We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
UK importing its demise.
Moslems celebrating a football match victory.....with violence.
How many are unemployed, are criminals or support Sharia, polygamy FGM etc ?
5th column. Part of what Qaddafi prophesied as the Moslem demographic conquest.
In parts of London last night there were bigger celebrations for Algeria making the finals of a football tournament, than there were for England winning the cricket World Cup!
Says it all really
Religion of Peace
Yup, I get the sarcasm and that’s what get rammed down our throats.
It is a Religion of the sword, facilitated by the cabal and liberals and leftists.
And the aristo monarchy class sucking on the teet of the oil for arms industry. The 1971 oil embargo and subsequent Barcelona declaration forced us to promote Islam in schools and media, accept large Islamic immigration and portray Israel as the enemy of the world for standing up to homicidal lunatics.
The Sword is on the national flag of Saudi Arabia and not the white dove of peace.
So have Portsmouth FC, since 1913: https://www.portsmouthfc.co...
if you are a pasty white Brit are you really going to be at a pub, in Londonstan, in the nighttime?
Chances are the cricket fans have to be responsible because they have work to go to.
It's just part of islamic britain. Brits ok with that....
No, we're not: we're doing King Canutes at present!
King Canute or Cnut (no it's NOT a misspelling) the Great?
Nice one, Sherlock!
And the UK government sits back and fiddles while our country burns. They are the ones who started the fire.
"4th World problems".
The answer is mass repatriation. The only viable, life-giving answer for our people is the repatriation and/or relocation of all the foreign populations come into our land without our consent since 22nd June 1948.
Not a conflict. Rhodesians are British people who have been ethnically cleansed, and so are returning home. They are not foreign colonisers replacing and dissolving away our own people.
I'm sure there are plenty of other post-1948 examples that would fit the same bill. Nice that they were able to return from an Apartheid system that didn't work, whether the leadership was colonialist or indigenous.
In principle, any native British people living abroad, whether born there or not, would be perfectly free and welcome to come home under an Ethnic Nationalist government. But we do not live under an Ethnic Nationalist government. So our work consists in making the case for Ethnic Nationalism in this land.
Well, I don't agree with deliberately segregating peoples and cultures, or with deliberately integrating them. Both agendas were dreamt-up in the heady days after WW1. Politicians need to be open and honest (ho ho) about immigration and other important issues. In view of what happened in Hitler's Germany and elsewhere, It does concern people as to what ethnic nationalism would involve.
You do need to understand that this blessed country isn't America. It is the home of three native peoples. We are not Africans and Indians or any other population foreign to us, who have their own places in the world. This is ours. Securing our existence from replacement and dissolution by these populations is the highest moral cause on the soil. It is, by contrast, completely immoral to create conditions in any native people's land which that people cannot survive.
I trust that helps to clarify the issue for you.
Further, why are you conflating Ethnic Nationalism, a naturalistic, existential, defensive, conservative philosophy of life, with National Socialism, an artificial ideology of progressive and aggressive, supremacist imperialism? That is completely unacceptable. Within the nationalist system of thought Ethnic Nationalism is no closer to National Socialism than, say, libertarianism is to International Bolshevism within the liberal system. Shape up, and don't make that error again.
No mistake. Most people find civic nationalism desirable at best and tolerable at worst. Hitler's Racist Fascism concerned itself very much with ethnicities, as did his Axis allies, the Japanese and the Italians.
"Most people" do NOT want their own ethnic kind colonised and replaced on their own land. Hadn't you noticed?
Civic nationalism is not a nationalism ... the politics of gene interests ... but a form of liberalism and universalism. In my experience this appeals to moral cowards and those who do not belong to the ethnic group in question and have ill-intent towards that group.
What is your intent towards the three native British peoples? Do you want us to live or die?
Of course I've noticed. Tight immigration control and efficiently policed borders seem to be an issue for most people, but never seem to make any progress beyond that.Mr Farage's Brexit Party are the new kids on the political party block, so we'll have to see how they get on in the next general election. Other parties to the Right will most likely be also-rans.
Farage is a civicist so he will not address the existential question for our people. Here is that question, formulated by the country's leading demographer David Coleman writing in Standpoint Magazine in May 2016 and venturing upon dangerous political ground:
“Even without migration ... the White British population would cease to be the majority in the UK by the late 2060s. However, should current high levels of immigration persist for any length of time, that date would move closer to the present. Britain would then become unrecognisable to its present inhabitants. Some would welcome a brave new experiment, pioneering a wider world future. Others might say “Finis Britanniae.”
Fair enough. There's already been a reaction to how much immigration is taking place - it definitely influenced the Leave voters in big numbers where I live - in a Labour stronghold. Whether this gets carried over to votes for (most likely) the Brexit Party, remains to be seen.
Between the Norman Conquest and the mid-20th century immigration had not taken place at all in England, beyond 50,000 Huguenots who fled Catholic persecution in the 17th century (of whom 30,000 travelled onward to America), and 50,000 Jews who arrived two centuries later.
What we have today is a politically-engineered process of population replacement. Such an outrage against our life and rights and interests is this - attended, don't forget, by the secondary outrage of anti-racism and coerced racial egalitarianism - there is nothing in our historical experience to which we might look for an appropriate response. We are in trouble.
Initially we have for defence only an instinctual, evolutionary reflex for self-preference. But in the medium term it very probably does mean expanding that into the existentialist and naturalistic philosophy to which Heidegger points. This is a far cry from NS, but as you have proved, many people attempt to conflate all nationalism with that, and we will just have to explain the difference.
The Japanese military were defeated. A good job the Axis nations didn't develop nuclear weapons first.
In whose opinion didn't it work, r2b?
The poor bastards who were on the receiving end of it.
The thing that has changed now of course is the colour of the receivers e.g. the white farmers.
It shows that Apartheid doesn't work, whoever's in charge.Forcing peoples and cultures apart (even when different cultures are equally indigenous, including those of Whites), or forcing these same peoples and cultures together, doesn't work because both are equally divisive in different ways.Are 'Black', 'Brown' and 'Yellow' people happy about one agenda or the other, for example?
I don't know what people of colour i.e. coloured people: if my English grammar serves me correctly; think, but my opinion is it's a matter of balance, if you understand what I mean, r2b.
But it is irrelevant because National Socialism is the polar opposite of Ethnic Nationalism.
No it isn't: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/... 'Hitler had a very clear idea about the ethnic makeup of the nation; for him ‘The state, however, is not an economic organisation; it is a ‘volkic’ organism, that is it is the state which is there to safeguard the ‘conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind'. Based on this principle, Hitler believed that the volkisch concept separated mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. It was based on this racial hierarchy that Hitler created a discourse of ‘us and them’, which was incredibly important in Ethnic Nationalism. This form of nationalism was based upon bloodlines and race, and therefore is seen as exclusive when contrasted to an inclusive form of civic nationalism that bases membership upon common values and beliefs.'
Child, you are without understanding. There is plenty of academic literature on Ethnic Nationalism, and it will suffice to explain to you the difference between the defence of life and land and the expansionist aggression against life and land ... between homeland and empire. Not even the Strassers were Ethnic Nationalists but palingeneticists and supremacists. However, their opposition to a German empire, and their popularity in the movement, cost one his life and forced the other into exile.
In general, all nationalisms (of which there are many - it is not a smaller philosophical space than systemic liberalism), issue from the natural, universal, quietist, ethnic form of political expression. But the nationalist axis sweeps away from it, accreting ever more teleological and artificially constructed forms. At the furthest point one encounters the fascisms (of which there are several) as expressions of ethnic supremacism and expansionism.
Take this on-board from someone who understands philosophy rather better than Adolf Hitler ever did. Don't quote a politician at all as an authority on philosophy.
The man certainly had more effect on what happens in the world today than some gaggle of do-nothing 'philosophers'.I'll admit I had to Google 'palingenetic', but at least it does support what I've posted: 'Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin.' Your second paragraph belongs in Private Eye's 'Pseuds Corner'.
Palingeneticism was not invented by Griffin but by the Volkish movement in 19th century Germany. Griffin is a beginner in nationalist thinking, and a liberal. He has, for example, no theory of life interests, on which Frank Salter is a better guide. If Griffin understood Salter he would make a great step forward in understanding himself as well as the wellspring of all nationalisms.
Hitler is relevant to the Ethnic Nationalist struggle of European peoples today only because some very deluded people make the grotesque error of conflating his political brand with all nationalisms among white peoples. This absurdity is depressingly common, and afflicts nationalists in America particularly as well, of course, as malign persons functioning from the conventional liberal perspective (such as you).
The intellectual wellspring of Ethnic Nationalism is Martin Heidegger, the ontologist and the greatest thinker of the 20th century, who actually joined NSDAP in 1933 to, in his own words, "encourage a conversation about being". He was expelled because his naturalistic and emergent Swabianism and German nationalism did not conform to NS. At least they didn't murder him, although his reputation today is still assassinated by leftists for that act of attempting to influence the Nazi mind.
You should at least attempt to grasp the essentials I am communicating today, because you are a fool speaking out of place, and I trust you would prefer to be an informed person.
Well, I've heard of Martin Heidegger and just done a quick read-up on him. Bit of a mixed picture as far as the Nazis and present-day Racist Fascists are concerned. The essential to grasp is that these wonderful ideas invariably end in tears, whether from the religious and political Right, Left or Centre, and need to be taken with an enormous pinch of salt.
Imagine the response from the police and media if those people had been Tommy Robinson supporters. Somehow, I don't think their vandalism and aggression would be referred to as 'boisterous'. And it would be all over the news.
If English or any other British football fans did this in any other country the host country would not just be banning anyone with a British passport they would be banning the import of anything remotely British.North Africans, on the other hand, hardly have the burden of civilised behaviour to live up to.
British football fans were extremely well-behaved in Communist Albania.
I don't excuse British (English, etc) football fans, make no mistake about that.