer paid is not "free" in the least. It is at the expense of more viable members of our Stock. Even freedom is not free. It is paid for through sweat, blood, and tears of patriots.

Ideally, we must quit having to ship aid shipments to africa and subsidize welfare whores. Mother Nature would take care of the rest. Racial and genetic differnces would become grossly apparent within less than a decade for all to see. The negroids would go back to barely walking upright. The mescans would wallow in their filthy squallor. The pakis would overpopulate their land and starve off in droves until they figured out a better way. The joos would kvetch amongst themselves and inbreed into oblivion. The white she-whores would tell their multiple copulators that they had best pour out the malt liquor, pull their pants up, and go get a job to support her and her offspring before they got any tail from her because Whitey just isn't going to pay for her litter any more. I found that the best birth control only costs one little penny. Give the welfare whores a penny and tell them to keep it firmly clinched between their knees. If they don't, and their ignorant tails get pregnant, then they have to feed their own spawn. Not us. If they get raped, they should have had the wisdom to pack a gun and shoot the rapist iinstead of relying on White tax-paid cops to bail her out then lawsuits for against them for beating up her punk "baby's daddy" to begin with. If they can't, Mother Nature steps in and weens them out on Natural Selection. Hey! Maybe NS has a duality of meanings here. National Socialism is Natural Selection. Ha!

This goes for criminals as well. REAL criminals. Not political ones. Not holohoax "deniers" imprisoned by the zionists.

Robbers, rapists, murderers, molestors. They should be busting big rocks into little ones, little ones into pebbles, pebbles into sand, in full support of grand public works projects to further serve the citizen. Not masturbating in jail learning from other derelicts to become more violent criminals on the tax payer's dime. Close down the prisons. Thet are a den of drugs. They are Crime Universities. Open up work farms instead.

But Kamerad, you have some great posts on eugenics for sure.

THANK YOU! :thumbup

[Agrippa]

Kaiser, like too many Americans, you talk too much about taxes. Now I know the problem of the financial system and discussed that on various occasions, but the American attitude is a false approach, I won't work on the details too much for now, did so elsewhere already, but only give short answers to topic-specific issues you mentioned.

" I would make consultations and prenatal medicine for free for everyone..."

This is a false very concept Kamerad. Tax payer paid is not "free" in the least. It is at the expense of more viable members of our Stock. Even freedom is not free. It is paid for through sweat, blood, and tears of patriots.

Well, its very simple: Are there goods for individuals and the group being more important than some bucks? If yes you should be ready to pay for it if you can, education, medical aid and prenatal medical methods are part of that. There is no long term win neither for individuals nor the group if having sick or defect group members, neither is it good for the individuals or the group if a society is asocial, brutal and inhuman in an unjustified and simply not necessary manner.
If you dont make it for free, even less will participate and those which can afford it will have an unfair advantage, might have not even better potential overall, just have more financial means at the moment and can profit from it. It must be free for all, so must be medical services, at least as long as possible for the group, society, state, and for those of minimal "good will". Being folkish or group oriented and saying that one doesnt want to have public medical care and a basic social system which at least helps those of good will from the own group is a contradiction in itself. Unfortunately it seems to often being more difficult to explain that to Anglos in too many cases than to anyone else on this planet because of a strong individualistic sentiment and lack of long term orientation.

Its not good for the group nor its more viable members to have poor, sick, defect and unsatisfied people around, neither is it necessary from any possible perspective if not having a state of emergency and no means left for them - and with that I really mean NO means. So as long as some decadent subject can pay for an extravagant hair cut of his dog, there must be money there in the state for decent people's health care, social security and of course if speaking about the future more extended prenatal programs.

Ideally, we must quit having to ship aid shipments to africa and subsidize welfare whores. Mother Nature would take care of the rest.

Nature doesnt take care of anything being good for humans on the long run. Seriously, those living in the "nature is everything world" must recognise that we live now in a climatically and otherwise very stable environment - for now - that won't last, if we do something about global warming or not, things will change again. There is no stability in nature, there is just change, adaptation or death. But the adaptation is that of the whole species or group finally, why letting fellow humans and lifeforms suffering if its not necessary and it doesnt profit us anything?
Its all about long term goal orientation and planning as well as a reasonable and human attitude for now. We have to be hard if its really necessary, but for some people having some more bucks and 3rd car I dont think its necessary to let people suffer.

Another question would be how much certain projects and so called (often faked) "aids" help those people in question, their group development, the species and ecosystem, because to often such project, especially those from the US, profit just certain US-corporations rather than being real help for development.

Racial and genetic differnces would become grossly apparent within less than a decade for all to see.

They are apparent anyway.

The negroids would go back to barely walking upright. The mescans would wallow in their filthy squallor. The pakis would overpopulate their land and starve off in droves until they figured out a better way. The joos would kvetch amongst themselves and inbreed into oblivion. The white she-whores would tell their multiple copulators that they had best pour out the malt liquor, pull their pants up, and go get a job to support her and her offspring before they got any tail from her because Whitey just isn't going to pay for her litter any more. I found that the best birth control only costs one little penny. Give the welfare whores a penny and tell them to keep it firmly clinched between their knees. If they don't, and their ignorant tails get pregnant, then they have to feed their own spawn. Not us. If they get raped, they should have had the wisdom to pack a gun and shoot the rapist iinstead of relying on White tax-paid cops to bail her out then lawsuits for against them for beating up her punk "baby's daddy" to begin with. If they can't, Mother Nature steps in and weens them out on Natural Selection. Hey! Maybe NS has a duality of meanings here. National Socialism is Natural Selection. Ha!

Dont answer all of that...just one thing: To understand biological rules, the basic rules of nature and how it works, to truly accept it and act accordingly is one thing - to do it for the best of the people, individuals and group too, and to construct an artificial idea of whats "natural for humans" another. Thats not adressed at you alone, its a general notion for the whole self-domesticated species.
There is only useful, harmless and harmful for individuals and the group, "natural or non-natural" is unimportant. If something what some might consider "natural" harms people, individuals or the group, its as bad as something "unnatural", the results for our individuals, bloodlines, group, race-culture, species and ecosystem matter, thats what we can truly learn from nature (!).
Compare with that too:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=73299&postcount=27

Robbers, rapists, murderers, molestors. They should be busting big rocks into little ones, little ones into pebbles, pebbles into sand, in full support of grand public works projects to further serve the citizen. Not masturbating in jail learning from other derelicts to become more violent criminals on the tax payer's dime. Close down the prisons. Thet are a den of drugs. They are Crime Universities. Open up work farms instead.

Makes sense in certain cases, others should be simply eliminated if there is no chance of rehabilitation and they are a constant threat for other people, are irrational or sociopathic violent subjects. But such things are topics for the law, one should look at specific cases rathern than generalising too much, though in general that what the USA do doesnt work is a clear case.

[Kaiser]

I recommend everyone here at Skadi read the most excellent book: Frederick Bastiat's "The Law". If any of you have, what do you think?

The book is available here online for FREE!

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

[Aeric]

Agrippa's maxim "as hard as necessary and as human as possible" is about as close as we are ever going to get to formula which is both practical and honourable. He deserves high praise for taking a complicated and challenging subject and framing it in terms that have (as we English say) "The Common Touch" - when we had real leaders in this country, that was the kind of skill that the best of them possessed - the ability to leave the chambers of high debate and to explain weighty matters to the ordinary man in language that he could understand and act upon.

Kaiser, you are an honest, straight-talking comrade and the absence of guile in your posts is refreshing - yet you are also tactically aware enough to understand when to speak loudly in public and when to speak quietly to your friends alone. You showed courage and certainty when you proposed sterilisation for anti-socials and others who do Society no good, however, I think that Agrippa was right to remind you that we sometimes have to spend money in order to both achieve the right goals and (strange as it may seem) 'buy off' the need to spend considerably more later on.

I can demonstrate the validity of his argument via both socio-political and natural considerations:

Imagine that you are living within a Society where medical treatment is not subsidised by the state. You are going to see a lot of fit and healthy Jews and Capitalists and a multitude of puny and sick working class people. Money spent on check-ups, preventative treatments and inducements towards healthier living (less smoking, more exercise; etc) might easily prove to be a wise investment when compared to the financial costs of lower productivity, sickness, disability and death benefits; etc.

What is good for the race is good for the individual. Every individual who slips below a certain standard of health/fitness becomes less of an asset and more of a burden. This natural law applies to all species - "For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack."

Aeric

[Carl]

Being folkish or group oriented and saying that one doesnt want to have public medical care and a basic social system which at least helps those of good will from the own group is a contradiction in itself. Unfortunately it seems to often being more difficult to explain that to Anglos in too many cases than to anyone else on this planet because of a strong individualistic sentiment and lack of long term orientation.

Its not good for the group nor its more viable members to have poor, sick, defect and unsatisfied people around, neither is it necessary from any possible perspective if not having a state of emergency and no means left for them - and with that I really mean NO means. So as long as some decadent subject can pay for an extravagant hair cut of his dog, there must be money there in the state for decent people's health care, social security and of course if speaking about the future more extended prenatal programs.


My! Haven't we forgotten the Old "British" Official who inspired this very complex thread! But its right isn't it. We don't just leave things to nature -- nature is all about us & we are an active part of it. That's the immigration problem in a nutshell - what ever we might think ( & I know what I thought about it even as a child!), people have brought them here and they have quite naturally thrived - not least with our care. And now, overcrowded and (?)disadvantaged, their offspring have viciously turned against us! It is one vast social experiment and we alas are all part of it. Unless there is a political answer, the situation will get progressively worse. So many have given up !

I don't think that Germany & Austria have this kind of mass immigration - since Germany "lost" its colonies! And Wasn't that lucky!! There are, I know, plenty of Turks and that is also a great problem - but not "Black British" who think that they are at home now! (the turks have certain good traditions - they are not at all like our blacks!) America too, for historical reasons, has plenty of blacks. (Were I in the midlands or the north, I might perhaps as well write Indians or Pakistanis - they do present very different problems).
I make the point because we need to distingish between collective "social" medicine & services which are in the interest of folk-welfare and the largesse which is currently extended to almost anyone who has "arrived". I do think there is a kind of folk-breakdown underway in Britain - people do not care in a way that they might once have. Medicine is privatised etc ; the poor, the old ,the blacks have to make do with whatever is left. Perhaps this is very "Anglo" - to have lost the sense of being a true national community. Even socialists have given up on it! The Health service increasingly fails to cope. If we are not "group oriented" it is because the group has been atomized , broken up into unnatural bits that do not belong together anymore! People retreat from the chaos where-ever they can. The Socialists misdirect the available money to their own areas. In this sense, "Anglo" society is really quite different from the continental patterns which I have seen. Perhaps, one should not exaggerate - but folk community we are not!! And I believe in this country anyway that immigrants are a large part of people's despair at loosing their country & their identity. Socialists don't care about it - they have moved on to some international agenda of their own. Folk Collective yes, but International meltingpots - or "multiracial hellholes" as our Nationalists might have it , er --- well , no thanks!!:thumbdown

[Spjabork]

If you dont make it for free, even less will participate and those which can afford it will have an unfair advantage, might have not even better potential overall, just have more financial means at the moment and can profit from it.
No. Agrippa, this is the crucial point: they do not see it this way.

The common notion is that "who is better also has more money". It must be so, for if it weren't they would lose any hope. The hope they have is, that someday they will "make it".

"If I can make it there - I can make it everywhere!
It's up to you: NU - York, NU-HU YOOOOORK!"

Understand?

And how often you were at pains to prove that the "successful" also were racially more valuable and how often I dissented.
It must be free for all, so must be medical services, at least as long as possible for the group, society, state, and for those of minimal "good will". Being folkish or group oriented and saying that one doesnt want to have public medical care and a basic social system which at least helps those of good will from the own group is a contradiction in itself.
They are not "group oriented". Not anymore. Since the Great Enclosures, 500 years ago. At that time, in that epoch the bulk of the peasantry was forced into sheer struggle for survival. Everyone dies for him alone. This was an anthropological experience. It is irreversible.

Everybody has his own backyard. "My home is my castle."
Unfortunately it seems to often being more difficult to explain that to Anglos in too many cases than to anyone else on this planet because of a strong individualistic sentiment and lack of long term orientation.
Yes. That is the Great Divide between Germanics.

And the Skandinavians and Dutch tend to the Anglo-Saxons, and that more because of a certain dislike of anything German than for "reasonable" reasons.

Or, as Thorburn said, the Germans have given proof of their weakness. (He said NS, but Churchill spoke of the strength of the German people.)

[Agrippa]

Good posts Aeric and Carl, nothing to add, I can just agree.

No. Agrippa, this is the crucial point: they do not see it this way.

The common notion is that "who is better also has more money". It must be so, for if it weren't they would lose any hope. The hope they have is, that someday they will "make it".

"If I can make it there - I can make it everywhere!
It's up to you: NU - York, NU-HU YOOOOORK!"

Understand?

I agree that such ways of thinking, being influenced by Calvinist and Jewish ideas and economic as well as religious moral, are indeed stronger in Anglos. I spoke about that various times, dont feel a need to repeat it at full length. Rather than the exploited, suppressed and pauperised mass unites against injustice and ill-structures, they all fight their own individualistic fight, in which they are just like small ants against the machine, and believe in silly dreams. Thats most extreme in the USA of course.

And how often you were at pains to prove that the "successful" also were racially more valuable and how often I dissented.

Well, they are, on average, especially if excluding the negative sociopathic and asocial variants. However, socially successful can be determined in different ways. F.e. a great officer, scientist or honest entrepreneur which produces jobs and goods can be poor in comparison to certain sociopathic scalpers, some good teachers, political activists, artists and inventors etc. can be even poor - at least in certain (probably crucial for reproduction?) phases of their life even in absolute terms (!).

Furthermore many healthy, at least average intelligent and decent workers are of course more valuable than a sociopathic scalper too, even more so, 1000 stupid bums are better because they do less harm than one George Soros to society.

They are not "group oriented". Not anymore. Since the Great Enclosures, 500 years ago. At that time, in that epoch the bulk of the peasantry was forced into sheer struggle for survival. Everyone dies for him alone. This was an anthropological experience. It is irreversible.

Everybody has his own backyard. "My home is my castle."
Yes. That is the Great Divide between Germanics.

Its present, but whether its that strong is one question, whether that period of time and occurences were really that crucial on their own is another.

And the Skandinavians and Dutch tend to the Anglo-Saxons, and that more because of a certain dislike of anything German than for "reasonable" reasons.

But not on that matter, for sure not. Especially not the Scandinavians which are in a way even more group oriented - even if not in a more elaborated, political and idealistic but more "naturally grown way" than Germans are probably.

[Carl]

Everybody has his own backyard. "My home is my castle."
Yes. That is the Great Divide between Germanics.

And the Skandinavians and Dutch tend to the Anglo-Saxons, and that more because of a certain dislike of anything German than for "reasonable" reasons.

Or, as Thorburn said, the Germans have given proof of their weakness. (He said NS, but Churchill spoke of the strength of the German people.)

I think I still hold out some hope for a proper community of folk-kind. A degree of fellow concern! I seem to recall WinterAid in the Reich! - people giving up their fir coats for the troops in Russia; I do the wish leadership had thought of it ! I still think there is here a deep ancestral respect for Germany - and don't forget it! there's a kind of rivalry too , its almost Nietzschean. OK , so the Russians came west; was it any surprise! I am glad in a way that they did - since it meant that the victorious West (?) was obliged to actually do something about the Russian menace in Western Europe. I have a book some where : "Churchill's German Army". Well that's the title - it meant the West getting the Germans on the feet again fast just to help prevent the Russian advance! ( I wonder how it all now goes with the Gas supplies .
Do read my previous thread entry. We had a fairly good system of health & security after the war... but its almost broken down now! Its overwhelmed with poverty & politics; our government isn't caring in the way that as they used to. If you want to have a healthy folk, you have to protect them both internally & externally - that' s folk security on both fronts with education up to scratch and health too ---but never forgetting the borders and who comes in!!!

Here's an after thought. I've just heard that Britain has committed £300 Million to S Afghanistan to help themto stop growing poppies & illegally exporting their opium for western heroin. Aren't we just so kind!! Can't you just see them welcoming all comers into the land.

[Spjabork]

I agree that such ways of thinking, being influenced by Calvinist and Jewish ideas and economic as well as religious moral,
There are still some open questions. Calvin was a Frenchman. And people here on Skadi say, they will never "side with the French" etc. which, then, would need an explanation. OTOH, Adam Smith wasn't a jew, AFAIK.
are indeed stronger in Anglos.
A difference can be perceived in the depth of religious convictions within Anglo-Saxendom. A Christian fervor Bush is displaying would hardly be possible in Britain, and Blair does not ride that horse.

This is the main reason why you can hear sometimes harsh words from British and Down-Underers spoken against North Americans: they do not concord religiously, they are therefore less righteous, less assertive, less sure. But as they cannot find any surete with the Europeans either, the "Anglicity" will win out in the end.
Rather than the exploited, suppressed and pauperised mass unites against injustice and ill-structures, they all fight their own individualistic fight, in which they are just like small ants against the machine, and believe in silly dreams. Thats most extreme in the USA of course.
We must become fully aware of the strengths of the "system" we oppose. And we must make up our minds why we do oppose it, i.e. what our grievances really are about. If two people do "the same thing", go seemingly into the same direction, it doesn't mean they share the same motif.

The system is strong morally for its offering of a "fair chance" to everybody and anybody. We, the Germanics, do only offer happiness to our own kind, which is - of course - "discriminating", "assortive", in a word: "unfair" to non-Germanics.

There is no mission, no task, no world-wide appeal that comes out of our mouth. People only know - our folks as well as the others - that times will be harder under us. Maybe not really, but that's the overall impression one must get if following our talk here. That's not attractive that much.

Also, the negros do not nor did ever challange the system per se. Rather, they'd like to be accepted by that same very system. Same goes for any other "race".

There is a certain drive in humankind toward this direction, which is hard to define, hard to describe, but which is there for sure. You can perceive it, for instance, in east asia very strongly, especially in the urban centers with their sultry atmosphere.
Well, they are, on average, especially if excluding the negative sociopathic and asocial variants. However, socially successful can be determined in different ways. F.e. a great officer, scientist or honest entrepreneur which produces jobs and goods can be poor in comparison to certain sociopathic scalpers, some good teachers, political activists, artists and inventors etc. can be even poor - at least in certain (probably crucial for reproduction?) phases of their life even in absolute terms (!).

Well, everybody would like to be rich, wouldn't they? :D
You know that joke: "Would you prefer to be poor, or rather to be rich?" - "Rich." - "Why?" - "For financial reasons." ;)

Spengler's stance toward being rich (in a monetary sense) was ambiguous. He fully realized that the Germans, in terms of money, were poor and ever would be (among the 1'000 richest in the world there are some 40 Germans, though the country is the third biggest economy). And he fully recognized "worthiness" apart from riches.

But - as he pronounced - there is no reason for the Germans to pe proud of their poverty... rather, that would indicate a sort of deficiency. He once said, the "policy makers" must have an income that enables them to live on the same foot as "our best entrepreneurs". Well, as you know the present ruling class in Germany has nothing taken so much to their hearts of Spengler's many advices than that. :D

Maybe the jew Karl Marx can help us out here: he distinguished between "value" (monetary worth) and "use" (moral worth). Things cheap may be of high "use", i.e. may be needed urgently by mankind, OTOH things dear may be may be useless in a moral sense. It's demand and supply. And were the "demand" stems from, whether it is "real" or "artificially created" doesn't matter: what matters is purchasing power and "the will to buy".
Its present, but whether its that strong is one question, whether that period of time and occurences were really that crucial on their own is another.
Another point were we differ in our estimation. The Russian bolshevist leader Lenin investigated the transition from "feudalism" to "capitalism" and clearly made out two "ways" of agriculture: the "American" (i.e. Anglo-Saxon), and the "Prussian" (i.e. German). These two ways are in Lenin's opinion "proto-typical", which means they are fundamental to the whole world, as it must undergo the "phase" of capitalism.

There were attempts in Prussia to follow the "American" way and drive out peasants en masse of their homesteads an enclose their acres, too. But the Prussian kings always strongly opposed that, as much they elsewhere cuddled the "nobility" and conceded them everything they wanted. The reason was, that military was based on conscription to 50%. If they had allowed enclosures of an English dimension, they wouldn't have had enough soldiers to fill the ranks decimated by desertion of the other 50%, which consisted of foreign mercenaries :D.

As we all know, the King of England was chopped. And the ranks of the British (not the "Royal") Army were filled by payed volunteers.

Here lie the roots of the utter loathing the Anglo-Saxons cherish against "Prussian militarism". The Prussian king was always able to clean out the chamber "with one lieutenant and ten men", whereas the English new-style monarch was denied to have a full army (only some regiments are "royal", not the army as such).

And compare the discussion now in Germany about draft vs. "professional" army. (The jew Cohn-Bendid on tv liked the army to the fire brigade, which ought to be "professional" :D)

And the only argument left to bring forward against this privatisation of the military is, that the draft is cheaper.:D Which is not much "group oriented", methinks.
But not on that matter, for sure not. Especially not the Scandinavians which are in a way even more group oriented - even if not in a more elaborated, political and idealistic but more "naturally grown way" than Germans are probably.
I always stress practice. For, you know, time is running out. We have simply not enough time left for theoretical pondering.

It may be that "in their hearts" the Dutch and Skandinavians "do not like" what they do - but as it is opposed to the "German" way, and as Germany has lost two times to the bottom, it must be right so. Everything else would result - at least in their perception (which is essential in warfare, says Clausewitz) - in a deadly ruin of their very existence. (Again: to me, Thorburn as confirmed that.)

[Kaiser]

We don't just leave things to nature -- nature is all about us & we are an active part of it. That's the immigration problem in a nutshell - what ever we might think ( & I know what I thought about it even as a child!), people have brought them here and they have quite naturally thrived - not least with our care. And now, overcrowded and (?)disadvantaged, their offspring have viciously turned against us! It is one vast social experiment and we alas are all part of it. Unless there is a political answer, the situation will get progressively worse. So many have given up !


Actually, it is the zionist virus from the parasitic joo which the White man has been infected with which causes him to think and act UNnaturally. I submit to you that to have open borders is rather unnatural. In nature, animals are fiercely territorial and mate with their own kind. Animals have the good sense to breed within their species and tend to their bqabies before they go attending to foreign babies naturally. Especially hostile foreign scavenger and predatory babies! Even the sick, weak, and deformed get weeded out of their own packs. Littleless destructive foreign animals! Other non-white races still adhere to their evolutionary roots and maintain this trait as well. The highly hive-like joos have this "stick together for the good of the group" instinct down to a patent. It is only the White man who has been brainwashed to relegate himself to the trashheap of history unnaturally.

I realize that I breach controversial subjects such as sterilisation and eugenics here. This is not to mean that I plan to make these ideas a political campaign paltform for the unwashed masses anytime soon. Even when I ran for local public office and advocated only the advancement of all races, I was still viciously labeled a "White Supremecist Racist" no matter what I did just for the color of my skin and my stance on protecting my nation from the onslaught of Massive Illegal Alien Invasion by the joo media. I am just expressing here on Skadi my inner most ponderings to like-minded brethren in an effort to help forge a path for our children to reap the benefits of sound racial policies reinstituted well into the future of our species and beyond. We do not even need a "Great White Hope" to rise up just yet or for some member of our Tribe to infiltrate the vaccine office and slip sterilisation drugs into the shots given to inner city non-whites en mass. (although how many would grin inside if that breaking story was reported) Just by formulating a sound understanding for the need for racial separation from the other leeching species on this planet and the benefit of an all White Nation, we are already leap years beyond the rest of our pack. We are the lead dogs and it is up to us to get this sled moving in the right direction again. Eventually, when we are sufficiently coalesed as a strong pack again, we can gnaw through the tethers and free ourselves from the burden of the very sleigh itself.

I am not advocating so much "persecuting" the joos per say. Seers knows they have benefited far too much from their persecution complex already. I am simply proposing for we Whites to become immune to their insidious ways. And the best way for that to be possible is for us to separate them from our Folk. History has proven enough times already that our tribes are genetically, philosophically, politically, financially, culturally, and in all ways incompatible if not down right deliterious to one another. Both in eventual pogroms for the "choosen ones" and definetly for our Folk suffers greatly due to their joo manipulations.


Here's an after thought. I've just heard that Britain has committed £300 Million to S Afghanistan to help themto stop growing poppies & illegally exporting their opium for western heroin. Aren't we just so kind!! Can't you just see them welcoming all comers into the land.

I personally know that it is far worse than this. American military Special Operations Forces are ordered to stand down and not interdict Afghani drug smugglers. I know because my brother brought back the order in print. He was in the mountians near Pakistan with the Marines with SF attached to them. He was also in Iraq. Of course, both of these conflicts are zionist influenced wars to the benefit of the State of Israel at the expense of our hearty warrior Stock. How sick!

For me, the perfect political system would be a more Libertarian approach at home where the government pretty much stays out of one's personal affairs of its sovereign citizens allowing them to flourish or fail as Nature and their own ingenuity dictates. Citizens would of course be permitted to form charities, communities, tribes, klans, and cliques according to their own personal needs and desires. Couple this with a strong national defense, racial pride, and based upon racial identity and preservation as the dominant theme coursing through the veins of the state's inhabitants, and I would be in an earthly Valhalla indeed!

I know that I am probably dreaming but I will dedicate my entire life to preserve the rights of the individual White Wolf while at the same time working voluntarily toward the good of the White Pack. I do not see this World View in conflict in any way. Don't want to be a part of the Aryan Pack? No problem. You will not be forced through legislation to do so. But then you can not put your paw out and expect the benefit of running with the pack when you are hungry or sick either.

[RedJack]

Being folkish or group oriented and saying that one doesnt want to have public medical care and a basic social system which at least helps those of good will from the own group is a contradiction in itself. Unfortunately it seems to often being more difficult to explain that to Anglos in too many cases than to anyone else on this planet because of a strong individualistic sentiment and lack of long term orientation.

Perhaps these Anglos understand you perfectly and simply disagree with you. Anyone who says that people are too concerned with taxes sounds like someone who is getting ready to pick your pocket.
I'll take good old fashioned Anglo-Saxon individualism over your progressive collectivism any day.

For me, the perfect political system would be a more Libertarian approach at home where the government pretty much stays out of one's personal affairs of its sovereign citizens allowing them to flourish or fail as Nature and their own ingenuity dictates. Citizens would of course be permitted to form charities, communities, tribes, klans, and cliques according to their own personal needs and desires. Couple this with a strong national defense, racial pride, and based upon racial identity and preservation as the dominant theme coursing through the veins of the state's inhabitants, and I would be in an earthly Valhalla indeed!

That sounds pretty good to me, Kaiser. :thumbup

[Agrippa]

Perhaps these Anglos understand you perfectly and simply disagree with you. Anyone who says that people are too concerned with taxes sounds like someone who is getting ready to pick your pocket.
I'll take good old fashioned Anglo-Saxon individualism over your progressive collectivism any day.

Well, people making all the policy around taxes have no true values. That doesnt mean that too high, unfair or wasted taxes being no issue, however, those caring too much about taxes and their personal environment and not enough about other important problems and the greater whole are the problem, its not problematic to care for taxes and the own personal environment, its quite normal in fact. Neither is Individualism per se negative, which has a positive side in occidental culture and identity, but the modern and worthless "Individualism-Ideology" which is closely connected with Liberalcapitalism and the destruction of all true Western values. Anglos in a very generalised manner being the first and most infected people by this sickness and therefore the easist victim and best mean for the plutocratic Oligarchy, because their natural resistence was broken, their society fractionised, the people highly (pseudo-) individualised and indoctrinated.

I think its strange to be fast if its about sterilising or imprison people, but at the same time reluctant to pay for preventing negative tendencies to occur in the first place if just having to pay a fair share for it, for the own and even more so group's benefit. That means wanting from others to live without offspring, probably even without rights, on a lower level and everything, but for oneself paying a fair amount of taxes for the state and group to improve the situation is already "too much of an effort" or what? Thats whats so strange about many Anglo people, in general but even more strange in the nationalist scene. Even those being rather wealthy and materially well of still insist on being "exploited" while they would accept others to starve to death even if not knowing their exact situation - or better not even caring about it.

I dont want to attack anyone, especially not Kaiser personally on that, thats something I want to point out. I think he knows certain aspects of the problem very well and seems to be generally of good will.

Of course a lot are better, but as a tendency thats much stronger in Americans and British than in most other people of the world I'd say. If those are "racist" just because they are afraid of "paying too much taxes" and at the same time employing foreign, f.e. Mexican workers and buying consequently cheap world market products (even if being able to afford something from the own national production) - of course they might be for a free world wide global market too, they are just as hypocritical and corrupted as one people can get. Such "racists" or even better just "anti-immmigration-oriented-and-cut-the-taxes-people" are really the bottom of the barrel and might be compared to Nietzsche's "last humans" (of the West - I might add).

We must become fully aware of the strengths of the "system" we oppose. And we must make up our minds why we do oppose it, i.e. what our grievances really are about. If two people do "the same thing", go seemingly into the same direction, it doesn't mean they share the same motif.

Thats something I repeated all the time. Its nothing you can observe in people of different nations alone though, its a question of very personal, individual, racial aspects too. F.e. an intelligent and well educated schizothymic true higher idealist will have different "interests" than a more opportunistic zyklothymic individual which is not as intelligent and educated too, being more interested in very personal and lower level emotional issues primarily.

[Carl]

This is all surely something of a confusion. If we have a ultra-conservative system, then they will seek to tax as little as possible so that those with money can hang on to it. If we have a Patriotic Folk State, I won't quite use the S word as in NS, then to some extent ( and this is surely a matter of debate in all poitical arrangements) the state will indeed make provisions for its poorer members and more generally in the hope and expectation that they will be improved and enabled to look themselves better and to therefore contribute to the welfare and purposes of the State. ( Yes, I know that Nietzsche said the state was a cold monster - but I am assuming that, being a folkstate, it really does has the very best of intentions !!).

If however the State is the standand PC quasi-sub-Marxist "hell on earth" , then the chances are that it will tax heavily - it will send the money abroad as "aid for the poor of the world" ( thereby increasing their numbers beyond the sustainable - thereby increasing the overall suffering ) whilst at the same time running down the services for the nation at home - such as the provision of health for needy and the old and the provision of effective and meaningful education for the young & future of the land. At least, that's how it looks around here!!!

[Tancred]

I think adopting the 'lesser of two evils' would make way for a slippery slope argument. Nationalism as a political force is wanted for unifying it's citizens under a common belief-set that is an expression of their past, blood and ideals. There must be no giving way on this principles. Italians might be 'less different' in regards to the Swedish than towards Africans, but there is still a difference. We shouldn't say 'if it must be some immigrants, it might as be some 'white' ones,' because we don't follow the mindset of those that call for more immigration. If someone called for shorter prison sentences, you wouldn't say 'Well we should shorten the thiefs' sentences rather than the rapists'. We shouldn't change either, and I certainly won't stand for anyone destroying the spirit of my nation, whether it is through African immigration or any other European immigration.


I think your reasoning is both wrong and stupid. Nationalism is a 19th century ideology, born of the end of the old feudal empires that had existed in Europe since the Middle Ages. We need to think racially, not nationally; the danger that we face in Britain is too great to be tackled internally. If it helps the white cause to have more European immigrants, so be it. I would much prefer a racially aware Pole than a liberal Englishman!

[Oswiu]

I would much prefer a racially aware Pole than a liberal Englishman!
Unfortunately, the liberal Englishman is usually a comfortable Guardian reader whose job is secure from cheap labour imports, whereas the racially aware Poles come along and destroy the livelihoods of racially aware Working Class Englishmen, whose health then suffers, marriages fail, their children grow up delinquent brats... Not much good for the English folk as a whole, is it?
And that's from Slavophilic me! :(

Don't fall for the trick of the liberal educators, who'd have Nationalism transformed into a mere 'ideology', as though it were of no more natural eternal significance than Trotskyism.

[Tancred]

Unfortunately, the liberal Englishman is usually a comfortable Guardian reader whose job is secure from cheap labour imports, whereas the racially aware Poles come along and destroy the livelihoods of racially aware Working Class Englishmen, whose health then suffers, marriages fail, their children grow up delinquent brats... Not much good for the English folk as a whole, is it?
And that's from Slavophilic me! :(

Don't fall for the trick of the liberal educators, who'd have Nationalism transformed into a mere 'ideology', as though it were of no more natural eternal significance than Trotskyism.


I'm sorry but I have little sympathy for the lazy white working class English. If the Poles work harder for less money, good for them! Why should I pay an English plumber £200 for a crap job which takes him 4 hours including fag breaks, when a Pole will do a better job in half the time for half the money? Actually, the solution is very simple: you have to adapt. Work harder and ask for less money.

The working class problem in Britain was born in the 1960s when the Marxist Labour government started the 'handout' society and caved in repeatedly to ever increasing demands from trade unions. When manual workers are beginning to earn more than teachers and other degree educated professionals then society becomes dysfunctional. The workers become lazy and the economy becomes unproductive. The fact is that the working class has had it good for too long; it's the middle class that has suffered, not the working class. A bit of competition will do the workers plenty of good and get rid of the 'jobsworth' types that have bedevilled our economy for far too long.

I say: let's bring another one million Poles here!

[RedJack]

I'm sorry but I have little sympathy for the lazy white working class English. If the Poles work harder for less money, good for them! Why should I pay an English plumber £200 for a crap job which takes him 4 hours including fag breaks, when a Pole will do a better job in half the time for half the money? Actually, the solution is very simple: you have to adapt. Work harder and ask for less money.

The working class problem in Britain was born in the 1960s when the Marxist Labour government started the 'handout' society and caved in repeatedly to ever increasing demands from trade unions. When manual workers are beginning to earn more than teachers and other degree educated professionals then society becomes dysfunctional. The workers become lazy and the economy becomes unproductive. The fact is that the working class has had it good for too long; it's the middle class that has suffered, not the working class. A bit of competition will do the workers plenty of good and get rid of the 'jobsworth' types that have bedevilled our economy for far too long.

I say: let's bring another one million Poles here!

No point in being fussy, then, let's just open the doors and let all the bloody wogs in, too. :thumbdown What kind of a nationalist are you? England for the English and Britain for the British. This country belongs to us, not the bloody Poles.

[Oswiu]

I'm sorry but I have little sympathy for the lazy white working class English.
Your intellectual sister;
http://www.alibhai-brown.com/archive/article.php?id=93
And all because of prejudice and envy. Young Poles and Lithuanians can find work and make something of their lives while our own people are either too lazy or expensive to compete. Tax paying immigrants past and present keep indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer and watching daytime TV. I resent that. We are despised because we seize opportunities which these slobs don’t want.
:thumbdown
I know people who are involved in serious property business, and they complained to me the other day that all this undercutting has led to a situation where you can't get a decent job done. The older craftsmen have been priced out, and these men said they'd gladly pay a decent price if they could get decent work, but all that's on offer is useless Polish jacks of all trades, lying about their skills to get what work they can.
I know a lot of lorry drivers, and their typical conversation these days concerns the crap workers from the east, who are putting lives in danger by lying about their lack of a HGV license.
Job security's gone out the window - so what can we hope for in terms of family security?

You seem to be one of those young men, Tancred, temporarily enthused by some economic model you've just figured out. It'll pass.

[Carl]

I say: let's bring another one million Poles here!

well, it did all start with the 'British' Black (State)Official(!) saying how unwise it would be to let in lots of East Europeans who might be both white and racist about Blackfolk and even especially perhaps 'British' Black (State) Official !! :-O

Now, Ive already said which I'd prefer - but its just common sense not to swamp the country with anyone from somewhere else. After all , its not their country -- and our own people should, in theory, have the right to decide. But, we all know what happened to theory......so now we shall need some PRAXIS!


C

[Tancred]

Your intellectual sister;
http://www.alibhai-brown.com/archive/article.php?id=93

:thumbdown
I know people who are involved in serious property business, and they complained to me the other day that all this undercutting has led to a situation where you can't get a decent job done. The older craftsmen have been priced out, and these men said they'd gladly pay a decent price if they could get decent work, but all that's on offer is useless Polish jacks of all trades, lying about their skills to get what work they can.
I know a lot of lorry drivers, and their typical conversation these days concerns the crap workers from the east, who are putting lives in danger by lying about their lack of a HGV license.
Job security's gone out the window - so what can we hope for in terms of family security?

You seem to be one of those young men, Tancred, temporarily enthused by some economic model you've just figured out. It'll pass.


I accept that there are Poles who are playing the system to their advantage, but so what? That is to be expected. It's the British workers who have to take action by competing more aggressively and offering better quality of workmanship at good rates. You seem to be very much against the free market.

No point in being fussy, then, let's just open the doors and let all the bloody wogs in, too. :thumbdown What kind of a nationalist are you? England for the English and Britain for the British. This country belongs to us, not the bloody Poles.

My statement about letting in one million Poles was tongue in cheek, but there is a massive difference between the filthy scum from the Indian subcontinent and another tribe of Europeans. As for being a nationalist, whoever told you that I was one? I am not a nationalist and never have been, I am racial European nationalist - meaning that I believe in a pan-European racial policy for the whole continent, not just England or the UK.

[Oswiu]

I accept that there are Poles who are playing the system to their advantage, but so what? That is to be expected. It's the British workers who have to take action by competing more aggressively and offering better quality of workmanship at good rates.
No, it's up to a state to regulate the labour market and immigration for the good of the nation.
You seem to be very much against the free market.
Not everyone worships your god! :D
I, and others here, look elsewhere than to economic doctrines for our highest values...
My statement about letting in one million Poles was tongue in cheek, but there is a massive difference between the filthy scum from the Indian subcontinent and another tribe of Europeans. As for being a nationalist, whoever told you that I was one? I am not a nationalist and never have been, I am racial European nationalist - meaning that I believe in a pan-European racial policy for the whole continent, not just England or the UK.
I have some sympathy for that too, but consider this; I know millions of people who used to barely know of the existence of the Polish, and if pressed would have found nothing bad to say about them. Now, however, ill feeling has grown against them. Forced integration in a dog eat dog capitalist scenario will breed contempt even among related peoples. This may set Europeanism back decades. :|

[darthantares]

I say: let's bring another one million Poles here!


Some of that sounds sickeningly familiar.


Edit: Not referring to the Poles in our case, though.

[RedJack]

I accept that there are Poles who are playing the system to their advantage, but so what? That is to be expected. It's the British workers who have to take action by competing more aggressively and offering better quality of workmanship at good rates. You seem to be very much against the free market.

Nonsense, this is their native country, why must they compete with foreigners?



My statement about letting in one million Poles was tongue in cheek, but there is a massive difference between the filthy scum from the Indian subcontinent and another tribe of Europeans. As for being a nationalist, whoever told you that I was one? I am not a nationalist and never have been, I am racial European nationalist - meaning that I believe in a pan-European racial policy for the whole continent, not just England or the UK.

I don't see any advantage in this approach, since it will have a destructive effect on the various nations of Europe only slightly less severe than the present system. :thumbdown

[Spjabork]

Nonsense, this is their native country, why must they compete with foreigners?
This is one sentence, seemingly "self-evident".

I have a house. It's my house. Why? Because it beloged to my grand... ... ... father. It always belonged to my sib.

Does this mean, it must belong to my son?

Is there any guarantee that it will remain the own of my grand... .... ... son?

There is no guarantee. So how can I have this house? How could I inherit it?

My ancestores not just "owned" that house, but also maintained it. They did something in addition to merely "having" something.

If it is their country, they must show this, they must make it clear, they must speak it out, with strong voice, unmisunderstandably.

They must keep, they must defend it as my ancestors kept their house.

Only to claim it, is not enough. "Confirmative action" is needed.

And another problem: it may be their country, but it is the world market. I can sell my house. Someone may buy my house. I must make it clear that "the market" is a fine thing, but my house - sorry - is not for sale. And my country isn't.

[Carl]

They must keep (it), they must defend it as my ancestors kept their house.

Only to claim it, is not enough. "Confirmative action" is needed.

And another problem: it may be their country, but it is the world market. I can sell my house. Someone may buy my house. I must make it clear that "the market" is a fine thing, but my house - sorry - is not for sale. And my country isn't.

This is the essence of nationalism - it is our country ( we folk) and we should like to keep it that way. But as you say, thats not the prevailing mood. Now everything & anything is up for sale - not least the neighbourhood! or at least, this is how it is in the internationalist lands ( and Germany has its turks etc). Spjabork! - you often speak of the old days; old Britain (and yes, old France too ) and the Empire moved in troops from anywhere when it thought it was necessary. This must have been the soft beginning of "let all come & help -- let then all belong & be equal ". And Lo! they have.

[Spjabork]

Spjabork! - you often speak of the old days; old Britain (and yes, old France too ) and the Empire moved in troops from anywhere when it thought it was necessary. This must have been the soft beginning of "let all come & help -- let then all belong & be equal ". And Lo! they have.
Yes, I often speak about the old days. What a coincidence: yesterday someone in the German section here told me that I think too much of the past. Don't we do all this? The German playwright Botho Strauss once remarked, being "rightwinger" simply means having a philosophy of loss.

I spoke some words about the French, and it was maybe too harsh. When I was a schoolboy, I read much more about Napoleon than about "my" German leaders, I wanted to be like him, as every true boy wants to for some time. Notwithstanding the harm he has done to my folk and also to Europe, still he was a Great Man and it was a great time, then.

Every empire declines sooner or later for two reasons: problems of quality and quantity. Quality is a question of time: when it comes to the succession, who is able to "take over"? The new leader(s) is/are not able (enough), the new guys are lazier and also less heroic than the olden ones were... Quantity is a question of space: its no longer possible to keep things in a firm grip, simply one is going to lose oversight...

Men are needed to uphold... Many men. Every generation anew.

At one point, one starts to enlist foreigners, mercenaries, "subjects", even slaves.

These fight well, with distinction, often better than the own material. So they earn rewards, medals of honour, citizenship, wives...

And suddenly its over. And nobody noticed when it happened.

[Carl]

Spjabork! - you often speak of the old days; old Britain (and yes, old France too ) and the Empire moved in troops from anywhere when it thought it was necessary. This must have been the soft beginning of "let all come & help -- let then all belong & be equal ". And Lo! they have.

Yes. Thats what I said and I really meant by the softening up process all that occured in WWI - troops from all over. And they didn't of course stay in great numbers... but the pattern was established, that is what you can do if things get too difficult. I believe the Germans were horrified at what they saw. And after world war II, the situation was worse - because they really did stay and then even more were increasingly welcomed. The pattern was established.

People were well aware what happened with Rome - but it won't happen with the British Empire, will it? Well it did. And France. And Holland. ( and the Turks in Germany maybe) and then the other nations of Europe caught the message. And as I said , Lo! -- that's where we now are , postImperial breakdown. Except that, maybe there's a new spirit already afoot....seeking to make again a new AufMarsch.

[Carl]

28NOV06

Since this lively thread began with concern over a certain British Official, it might be as well to give reference to his London Conference recently - which had some stark and heavy observations to make about the State of Britain today! :(

links:

http://forums.skadi.net/britain_best_non_whites-t83959.html?p=699261

[Ancient Autumn]

Hello!

Selective anti-racism, everyone knows it, negro's, north africans, turks, arabs are the most racist people we have ever met, so once again we see that the ''anti-racist'' are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, letting every racist in except the one who are from Europe.

[BritishLad]

Concerning the British: No, you are not just full, you are full of the wrong people and its not enough to stop foreign racial mass immigration, one must revert trends, population policy which strengthens Europeans and in this case truly British birth rates, especially of the more valuable segments of society and repatriate those which are non-integrable in larger or even in smaller numbers, won't contribute anything really valuable Europeans can't and should therefore leave as soon as possible.

True, and we would if we weren't deemed as "racist" if we so much as suggested to put it into action-one of the greatest insults in the UK is to be called a racist.

[Deifr]

Horrible double standards, but I couldn't care less if they keep a load of dumb slavic hooligans out. If that is what they are targeting with this.

[Heerss]

Britain really cares more for her ethic population than her own native population.

Tell me: How many current english people (living in England with English citizenship) actually had family members in WW1 fighting for England? I'd bet hardly none!

(well my family,and some member son here....but that's bout it)

Is it England anymore?

[Godwinson]

Tell me: How many current english people (living in England with English citizenship) actually had family members in WW1 fighting for England? I'd bet hardly none!

Mine did ;)

Interesting question though and the percentage is rapidly shrinking, that's for sure!

[Forest_Dweller]

God this is pathetic of the government. I wonder what tests they will use to prove their racism, hmm lets see hes white, has a shaved head, a flight jacket and looks slavic, RACIST!

I wonder if they will do anything to counter the racism coming from ungrateful negro and Muslim migrants, who are completely intollerant and hate our laws and everything we stand for. Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.

God this antiwhite attitude just makes me more and more bitter, whats next a complete cap on white immigration of any kind because they might hold racial views?

[Forest King]

whats next a complete cap on white immigration of any kind because they might hold racial views?

I wouldn't be surprised

[Heerss]

What I don't understand about the British.......
In 1911,the British cabinet minster 'Wiston Churchill' was thinking on the lines of sterilization to make the British population more pure......
In 1950's 'Wiston Churchill' help elect a new government (Churchill was fully aware of what the purpose was for this new government) that represented multicultural ethic races in Britain and Europe.



In the past,the British did care about race in England and keeping it European pure......now the British government are against there own race!

Churchill wrote to his Home Office officials asking them to investigate putting into practice the "Indiana Law"-dominated by sterilisation, and the prevention of the marriage of the "Feeble-Minded." Churchill wrote: "I am drawn to this subject in spite of many Parliamentary misgivings....Of course it is bound to come some day." Despite the misgivings, "It must be examined." He wanted to know "what is the best surgical operation?" and what new legal powers would be needed to carry out sterilisation.

I can state without fear of contradiction that Randolph never saw this letter, of which there was no copy in the Churchill papers. Here is the story of that letter, and its context.

"The improvement of the British breed is my aim in life," Winston Churchill wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899, shortly after his twenty-fifth birthday. Churchill's view was reinforced by his experiences as a young British officer serving, and fighting, in Arab and Muslim lands, and in South Africa. Like most of his contemporaries, family and friends, he regarded races as different, racial characteristics as signs of the maturity of a society, and racial purity as endangered not only by other races but by mental weaknesses within a race. As a young politician in Britain entering Parliament in 1901, Churchill saw what were then known as the "feeble-minded" and the "insane" as a threat to the prosperity, vigour and virility of British society.
http://www.winstochurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics

[BritishLad]

Mine did ;)


So did mine

[Fortress Germania]

Muslims and blacks are racist immigrants as well. Jews are white racist immigrants. Nationalism is instinctive, the people reading Skadi who have slavic blood, or slavic boyfriends/girlfriends instinctively side with Eastern Europeans on here.

[Cenwulf]

Tell me: How many current english people (living in England with English citizenship) actually had family members in WW1 fighting for England? I'd bet hardly none!

Both my great grandfathers fought World War I and I'm sure great uncles and so on did so too. If you're white, and you're English (properly English, not just born here) it'd be unlikely that your ancestors didn't fight WWI, I think.

Is it England anymore?

You just gotta know where to look. I wouldn't say London is 'English' anymore, atleast not in the true sense, and Bradford certainly isn't 'English' as we would recognise it anymore, but head towards rural Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland, down to Norfolk, Sussex and so forth. You have to leave the cities to meet England.

[Gerhardt Maritz]

The next thing will be that the non white people (read everybody darker than myself) will claim that the Royal Family is racist due to the fact that there are no non white members.
Or alternatively some liberal scientist will discover 'proof' that the original royal family was actually arabic and that the crown had unjustly been stolen by the imperialist infidels in an attempt to discredit Allah (pbuh).
And we all know to what extend a goverment will go to be political correct....