Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: The War on the English: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, July 11th, 2011 @ 02:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Gender
    Posts
    141
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    The War on the English: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique

    The Occidental Observer
    The War on the English: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1
    May 27, 2011 — 106 Comments
    Brenton Sanderson



    In the last fifty years the culture of critique has reengineered public discourse in the West so successfully that laudatory references to European ethnic groups, such as the English, are today widely held to be morally repugnant. This reality is confirmed by the recent experience of Brian True-May, the co-creator of the internationally successful television series Midsomer Murders. One of most successful British cultural exports of the last decade, Midsomer Murders draws large audiences around the world – particularly in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The long-running series is known for its quaint English village setting which provides the backdrop for classic (if clichéd) murder mysteries.

    The program made international headlines in March when True-May was suspended by ITV. Asked in an interview to account for the show’s international success, he said his winning formula was quite simple: keep it as English as possible. He pointed out that the series simply ‘wouldn’t work’ if there was any racial diversity portrayed in the sleepy village set in the fictional county of Midsomer. ‘We just don’t have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn’t be the English village with them,’ he told the Radio Times. ‘It just wouldn’t work. Suddenly we might be in Slough … We’re the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way. Maybe I’m not politically correct … I’m trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don’t want to change it.’

    Predictably enough, an ITV spokesman immediately issued a statement: ‘We are shocked and appalled at these personal comments by Brian True-May which are absolutely not shared by anyone at ITV. We are in urgent discussions with All3Media, the producer of Midsomer Murders, who have informed us that they have launched an immediate investigation into the matter and have suspended Mr True-May pending the outcome.’ ITV was captured by the Judeo-Marxist establishment long ago, and Jewish editorial control at ITV has been ensured for the next generation with the recent appointment of the 32-year-old Jonathan Levi as head of ITV’s arts and popular culture division. The situation at the BBC is little different.

    Behind the suspension of True-May was a tacit threat: his program needs to modify a successful formula in the interests of promoting the multicultural ideal of Britain’s cultural-Marxist (and Jewish-dominated) intellectual establishment. This ‘last bastion of Englishness’ must cease, even if this means undermining the very basis of the program’s success. The apparent concern is not that Midsomer Murders is inaccurate in its portrayal of the typical rural English village – which, to the dismay of many, are still overwhelming white – but rather that the program constitutes, in some sense, a ‘celebration’ of this fact, and by extension, exploits a nostalgia and yearning for England as it was prior to mass Third World immigration and state-sponsored multiculturalism. This is anathema to an elite which is fiercely anti-White, has contempt for the White nation state, a profound dislike of any deference to White culture, and an incomprehension of the web of traditions and prejudices once revered by the English.


    Roger Scruton

    Observing the contemporary assault on the English, conservative philosopher Roger Scruton notes that ‘every practice in which the spirit of England can still be discerned seems fated now to arouse contempt.’[i] Unfortunately Scruton cannot see, or simply refuses to see, the Jewish elephant in the room as he attempts to account for this pernicious trend:

    The forbidding of England is a strange phenomenon and one that is hard to explain. The country was always victorious in war, and was not impoverished even by the loss of its empire. No outside force compelled it to relinquish its national pride and culture. The process came from within, and seemingly without resistance. George Orwell commented on the disloyalty, the anti-patriotism and ‘intellectual sabotage’ that had helped to weaken England during the 1930s. He attributed the phenomenon to the fact that the old imperial society excluded the intellectuals, and therefore drove them to take up a negative posture towards it.[ii]
    Scruton apparently fails to notice the pursuit of Jewish group interests manifest in the various intellectual movements that have formed the basis for what he terms the ‘culture of repudiation’ that subjected the old virtues, customs and religion of England ‘to humiliating scorn by the makers of public opinion.’[iii] He is correct, however, in observing that this ‘culture of repudiation’ found particularly fertile soil in the cultural landscape of post-war England.

    [The] English emerged from two world wars in a condition of moral fatigue. … An overwhelming sense of guilt seemed to paralyse the country – guilt at its own successes, and an awareness of their cost. … Rather than risk the accusation that they were so bellicose and xenophobic as actually to believe in themselves, the English preferred to apologise.’ Therefore, one ‘of their most endearing traits became their nemesis. … The sneering and jeering at Old England was caused not by the country’s strength but by its manifest weakness, which means that it could be despised with impunity.[iv]
    From a Native Culture of Dissent to the Culture of Critique

    The English were particularly susceptible to being enlisted as vectors of the culture of critique given their psychological predisposition to individualism and moral universalism (a characteristic of northern Europeans generally, discussed by Kevin MacDonald here). This tendency is a theme that finds repeated expression through English history. Scruton observes that ‘the peculiarities of the English’ can be traced to what ‘is sometimes known as their “individualism” – that is, their disposition to affirm the right and responsibility of individual action in all spheres of social life.’[v] Their individualism was manifest in their national character:

    The English, it is generally agreed, were distant, cool, reserved. They had friends, but they did not make them easily, and when they made them, they held them at a distance, embarrassed at the natural flow of human affection, and taking steps to avoid it whenever it might erupt. This reserve was part of loyalty; their affections were cool but steady. They deplored the volatile humours of the Mediterranean people, and the fickle sentimentality, as they saw it, of the Irish. Because their attachments were slow to form they were also slow to dissolve: for one attachment must be driven out by another, and meanwhile takes up its place with the same discreet informality as a member takes his armchair in his club. This reserve was observed not only between friends, but also between lovers, spouses and members of a family, where it could coexist with the deepest love and a mutual identification of aims and interests. It amounted not to a lack of feeling, but rather to a lack of self-regard – a refusal to display a feeling just because it happened to be yours.[vi]
    The inherent individualism of the English led to the evolution of a nation of strangers. ‘Strangers do not live together by affection, by family sentiment, by swearing bonds of blood-brotherhood in the manner of the Arabian tribes. They live together by law, convention and a silent appeal to precedent. They settle disputes not by violent quarrels of vengeance, but by laying their grievance before an impartial judge, himself a stranger at one further remove.’[vii] The advent of the common law and devotion to the rule of law is regarded as the embodiment of the disposition of a people ‘who came to England from Jutland, Saxony and Scandinavia’ who ‘were distinguished by their litigiousness.’[viii] For Scruton, England has always been a land of dissent:

    Important sections of English society have scorned its traditions, its compromises and its aristocratic ways, seeing only the bare bones of power and oppression and the hypocrisy that has kept these things in place. Lollards, Luddites, Puritans, Dissenters and Roundheads stood always in the wings of English society, moving centre stage in times of crisis. Chartists, trade unionists and republicans have relayed their dissenting message to the modern world.[ix]
    That the modern culture of critique represents a profound discontinuity with this native tradition of dissent is revealed by the ‘undomesticated’ nature of the new form of dissent. Scruton points out that:

    The English contained among their number a great many sneerers and scoffers: but they formed an accepted part of the organism, a chafing away from inside which created the comfortable impression that England itself was impregnable, since its quarrels were purely internal. … In their overseas adventures the English could be insolent and cruel. In Ireland and North America and sometimes in India, Englishmen behaved like despicable criminals. Yet they were schooled in self-criticism, and unwilling to excuse a crime, merely because it was theirs. The narrative of their crimes was itself written by Englishmen and their excesses were no sooner committed than condemned.[x]
    The moral universalism and naive idealism of native English intellectuals, a legacy of their evolutionary development at northern hunter-gatherers, was doubtless intensified by the nation’s fortunate geography. Centuries of safety behind the shields of sea and navy created the illusion that the world is a much kinder place than it really is, and thus allowed the arguments of idealists to flourish. Thus, Kipling chided the naive pacifists of his time for ‘making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep.’

    This was an apt criticism of the anti-patriotic Edwardian Fabians that made up the Bloomsbury Group, who included the type of intellectuals that, George Orwell noted, ‘are ashamed of their own nationality’ and who ‘felt there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.’ To a significant extent this was still true in 1965, but, with the intellectual force of the cultural of critique, this once atypical strand of thought and feeling broke out of its bookish little world to storm the cultural centres of the country, making, in the process, traditional English patriotism deeply unfashionable.


    Roy Jenkins: The face of British multiculturalism is a native Englishman
    The Jewish intellectual class, and their non-Jewish dupes like Roy Jenkins, were thus able to draw upon a native tradition of dissent, and exploit it to unleash an orgy of altruistic punishment among the English. With the destruction and disruption of the Second World War, the austerity and chaos after that war and the manic suburbanisation of the country that came with the prosperity of the fifties and sixties, it was easier than ever for the English to be persuaded that significant parts of national existence should be altered forever. In an incredibly short time they turned England into a nation without heroes and without pride in its past. ‘All those features of the English character which had been praised in wartime books and films – gentleness, firmness, honesty, tolerance, ‘grit’, the stiff upper lip and the spirit of fair play – were either denied or derided. England was not the free, harmonious, law-abiding community celebrated in boys’ magazines, but a place of class divisions, jingoism and racial intolerance.’[xi]

    While ostensibly unable to detect the aetiology of his ‘culture of repudiation’ Scruton aptly defines its conceptual outlines:

    While exhorting us to be as ‘inclusive’ as we can, to discriminate neither in thought, word, nor deed against ethnic, sexual or behavioural minorities, political correctness encourages the denigration of what is felt to be especially ours. … The gentle advocacy of inclusion masks the far-from-gentle desire to exclude the old excluder: in other words to repudiate the cultural inheritance that defines us as something distinct from the rest. The ‘down with us’ mentality is devoted to rooting out old and unsustainable loyalties. And when the old loyalties die, so does the old form of membership. … We who live in the amorphous and multicultural environment of the postmodern city must open our hearts and minds to all cultures, and be wedded to none.[xii]
    Into the vacuum left by the collapse of English self-confidence, a new ideological conformity has emerged. The new empire of ideas reaches into the most intimate areas of life, and those who do not accept it are held to be personally at fault, not just politically or philosophically wrong. It is the most fanatical system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation. Indeed, failure to conform to the new orthodoxy is held to be a moral failing and evidence of psychopathology. The effects of the culture of critique on English society have been so devastating that it is entirely fair to make an analogy with Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in China. It has devalued objective knowledge and attempted to make many thoughts unthinkable, and has sundered many of the invisible bonds that once held English society together. The lore of the English tribe and the stories of their ancestors have largely ceased to be.

    Meanwhile, under the banner of ‘social justice’ the ‘oppressed’ brown and black immigrant communities are given complete licence (and White taxpayer-funded assistance) to affirm their cultures and aggressively pursue their group interests. The crucial goal, with regard to the native English, is to ‘sever young people from historical loyalties‘ and instil ‘a “non-judgemental” attitude towards other cultures that goes hand-in-hand with a fierce denunciation of the culture that might had been one’s own.’[xiii] Young English people gain nothing from this culture save bewilderment and the loss of any sense of racial and cultural identity.

    End of Part 1

    REFERENCES
    Scruton, R. (2000) England: An Elegy, Chatto & Windus, London.

    Scruton, R. (2002) The West and the Rest – Globalization and the Terrorist Threat, Continuum, London.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...itique-part-1/

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, July 11th, 2011 @ 02:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Gender
    Posts
    141
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    The War on the English: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 2

    Under the new cultural orthodoxy the traditional English virtues are rapidly disappearing. The effect of the culture of critique on a society whose values were all open to question and whose morals were dissolving was and continues to be explosive. Scruton observes that

    having been famous for their stoicism, their decorum, their honesty, their gentleness, and their sexual puritanism, the English now subsist in a society in which those qualities are no longer honoured – a society of people who regard long-term loyalties with cynicism, and whose response to misfortune is to look round for someone to sue. England is no longer a gentle country, and the old courtesies and decencies are disappearing. … Sex, freed from taboos, has become the ruling obsession: the English have the highest rate of divorce in Europe, regard marriage as a bore, are blatantly promiscuous and litter the country with their illegitimate, uncared for and state-subsidised offspring. … The loss of traditional virtue and local identity has occurred throughout Europe and its diaspora.[i]
    The intellectual war against the traditional White family, a product of the culture of critique, is one which has had disastrous consequences for White group interests. Scruton notes that the assault on the family was part of a great cultural shift from the affirmation to the repudiation of inherited values:

    Wilhelm Reich, R.D. Laing, Aaron Esterson, and radical psychotherapists of their persuasion see the family as a burden imposed by the past: a way in which parents encumber their offspring with an inheritance of defunct authority. Schizophrenia, in Laing’s view, arises because the Self is made Other by the parental imposition of dysfunctional norms.[ii]
    Inevitably, these “dysfunctional norms” were the traditional family structure and regulative ideas of English society. Following the path laid out by these radical intellectuals and post-structuralists like Michel Foucault, ‘radical feminism has set out to deconstruct the family entirely, exposing it as an instrument of male domination, and advocating new kinds of “negotiated” union in its place.’ As Kevin MacDonald notes, this radical deconstruction of the traditional Western family structure was never accompanied by an analogous deconstruction and critique of the traditional Jewish family structure and its regulative ideas — particularly its inculcation of ethnocentrism and a bunker mentality of ‘us (good) against them (evil)’, not to mention its extreme emphasis on economic success and upward mobility.

    Despite this ongoing assault on the traditional European family, there remains a section of society committed to ‘family values’ and to the division of roles that makes families durable. Nevertheless, this section of society does not have any real voice in the shaping of public opinion. The Judeo-Marxist elite have a virtual monopoly on the points of view found in the mainstream media.

    As Scruton points out:

    The message of the media, the academy, and the opinion forming elite is feminist, anti-patriarchal, and opposed to traditional sexual prohibitions such as those governing abortion, homosexuality, and sex outside marriage. More importantly, the culture of the elite has undergone a kind of ‘moral inversion’ to use Michael Polanyi’s idiom. Permission turns to prohibition, as the advocacy of alternatives gives way to a war against the former orthodox. The family, far from enjoying the status of a legitimate alternative to the various ‘transgressive’ postures lauded by the elite, is dismissed out of hand as a form of oppression. … Like Marxism, feminism purports to show us the world without ideological masks or camouflage. Its repudiating zeal is not, as a rule, directed against Islam or the cultures of the East. It is directed against the West, and its message is ‘down with us.’[iii]
    The generations that came after the culture of critique have often come from families that have disintegrated or are weak, whose schools do not uphold tradition and racial pride, and whose religious experience and understanding are non-existent. They have instead grown up with immensely strong outside influences – almost all of them radical enemies of White people and their culture. Anyone who controls a major television network or movie studio (as our hostile Judeo-Marxist elite does) can use it to pour out propaganda which most young Whites find impossible to resist, provided it uses the right sort of codes, language and symbols. This media control has done infinitely more damage to the long-term group interests of the English people than anything the Luftwaffe managed to do to them during World War Two.

    From Victorianism to the Culture of Critique

    Jewish historian Norman Cantor observed that the Jewish intellectual movements, which he equated with ‘modernism,’ represented the negation of ‘Victorianism’. He notes that:

    Something more profound and structural was involved in the Jewish role in the modernist revolution than this sociological phenomenon of the supersession of marginality. There was an ideological drive at work. … Victorianism liked to build on the heritage of the past. Modernism, assuming this heritage, wanted to put it aside and concentrate on what could be discovered anew in the laboratory, in the research library, in the psychiatric patient’s free association and sexual memory, in the application of colour to canvas, in words and sentences, in quantifiable social trends, in the anthropological fieldwork experience. Their response was a fundamental re-examination of the postulates of European thought as it had existed in the nineteenth century. As new men, as recent outsiders, they had no personal stake or family participation in Victorianism or professional responsibility to it. They were not restrained by prior commitments from undertaking the zero-base reconsideration of physics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and the arts.[iv]
    A central concern, in this endeavour, was to deconstruct the theoretical and cultural basis of English racial pride and ethnocentrism. This necessitated expunging a view that during the Victorian era was held by the English as natural and self-evident: that ‘When considering the human material from which English civilisation was made’, it was natural to ‘refer to the English race, this ‘happy breed of men’, whose offshore island was the guarantee of their racial purity and apartness.’ Scruton invites us to ponder what happens when a people live together on an island unconquered, as the English were unconquered during the centuries that made them:

    There occurs a gradual homogenisation in appearance, in deportment and in temperament. A bodily rhythm is acquired and passed on. This rhythm becomes established as an almost physiological trait, recognisable at a glance to the foreigner in England, and to the Englishman abroad. In such a case it is not surprising to find our Victorian ancestors referring to the English race, to ‘kith and kin’, to the ‘island stock’, and so invoking, though idioms that are now widely disapproved, a perfectly normal and natural human fact. England was associated, in the minds of those who claimed it as their homeland, with a recognisable physical type, with its own varieties of male and female beauty. Paintings, photographs, poems, novels and descriptions show that this type existed in large numbers, before immigration and emigration began to alter it.[v]
    To fatally weaken the instinct for racial preservation of the ‘island stock’, the culture of critique had to overcome a revulsion against miscegenation which was a longstanding feature of English life – a feature that reached its apogee in the late Victorian period, and which was a major source of their imperial strength. Scruton notes that

    This fear of contamination is, paradoxically, what made the English into such intrepid adventurers and explorers. They could go anywhere, encounter anyone, suffer anything and emerge unpolluted. … The people among whom they wandered were essentially other, and interesting for that very reason. But since they were other, they did not belong with us. … The English made themselves especially offensive to the Indians by treating all of them, even the Brahmins, as though they were of a lower caste than themselves, and by allowing them to share their domestic lives only as servants and never as equals. The intricate connection between this attitude and the fear of sexual contamination is well brought out by Paul Scott, in his anti-English novels of the Raj. … Sexual puritanism is an attempt to safeguard possessions more valuable than pleasure. The good that it does outweighs the evil, and the English knew this.[vi]
    This cultural feature found its leading expression in the Scottish surgeon, anatomist and anthropologist, Robert Knox, best known now as the chief client of the Edinburgh body-snatchers, Burke and Hare. His published works included The Races of Men (1850, revised 1862), in which he described ‘as simply a fact’ that ‘race in human affairs is everything: literature, science, art, in a word, civilisation, depend on it.’[vii] The highest races were the Germans, the Saxons, and the Celts; the lowest were the dark races of the Earth. He described the Jewish race as ‘sterile parasites.’

    Though Knox’s work is now almost completely forgotten, it was widely admired at the time, by Charles Darwin among others, and exerted significant popular influence. Knox was pessimistic regarding British imperialism, partly because he held it to be a fruitless task (given that he believed the dark races were incapable of being civilized), but mainly because it could eventually lead to the degeneration of a superior race as a function of miscegenation.

    Knox’s views were later given scientific foundation by the mathematician Francis Galton who, in his book Hereditary Genius (1869), pioneered the ideas that a ‘man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance’; that ‘out of two varieties of any race of animal who are equally endowed in other respects, the most intelligent variety is sure to prevail in the battle for life’; and that on a sixteen-point scale of racial intelligence, a Negro is two grades below an Englishman.

    A more systematic development was undertaken by Karl Pearson, another Cambridge-trained mathematician, who in 1911 became the first Galton Professor of Eugenics at University College London. Pearson became persuaded that his statistical techniques (which he called ’biometry’) could be used to demonstrate the dangers posed to the Empire by racial degeneration.[viii]


    Joseph Chamberlain: English statesman
    Meanwhile, as social identity theory would predict, the English racial type was idealised. Typical was the statement of Joseph Chamberlain who maintained: ‘I believe in this race, the greatest governing race the world has ever seen; in this Anglo-Saxon race, so proud, so tenacious, self-confident and determined, this race which neither climate nor change can degenerate, which will infallibly be the predominant force of future history and universal civilisation.’[ix]

    A similar view was also expressed by one of the characters in Benjamin Disraeli’s novel Tancred (1847) who tells us that the historical success of England is an ‘affair of race. A Saxon race, protected by an insular position, has stamped its diligent and methodic character on the century. And when a superior race, with a superior idea of Work and Order, advances, its state will be progressive.’[x]

    At the beginning of the twentieth century the English racial ideal was embodied in characters like Lord John Roxton in Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World, with his ‘strange, twinkling, reckless eyes – eyes of a cold light blue, the colour of a glacier lake’.

    He was the essence of the English country gentleman, the keen, alert, open-air lover of dogs and of horses. His skin was of a rich flower-pot red from sun and wind. His eyebrows were tufted and overhanging, which gave those naturally cold eyes an almost ferocious aspect, an impression which was increased by his strong and furrowed brow. In figure he was spare, but very strongly built – indeed, he had often proved that there were very few men in England capable of such sustained exertions.[xi]
    The English were recognised not only by themselves but by visitors and travellers as a distinct human type. Indeed, some of the best descriptions were written by foreigners, as they endeavoured to understand the phenomenon of the Englishman. The Czech novelist Karel Capek wrote in 1925 that

    if you get to know them closer, they are very kind and gentle; they never speak much because they never speak about themselves. They enjoy themselves like children, but with the most solemn, leathery expression; they have lots of ingrained etiquette, but at the same time they are free-and-easy as young whelps. They are as hard as flint, incapable of adapting themselves, conservative, loyal, rather shallow and always uncommunicative; they cannot get out of their skin, but it is a solid, and in every respect excellent skin. You cannot speak to them without being invited to lunch or dinner; they are as hospitable as St Julian, but they can never overstep the distance between man and man. Sometimes you have a sense of uneasiness at feeling so solitary in the midst of these kind and courteous people; but if you were a little boy, you would know that you could trust them more than yourself, and you would be free and respected here more than anywhere else in the world; the policeman who would puff out his cheeks to make you laugh, an old gentleman would play at ball with you, a white-haired lady would lay aside her four-hundred page novel to gaze at you winsomely with her grey and still winsome eyes.[xii]
    The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana famously enumerated the qualities of the English as he perceived them in 1922, noting that:

    Instinctively the Englishmen is no missionary, no conqueror. He prefers the country to the town, and home to foreign parts. He is rather glad and relieved if only natives will remain natives and strangers, and at a comfortable distance from himself. Yet outwardly he is most hospitable and accepts almost anybody for the time being; he travels and conquers without a settled design, because he has the instinct of exploration. His adventures are all external; they change him so little that he is not afraid of them. He carries his English weather in his heart wherever he goes, and it becomes a cool spot in the desert, and a steady and sane oracle amongst all the deliriums of mankind. Never since the days of Greece has the world has such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls and fanatics manage to supplant him.’[xiii]
    For the English sons of British Empire there was certainly deep racial pride, though it was restrained by benevolence and a fair amount of modesty. Thus, Thomas Pickles, writing in 1932, could point out: ‘The almost worldwide domination of the White man does not mean that our way of life is the only right way, or that peoples of other races are necessarily inferior; indeed the study of geography shows us that “coloured” peoples have a great deal to contribute to the well-being of the world.’

    End of Part 2 of 3.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...itique-part-2/

  3. #3
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, May 4th, 2012 @ 10:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    South England
    Gender
    Politics
    Straight Edge Ethnocentrism
    Religion
    Neo-European Monotheism
    Posts
    340
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I still find it shocking and amazing to find that some people in power (like those behind the tv) can say they are shocked and amazed at such a normal thing as keeping a tv program English.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Gall Óglach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 @ 10:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Religion
    Science
    Posts
    78
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I went to university in England, and the levels of insanity among the 'intellectual' left, when it comes to diversity, would be funny if it wasn't destroying the country.

    Obviously on tolerant university campuses, dissent is not tolerated, so you have to be careful how you approach the issue, it's just about acceptable to acknowledge muslims are not intergrating.

    I used to go to debates and bait leftists into admitting the support imposing diversity on people, then I started calling them fascists, they got very upset.

    Those knucklehead leftists are the people that end up working for the government/ broadcasting. So they can wreck the country even more.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,678
    Thanked in
    1,443 Posts
    I went to university in England, and the levels of insanity among the 'intellectual' left, when it comes to diversity, would be funny if it wasn't destroying the country.

    Obviously on tolerant university campuses, dissent is not tolerated, so you have to be careful how you approach the issue, it's just about acceptable to acknowledge muslims are not intergrating.

    I used to go to debates and bait leftists into admitting the support imposing diversity on people, then I started calling them fascists, they got very upset.

    Those knucklehead leftists are the people that end up working for the government/ broadcasting. So they can wreck the country even more.
    Yes, I've also fallen foul of the "intolerance will not be tolerated" crew and they cannot abide having their own illogicalities pointed out to them, can they?

    They're very good at nodding to each other whilst competing amongst themselves for liberal points, but anyone challenging their views puts them into a tailspin and this is precisely why they operate a "no platform for Fascists" policy (with their own definition of "Fascism", naturally) and why we don't have anything like real debates in such places as Universities or on TV these days, to which such groups as Nationalists are seldom invited.

    As you say, Gall, many of the wafflers one mets on today's campuses finish up in the government or media - but have you seen where they live?

    It would appear that "diversity" is just something to be preached rather than practiced as far as most of them are concerned!

  6. #6
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    55
    Thanked in
    53 Posts
    They want diversity in the color of the students but at horror when there is a hint of intellectual diversity.

    As usually ZOG turns the terms around to fit their agenda.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  7. #7
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    55
    Thanked in
    53 Posts
    I am often shocked how far they advanced with the destruction of the white races.

    They create so much guilt on their race, it will trigger a tornado when they lose. They have no way out. Make it or break it. AND SO DO WE.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    55
    Thanked in
    53 Posts
    In 1965 the race relation act was introduced into parliament by then attorney general Frank Soskice, a Jew. It made racial discrimination in public places unlawful:

    The race relation act of 1968 was introduced :

    This is its list of items:


    1. Meaning of" discriminate ".
    Unlawful discrimination
    2. Provision of goods, facilities and services.
    3. Employment.
    4. Trade unions, and employers' and trade organisations.
    5. Housing accommodation, and business and other premises.
    6. Advertisements and notices.
    Acts which are not unlawful
    7. Exception in the case of residential accommodation.
    8. Exceptions in the case of employment.
    9. Charities and acts done for charitable purposes.
    10. Acts done to safeguard national security.
    11. Conduct relating to acts abroad.
    Supplemental
    12. Incitement and accessories.
    13. Liability of employers, principals and agents.
    PART II
    CONCILIATION AND ENFORCEMENT
    Consideration of complaints
    14. The Race Relations Board and conciliation committees.
    15. General provision as to investigation of complaints of
    discrimination.
    16. Investigation of complaints relating to employment, trade
    unions and organisations of employers.
    17. Investigation of unlawful conduct where no complaint
    made.
    18. Assessors.
    A
    In 1976 the next assault came into parliament to further the disempowerment of the english

    you can read that here

    then in 2000 the race act amendment: here

    the racial and religious hatred act of 2006 follwed.



    Jews bring more and more foreigners into Britain and give them special protection rights in order to destroy the anglo-saxon character of the English. The immigration is one of their most effective weapons in the destruction of white people. It is also called the 'silent war'
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    hyidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 10:44 AM
    Ethnicity
    British Isles
    Ancestry
    All over the British isles
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    1,477
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    In 1965 the race relation act was introduced into parliament by then attorney general Frank Soskice, a Jew
    Why did the British appointed a Jew as AG in the first place???

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Walmart as a Case-Study in Globalization
    By Telperion in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Thursday, May 31st, 2018, 06:17 PM
  2. Globalism Destroying Our Nations: A Case Study
    By Huginn ok Muninn in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, September 4th, 2016, 08:44 PM
  3. Ethnic Warfare (from "The Culture of Critique")
    By Windsor in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 27th, 2010, 09:51 PM
  4. The German Justice System: A Case Study by Claus Jordan
    By Pera_Z in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, August 24th, 2002, 11:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •