Thought control in the UK: Britain’s state-sponsored intimidation of Whites

/24 Comments/in /by

The Muslim child rape gangs are back on the streets of Rotherham and bolder than ever. The Daily Express has revealed that carloads of Muslims are openly harassing girls, threatening their parents and moving around completely untroubled by the recent scandal. They have no fear of the cowed White population, much less the police or anyone else in authority.

But it would be wrong to think that the police are doing nothing about racial tension in the UK. This week a White man was convicted for making “grossly offensive” comments about Muslims on Facebook after the slaughter in Nice. This follows the jailing of another White man for tweeting his anger at a left-wing politician who demanded that more refugees be brought into Britain.

Despite the lip-service over concern about Muslim rape gangs, the authorities know their efforts must be focused on suppressing White rage. The Brexit referendum showed this is just underneath the surface, and with the discreet dispersal of thousands of Syrian refugees into poorer parts of the country at the end of June and July, what was needed was a not-too-subtle wave of intimidation. This has been achieved by way of a transparently bogus hate-crime campaign launched in the days after Brexit.

As if on some pre-arranged signal, there was, across the country, a flood of stories about how the Brexit vote had triggered a nationwide “hate crime” epidemic in which “hate crimes” went up 42% after the  vote. Why the victorious side would be stirred to such anger is not clear. Could it be that this scaremongering campaign was planned well in advance? Read more

State of Hate: How Paranoia and Arrogance Undermine Outsiders

/26 Comments/in /by

Mein Gott! Will Mossad have to undertake some strategic assassinations in the UK? Even before the toxic tsunami of xenophobia triggered by the vote for Brexit, public discourse here had been infected by the most appalling anti-Semitism. In 2015 a British newspaper openly suggested that Jews are “outsiders” who are prone to paranoia, arrogance and insecurity. It went on to suggest that Jews can’t see “another’s point of view,” are “ruthless,” make “outrageous” demands on reasonable people, and have a “very Manichean view of the world”: either you’re a friend of theirs or a foe.

Have the writer, editor and printer responsible for these vicious stereotypes been prosecuted and jailed for incitement to racial hatred? Shockingly, they haven’t: the hate-criminals are still at large, free to continue spreading their vile message. That’s why I think Mossad might need to ready the poison-charged umbrellas and cyanide pistols. To assist Mossad’s investigations, I herewith reproduce the most damning parts of the hate-article:

Our greatest Jewish Prime Minister? That was Thatcher

… She represented the constituency of Finchley, with its large Jewish population. At one stage, nearly a quarter of her cabinet were of Jewish origin: she advanced the careers of Leon Brittan, Nigel Lawson, Malcolm Rifkind, Edwina Currie and Michael Howard. She was unwavering in her belief that Britain should retain strong ties with Israel. And she was very close to Britain’s late Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits (“Thatcher’s Rabbi”) from whom she was said to seek “spiritual reinforcement”. …

Read more

On The Left and the Myth of the ‘Jewish Proletariat’

/76 Comments/in , , /by

‘The weight of the Jews’ exploitation is great and their harmfulness unlimited. … If we find it possible to preach revolution, and only revolution against the nobles, how can we defend the Jews?’
Ukrainian Communist Revolutionary, 1876.[1]

In the months immediately before his coronation in 1189, Richard the Lionheart became aware of rising anti-Jewish sentiment among the people of England. This ill-feeling was the result of decades of rampant usury, property seizures, social disparities, and what historian Robert Chazan described as the “effective royal protection” of Henry II.[2] Eager to ally himself with the mood of the nation, particularly in the tenuous early days of his reign, Richard appealed to the sentiments of the masses by banning Jews from attending the coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey. News of the ban was welcomed by the people, but the move was deeply unsettling to England’s Jews. The prohibition was nervously perceived by the nation’s Hebrews as a weakening of the vital Jewish relationship with the elite. This relationship, particularly the protection it provided to Jewish loan merchants, had been absolutely essential to the untroubled continuation of the Jews’ highly antagonistic financial practices among the lower orders. Without this protection, the position of the Jews in England would no longer be viable. Therefore, in a desperate attempt to resist a decline in Jewish influence, on the day of the coronation a party of senior Jews arrived at the doors of Westminster Abbey bearing lavish gifts and sycophantic tongues. The effort was in vain.

The Jewish party were refused entry by nobles and officials, and the group was then stripped and flogged for their flagrant defiance of royal orders. Since this punishment was a public display, a story soon circulated among the peasantry that the new king consented to general action against the Jews, and that the royal elite was now siding with the people. In the ensuing days, luxurious Jewish homes were burned, and castles containing Jewish debt rolls were stormed and their contents destroyed. These actions, however, were built on an assumption of elite backing that was in reality non-existent. The expectations of the masses were soon rudely crushed. The Lionheart’s banning of the Jews had been a mere measure of propaganda intended to endear him to his subjects, and the flogging of the intruding party was carried out without his consent. In truth, the King remained as beholden to the sway of mammon as his predecessors. When push came to shove, the peasantry, unlike ‘his’ Jews, were expendable. Richard wasted little time in rounding up and executing the ringleaders of the anti-Jewish action, even including those who had damaged Jewish property by accident. He then issued orders to “the sheriffs of England to prevent all such incidents in the future.”[3] In the aftermath of this crushing of the people, the Jews of England would once again remain under high levels of royal protection until ‘the Lionheart’ left the country for the Third Crusade — a venture, ironically, to relieve people in foreign nations of the tyranny of ‘infidels.’ The entire affair remains a perfect illustration of the centuries-old symbiotic relationship between Jews and our native elites, and the thread of parasitic capitalism that binds them. Read more

Blacks As Emotional Abusers of Whites: The Exploration of a Possibility

/113 Comments/in , , /by

There is an aggressive, unreasonable, even neurotic, quality in the outlook and behavior of blacks toward whites currently that wasn’t present — at least not nearly to this extent — in prior decades.  The term that captures this quality or thrust for me: it is abusive of white people.  I think it may be helpful to look at black-white relations in our time from an abuse angle.

Recently, I wrote an article for this magazine that recounted episodes on the Dartmouth and Yale campuses.

A group of blacks, shouting Black Lives Matter chants and wielding protest signs burst into the Dartmouth University library where several dozen white students were studying.  “Stand the fuck up you filthy racist white pieces of shit!” they screamed.  They pushed and shoved the young white women and men.  One of the women, pinned to the wall with the blacks yelling “filthy white bitch” in her face, began to cry.   “Fuck your white tears,” one of her attackers sneered.   [The white students acquiesced to this attack on them, and as far as I know, no one at the university came to their defense.]

At Yale University a black female student snarled at a white male faculty member who also was an adviser in a residence college: “Who the fuck hired you?  You should not sleep at night!  You are disgusting!”  His response was to say that the student had “broken his heart.”  He apologized to her — “I have disappointed you and I’m truly sorry”—and then he resigned. 1

I don’t recall this wild-eyed, in-your-face, attack-mode behavior directed at individual white people in prior times.   This conduct is abusive.  And I have the distinct impression that if this kind of thing had happened to white students or faculty back then they wouldn’t have rolled up in a ball and taken it in the way whites did in these instances. Read more

What would an Alt Right Administration Look Like?

/77 Comments/in , /by

capricck

One of the many paths to power for alt-right ideas would be to control substantial elements of the federal government. This scenario has major limitations given the Constitution and the inertia that exists in the American system due to the nebulous divisions of sovereignty it imposes. It’s also hated by purists, who think the United States has to go. And perhaps it will eventually, because there is no method of totally fixing it from within. But controlling blocs of federal power is a scenario in which executive orders, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court rulings could be made with the intention of not making things worse. Because that’s exactly how things are for us under occupation—worse every year.

This makes more people resent the system but it also… makes us worse off. We shouldn’t rule out the idea of having policy positions for the current system of government; that door is not entirely shut yet. Planning for collapse scenarios is all and well, but having policies which could plausibly be enacted tomorrow rather than the day after tomorrow has rhetorical value. It shows we aren’t just LARPing about the ethnostate and that there are short- and medium-term applications for our ideas. So here are some areas that an alt-right administration could tackle:

Immigration

The United States has a history of turning away the world’s huddled masses, so yes, anti-immigration is an American value. Before 1890s, and more so before 1880, most immigration was from places like Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, Scandinavia and so forth. From 1880-1920, most immigration came from Italy, Poland, Russia and other non-Northern European countries, bringing with it large numbers of Jews. The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, set up a national origins quota for who could enter the United States as a reaction to this change. The law replaced the 1921 Immigration Act, which was less strict, passing the House of Representatives by 308 to 58 and the Senate 69 to 9. The 1924 law limited entry visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census; 1921’s law referred to 1910. The quota system greatly favored Northern European countries over Southern and Eastern European countries, in addition to further restricting immigration from Asia (Asian immigrants already could not become naturalized citizens in most cases).

Continue reading at the Atlantic Centurion site.

“It takes a Village on July 27”: Srb, Yugoslav Antifa, and Croatia’s Bare Bones

/47 Comments/in , /by

The common antifascist narrative in the media and academia consists in a frequent reversal of World War II victimhood—a procedure once tested by communist commissars in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The label of communism, once proudly sported by a large number of intellectuals and journalists, has come out of fashion today. A more generic trademark, such as a neutral sounding word ‘antifascism’, had to be called to the rescue. For the recycled former Yugoslav historians and journalists residing in Serbia and Croatia, the term ‘antifascism’ offers the safest way to cover up their own murky and often hagiographic past. In addition, the word’antifascism’ serves today as a decent camouflage for shrugging off crimes committed during and after World War II by Yugoslav communists. In regard to the reversal of the antifascist victimhood narrative, a Soviet killing field, the Katyn Forest, comes first to mind. For a long time, communist-friendly historians managed to switch the role of the victim with that of the perpetrator, thereby successfully imprinting onto public consciousness the Katyn location as the locution for a  “Nazi-perpetrated crime.”

Similar scenarios of the narrative reversal are being observed in regard to the Croatia’s village of “Srb” (i.e., Serb), a small community situated in the southeastern part of Croatia and largely populated by ethnic Serbs. In communist Yugoslavia this high profile three-consonant eponymous village, in addition to being a crucial part of ex-Yugoslavia’s communist founding myth and a mandatory part of the school curriculum, also served as a place of pilgrimage for the Party. Every July 27 high-ranking Yugoslav communists commemorated the anniversary of their “Armed Uprising against Fascism” there. Read more

“All Lives Matter” at the RNC and Other Mild Versions of Implicit Whiteness

/37 Comments/in , /by

The following is a clear sign that Whites’ position vis-à-vis the government and elites has become perilous, or at least tenuous.  Traditionally in political rhetoric, the phrase “all Americans” is meant as an implicit rebuke to those who in their hearts would very much like to exclude one particular group who is outside the norm of heterosexual Whites.

For example, picture a leftist politician proclaiming, “We need a country that works for all Americans.” There’s a little bit of attitude in that “all.”  It’s another trite cliché of political speech, or if you like, politically correct speech — right up there with “diversity is our greatest strength.” Now, however, the phrase “all Americans” is sometimes meant as a nod to Whites, not Blacks or Hispanics.  It is ironic that Republicans, and more broadly the right, have taken up the “all Americans” phrase as a rebuke to the extreme left, Black Lives Matter crowd who would be very happy to focus on their own ethnic interests exclusively.

This phenomenon has occurred recently in the “All Lives Matter” repartee to the BLM slogan.  Who would have thought that saying “All Lives Matter” would become a provocative rallying cry for normal White Americans?  Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley was forced to apologize for using this phrase during the Democratic primary campaign.  Surely this must come as a bleak reminder of where White identity stands in the diversity hierarchy. Apparently expected to shill for minorities without so much as a hope to also be protected by our country’s laws. Read more