Among the various nationalist groups in Britain, there are those who have turned away from electioneering as the means by which they hope to bring about political change and the salvation of our people. These groups have come to realise that the majority of the electorate are so mentally conditioned by our corrupt mass media that they are incapable of exercising their right to vote in a rational way. Furthermore, these groups have come to realise that the electoral system in this country is deliberately administered in such a sloppy manner as to facilitate widespread electoral corruption on the part of our corrupt political establishment. That electoral corruption being used as a second line of defence aimed at preventing any non-establishment political parties from ever achieving political power.
When nationalist political parties contest elections, they are grossly unfairly demonised by the media and portrayed as being composed of hateful individuals who are alleged to have psychopathic tendencies and who intend if they ever acquire power supposedly aim to commit genocide as a result of an alleged irrational hatred of minority groups … (continued)
Heather
- Edit
This sadly seems to be the state of affairs. It does leave me bewildered when listening to people give their own manifesto as to how we get out of this mess, how we take back our Country and put our own people first, who will then look at me in horror when I mention the word Nationalism. They describe the very basics of Nationalism as their salvation yet offered it they run the other way.
Convincing the public that “genocide” as mentioned, will take place, has been a success. They can’t understand that it could be their own genocide taking place, and I refer them to that in the WS article “you aint seen nothing yet”
People want to believe everyone will be like us, and integrate and there will be absolutely no changes to their way of life.
It is easier I suppose to think that than face the truth.
Stefan
- Edit
I think Heather it can be explained by certain psychiatric theories, there is Stockholm syndrome where a victim identifies with & is loyal to their captors or there is another one that I don’t know the name of (Head in the sand syndrome?), where a person or a group will refuse to believe the evidence of great danger despite the proof being in front of them & they would rather believe good news from an untrustworthy source, so that they don’t have to do anything.
They think the status quo will be maintained & that those in charge are operating in their favour or best interests.
Then there is the relentless propaganda that equates Nationalism or just being a little right wing as being Nazi & that is the worst thing in the world.
Ask someone who the worst mass murderer of the 20th century was & invariably you will get the obvious reply, despite even mainstream non revisionist history showing he was number 3.
To show how skewed things are, you could wear a Stalin or Mao T shirt without much problem but a Hitler one?
Or one with symbols on.
In less politically correct days it was possible to buy a Hitler on tour T shirt in the style of a rock band T shirt, the date for the UK being shown as cancelled.
Heather
- Edit
I think many are suffering the “It can’t happen here” syndrome, along with “head in the sand” in respect of genocide. Even though they may have seen decades of African strife in their own living rooms via the TV, and the endless atrocities that such people commit against their own, they still think that crossing Continents cleanses all the bad aspects, and everyone immediately becomes European Liberals. Some of that can be put down to the fact that they are completely unaware of the huge numbers heading our way.
I completely agree with your Mao & Stalin versus Hitler for the mass murders prize of the 20th Century. I believe the Khmer Rouge had a high score too.
Stefan
- Edit
I think maybe the term psychological might be more apt for some of it but some people do seem very deluded about the reality of the situation.
With regards to the “It can’t happen here”, there was a programme on about the Srebrenica massacre but that was mainly told from a moslems as victims & not a lot else was said about other deaths.
The KLA didn’t get a mention.
But it was a demonstration that a very civilised multicultural place can quickly fall apart along cultural & religious lines.
The teenagers who went were supposed to come back & preach tolerance & anti racism.
The whole thing was like one of those educational visits to Auschwitz…
You can take people out of the Third World but not necessarily take the Third World out of them.
I do know some very nice Africans but talking more generally about the refugee situation, en masse certain traits emerge with the recently arrived as we see in Sweden & Germany etc, both those countries have well developed infrastructure but are struggling, also the horror stories from Calais.
This is partly due to the immense numbers.
The mainstream press seem to think all is pretty calm & under control in Calais.
That in Germany there were some problems in Cologne only but that has passed.
So that kind of reporting allows a “Head in the sand” attitude to prevail & is probably meant too.
I think in percentages of the population the Khmer Rouge had a very high kill rate, the Rwandan one also, though the official version there is questionable & they have a form of “Holocaust denial” legislation there.