One of the things that often dismays me about our movement is the way it seems to attract cranks. There is a simple reason for this phenomenon. By our rejection of the current orthodoxy when discussing history and current affairs, one prefigured by neo-Marxist theory, it leads the crank to believe quite incorrectly that we sympathise with his views on anything ranging from extra-terrestrials to psychic powers – and especially conspiracy theories regarding the ‘New World Order’.
Conspiracy theories are merely hypotheses based upon given facts about whether the official version of events – and we live in a world of disinformation – is the truth, and, if not, what is. We know the mainstream media lies about and covers up certain facts, as it works to a political agenda based upon an extreme leftist world-view. The problem with the crank is that he can take a reasonable conspiracy theory that serious mainstream political commentators like Janet Daley and Seumas Milne have identified and turn it into silliness and funk. The Illuminati, Egyptian bloodlines, Satanists and such-like do indeed belong to those who have watched too many episodes of The X-Files, read too much Dan Brown and listen to David Icke, but, nonetheless, the emergence of the insidious New World Order is all too apparent to be denied. After all, what do people think globalisation is?
This is not secret or even new. Anyone can now access online all speeches and debates given in the British House of Commons, and, on 13th December 1933, the future prime minister of Great Britain, Clement Attlee, said the following:
‘I do not believe much in the limited idea of an international police force which is to be merely a sort of super-force over a large number of national armies, navies and air forces. We believe that it is necessary to get rid of all national armies, navies and air forces and to substitute an international police force for it. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary cast considerable scorn, some of it quite unjustified, on this idea of an international police force. Those statements were based on their conception that an international police force would only be something to hold in terrorem over a number of armed national states. I do not think you can succeed by that method. You have to go the whole way…’
‘We ought to envisage the creation of an international police force as a deliberate attempt to build up a World State. I know that a great many points can be raised against it, but, after all, the objections are purely relative.’
This explains all too clearly why Attlee’s Labour government that won a landslide election after the Second World War introduced the British Nationality Act of 1948 that offered British residency to all the denizens of Britain’s former empire, contrary to the wishes of the indigenous people who lived in Britain. That same year, the ship Empire Windrush brought the first batch of non-white immigrants over from the West Indies. They would be the first of many, transforming Britain’s cities into the crime-ridden, drug-infested, gang-ruled, third-world ghettos they have become. All this was done to destroy any possibility of cohesive nationhood and to build towards a World State that, ‘by necessity’, would be governed by a totalitarian, armed police force.
Fast-forwarding half a century, in the 1990s and 2000s, leading figures in world politics and business affairs were becoming quite open and boastful about the burgeoning NWO: American presidents George Bush Snr and Bill Clinton, the last Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, British prime minister Gordon Brown, Indian president Rajiv Gandhi, political manipulator Henry Kissinger and former NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner, among many other powerful people, have all publically expressed their support for the New World Order and mentioned it by name. It was only after increased resistance to this New World Order, especially in the rise of nationalist politics throughout the Occidental world, that the term has again become somewhat taboo in political circles – although the politics that underpin its creation have accelerated as quickly as plans to stop it have been forged.
National borders are being blurred everywhere, with North America merging into South America; plans for a joint currency for Canada, the USA and Mexico are already being discussed. Africa has the burgeoning African Union, based upon the EU model, while the European Union itself, which needs no introduction, is looking to expand into North Africa and the Middle East through its Union for the Mediterranean, created in 2008 as part of the Barcelona Process. This union includes such stable states as Syria, Egypt and Tunisia and such hotbeds of democracy as Turkey and Jordan. That the North African members of this union are also members of the African Union means the creation of Eurafrica with the Middle East thrown in is only a matter of time. As Israel is also part of this pact and essentially controls US foreign policy through the machinations of the Zionist group AIPAC, North America is also drawn into this emerging superstate that will be a precursor to the global superstate of the New World Order.
Of course, a power struggle within this Eurafroasian superstate is inevitable. While the Jews have taken control of state power in many Occidental countries (there is even a European Jewish Union in the parliament buildings of the EU in Brussels), the Saud family of Saudi Arabia have been using their wealth to fund the so-called ‘super-mosques’ that are springing up in all European cities and the Islamic learning centres that have been installed in all universities. Europe is now the spoils of other empires. You don’t believe me? Then why is it that in Britain, the current Prime Minister is partly Jewish, the leader of the opposition is Jewish, the Speaker of the House of Commons is Jewish, the previous Lord Chief Justice, who brought in the ubiquitous Orwellian ‘hatecrime’ laws, was Jewish, even the Chairman of the Football Association is Jewish!
On the other side of the world, China dominates the Far East, both politically and economically. Not only this, but China has strong political and trade links with most African states, particularly those that have valuable natural, especially mineral, resources. Oil producing states also tend to be supported militarily by China. It also has a steady export of people to that continent, who tend to take charge of enterprise. This export of people can also be seen in Europe, which has also outsourced much of its manufacturing to China. It must also be added that, in addition to the still unpaid manufacturing debts to China, further European debts are currently being bought up by China, such as those of Greece and Spain. Parts of Europe and Africa, then, are very much in China’s pocket, as North America is in Israel’s, which means either a future power struggle or alliance for those at the head of the New World Order. In a way, George Orwell was right: three major political blocs have emerged to govern the world. The question is, will the three blocs come to some arrangement or will one emerge to overmaster the others?
The masses are kept onside with a daily dose of propaganda. When one owns the media, one can make the masses believe anything. Think of all the propaganda we have been fed with regard to the NWO: the series Star Trek and its numerous films and spin-offs, where we have not only a world government, but an intergalactic federation too. Gene Roddenberry himself said that he was creating ‘morality plays’. Think of the recent trend in disaster films such as 2012, The Day After Tomorrow and Armageddon, where disaster is on a global scale. Global disasters call for global solutions and such trifling things as national borders are seen as ridiculous in view of such cataclysmic events. Then think of all the films, programmes, even TV commercials aimed at furthering miscegenation. Think of the portrayal of characters who are against this. Such characters fall into several overlapping, broad types: thugs, those of low IQ, social inadequates, sociopaths and mental cases.
This is the reason people who highlight what is a very real and evident conspiracy are stigmatised as ‘conspiracy theorists’ – the term itself now derogatory and used indiscriminately to label both the likes of David Icke, who is genuinely insane, and ordinary intelligent people who see through the propaganda fed to them and who see nationalism as the natural antidote to globalism. The globalist elite are afraid of this potential nationalist backlash and have therefore stigmatised nationalists with a whole array of labels. After ‘racist’, ‘Nazi’, ‘fascist’ and ‘hater’ (which is the latest in the lexicon), ‘conspiracy theorist’ is the most effective, for it conjures up images of the aforementioned David Icke.
Funnily enough, Icke, author of The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy (and how to end it) began a global tour last September, which should please the globalist elite. As one supposed nationalist and Icke fan proudly told me, Icke had to move one ‘show’ from the Brixton Academy to Wembley Arena to accommodate numbers – which just goes to prove there’s a sucker born every minute. I have no doubt he will have talked about the NWO at some point and turned it into some kind of a carnival sideshow. By its association with this man, the very idea of a global conspiracy becomes discredited, despite overwhelming supporting evidence. It is probably the reason he is a B-list celebrity invited on various talk shows and not an inmate at Hanwell Asylum. But then one would be a conspiracy theorist to think so.
The global elite could not wish for a better court jester. In ancient times, the fool juxtaposed nonsense with profundity – see, for example, the fools in Shakespeare’s King Lear or Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe. So it is with Icke. In one of the articles on his website, Icke identifies Alan Greenspan (former chairman of the US Federal Reserve and now a man with his finger in many countries’ financial pies, including our own H M Treasury) as a Zionist. This is true; Greenspan has been instrumental in influencing immigration into America while directing the flow of wealth into fellow Zionist Jewish hands. But then Icke, as usual, adds the piece of nonsense that discredits the whole article, stating that he is ‘a practising Satanist according to some who say they have attended rituals with him.’ Let us not even mention Icke’s theories on ‘reptilian humanoids’.
What does all this mean? Consider this: if you were a member of the globalist elite and had a very damaging story coming out about you and your political machinations that was impossible to negate, what would you do? I know what I would do. I would make sure David Icke got it first – because by associating the story with the man, the story itself becomes dubious to the public consciousness. And I am sure I am not the first to have thought of this.
It is important to remember this when engaged in the nationalism against globalism debate. Also, when globalists, of which there are many varieties (laissez-faire capitalists, New Age one-worlders, Marxists, left-liberals etc., but all of whom seek the same ends – the concentration of world power in ever fewer hands) call you a conspiracy theorist for mentioning the New World Order, you might like to mention that Watergate would have been a conspiracy theory had it not been conclusively proven, and, until recently, the very idea of Britain’s biggest-selling Sunday newspaper tapping people’s phones would have again been just another conspiracy theory.
The evidence of the emergence of the New World Order is self-evident; it has come straight from the mouths of its biggest proponents. The only way to prevent the completion of this global dystopia where political, legal, spiritual and economic power is so concentrated and absolute is through nationalism. When our opponents throw the term of abuse ‘Fascist!’ in our faces, we must remind them that nations are the safeguard against tyranny on a global scale. If the New World Order is brought to fruition, rescue from tyranny from outside will not be possible, for there will be no outside.
Steve
- Edit
Well they say nature abhors a vacuum & will seek to fill it.
TPTB probably encourage this so as to muddy the waters & confuse the casual observer.
Mind you, you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you.
Steve
- Edit
One psy-ops technique is put a story out through a trusted source ( trusted by the opposition) that then turns out to be false which then contaminates other similar stories that might be true & discredits the trusted source.
Also releasing half true, half false stories to divert attention & confuse.
Steve
- Edit
The fact that so many facets of our establishment adhere to a particular orthodoxy creates a bubble & can lead people to think that’s the world view & anything outside of that is extreme.
When you go outside the bubble, you suddenly realise that there is a different way of looking at things.
I particularly noticed this after going to Russia.
It’s a bit like the “Matrix”, once you realise there’s an alternative that makes more sense than the usual lies & BS you get fed on a daily basis, it’s difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.
Steve
- Edit
Mind you Icke looks half right on the lizard theory, look at Greenspan, Murdoch & Phil the Greek, if not lizards they do a good impression of a turtles head!
Steve
- Edit
Yes the inner man reveals himself to the eyes that can see.
Steve
- Edit
When NWO gets mentioned & people go that’s a conspiracy theory, I say why do those involved mention it so much then in public, also the weird devil hand signals as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhefNEbp2cs
Richard Barker
- Edit
Very sound article. This needs to be amassed in a video documentary for greater audience reach.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
A significant factor in support of conspiracy theory is the way Western Governments from Europe to the antipodes have been simultaneously promoting homosexual “marriage”. Even the most sceptical anti-conspiracy theorist could hardly maintain that such abhorent legislation just arrived on the statute books in countries as diverse as France, South Africa, Britain and New Zealand just because the people in those countries all thought homosexuality a jolly good thing at about the same time.
Steve
- Edit
A very good point.
There’s a lot of synchronicity about!
Anthony Woodville - Kenilworth
- Edit
I started to read ‘Scared to Death’ a few years ago but never got to finish the book preferring ‘Gassed’ written by Rob Evans. Obviously not quite the same subject. ‘Gassed’ is about British chemical warfare experiments on humans at Porton Down.
9sacredur9
- Edit
Good article, many speakers and writers just discredit themselves by going too far. I have read many good articles by a certain writer who always seems to drop in the “nukelies” sentence even when he’s writing about jam. Having worked on Nuclear Subs and nuclear missile silos take it from me they are not a myth.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“The only way to prevent the completion of this global dystopia where political, legal, spiritual and economic power is so concentrated and absolute is through nationalism.”
Depends on what you mean by “nationalism.” If you mean petty nationalism (French nationalism, British nationalism, etc.) it won’t work. Actually, it has already failed, and will continue to do so, for reasons nationalists should start to really understand.
If by “nationalism” you mean the system of the nation-state, then you can’t fail to realize that it was the steppingstone on which globalists relied to advance their agenda. Much noise is made about the European Union nowadays, but the EU is actually controlled by national governments. The European Council is composed of Europe’s heads of state or government. European commissioners are nominated by the States. The Council of the European Union gathers the ministers by portfolio.
Today’s nationalists who put all the blame on “Brussels” should learn how it works. It would allow them to become wary of their own State, instead of putting their trust in it. Like Sean Gabb said, the State is not the Guardian, but the Traitor at the Gate.
It might be counter-intuitive, but I think globalists are unwittingly doing part of our job. They’re indeed destroying our failed States that have become shackles to us, allowing us to imagine another future for Westerners.
Max Musson
- Edit
Any nationalism that can successfully assert and protect the interests of the nation in question is a valid form of nationalism. Therefore British nationalism, or French nationalism are not outmoded until they have failed in this task.
.
To date we have had a succession of national governments who have chosen not to assert or protect the interests of our peoples, but it need not always be this way.
.
The EU is not a substitute nation state because it is, to use your phrase, a ‘stepping stone’ towards globalism, and while the ‘Council of Ministers’ used to be composed of the heads of state and the foreign ministers of the member states, since the advent of the Treaty of Lisbon, this institution now renamed the Council of Europe will be composed of any ‘worthy’ individuals chosen by the European Commission, and the European Commission will be composed of any ‘worthy’ individuals chosen by the Council of Europe. That the ‘worthy’ individuals composing the Council of Europe have so far continued to be the heads of state and foreign ministers of the member states does not mean that this will always be so. The EU has become a self-perpetuating bureaucratic tyranny.
.
It is not our existing nation states that we should mistrust, but the governments elected to run them. You are right however, in that the current mismanagement of our nation states and the consequent gradual demise of our nations does allow us to imagine another future for Westerners.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
Roman Bernard is a French regionalist who doesn’t believe in the French nation and agitates against the “tyranny of Paris”. At best he would like to see France be split into independent regions.
For normal nationalists the nation would be safeguard enough against the New World Order IF only its elite would consist of genuine nationalists. As it stands today, all elites of Europe have been coopted by the NWO and are our enemies, but that need not be so. Our aim should be elite replacement on a national scale, then the rest will follow.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
@ Franklin Ryckaert
“Roman Bernard is a French regionalist”
You couldn’t be further from the truth: I’m a Western nationalist.
What I reject is not the “tyranny of Paris” (I’ve never written, nor said that) but the absurdity of the modern nation-state, which negates both what is above itself (the West) and beneath itself (cities, regions). And I wouldn’t “like to see France be split into independent regions” (again, I’ve never said nor written that), on the contrary, I would like nations to act for a greater, Western good instead of indulging in their petty, divisive and suicidal nationalism.
I believe in the French (and other) nations in so far as they’re part of the West. Therefore, I am fed up with countries celebrating divisive wars, for instance with the Austerlitz and Waterloo stations in Paris and London. Where are the Tours, Lepanto and Vienna stations?
We have to emphasize what brings us together, not what divides us.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
Petty, divisive, suicidal nationalism doesn’t exist anymore in Europe (except perhaps in former Yugoslavia) and all European nations feel part of Europe, so what is the problem?
Roman Bernard
- Edit
Yes it does.
By “suicidal” I don’t mean that a war is going to break out.
The current anti-European hysteria in Britain is a case of suicidal petty nationalism. And it is telling that UKIP pretends Britain would halt immigration if it left the EU when one knows that immigration began long before Britain joined the ancestor of the EU, the EEC (and let’s not forget that Enoch Powell’s speech was pronounced five years before it, too).
An otherwise interesting author like David Hamilton was able to write that Britain is being “Europeanized” by urban planning, when it is actually being globalized, just like Europe.
He even wrote “We see ‘social engineering by design’ in towns and cities throughout the country where European-style piazzas are built to make us feel more European, and thus less British.” More European, thus less British?!
Britain is European, there should be no opposition between the two. Actually, British nationalism should be submitted to Pan-Western civilizationism, just like regionalism is, and should remain, submitted to nationalism. The fact that it isn’t (and people even believe that Farage is a nationalist, when of course he’s an avowed globalist) proves that modern nation-state is no guardian at all. Quite the reverse, actually.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I think that there is sometimes a confusion between the “nation” and the “state”. The state, as it has become, is merely the governmental system administering a particular territory which might be inhabited by people from any number of different “nations”. The nation, as nationalists usually use the word, is identical to “ethnicity” which very commonly has common ancestry (race) among its defining features.
Regrettably, the two words are very often used interchangeably (“the national economy”), but nationalists should avoid doing so.
The highest form of human organisation should be the “nation state”, where a particular territory is the homeland of a particular nation and any others present on that territory are there conditionally, and – ideally – temporarily. In such a case it would be the duty of the state to protect and advance the interests of the nation and then we would approach the position where the state and the nation exist for and through each other – the nation state.
Although the nation state no longer exists, at least in the west, it has certainly done so in the recent past. Britain was a nation state within living memory, although its rulers seem always to have been discontented with that modest role and yearned for Britain to be an international big player “punching above its weight” and such-like self aggrandising nonsense.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“Although the nation state no longer exists”
Yes it does. The EU (run by nation-states) is just the continuation of its logic.
Max Musson
- Edit
But the EU is not run by the nation states, it is run by the bureaucratic tyranny that is the European Commission and the Council of Europe.
.
Prior to the Treaty of Lisbon the Council of Europe was composed of the heads of state and foreign ministers of the member states, but the Treaty of Lisbon has changed that.
.
The Council of Europe is now composed of worthy individuals, chosen by the European Commission and while so far they have opted to continue with the heads of state and foreign ministers, this will not necessarily be so in the future.
.
Furthermore, as we know, the heads of state and foreign ministers of the member states are simply placemen imposed upon us by the oligarchs who dominate power politics and the media within the member states and so the true nature of the EU as a tyranny is self-evident.
.
While you may dream of a European super-state representing the interests of all Europeans united under a common leadership, the EU is not that state, the EU is its sick and twisted bastard brother and all of we peoples of Europe need to divest ourselves of it as soon as we can.
.
So feel free to sell us the golden dream of ‘Europe a nation’, if that is what you desire, but please do not try to persuade us to accept the ‘fools gold’ of the EU.
Steve
- Edit
Yes stuff the EU big time.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
You’re confusing the Council of Europe and the European Council. I thought it was a typo the first time, but now I have to tell you that they are not the same thing.
It’s the latter we’re talking about. And it consists of the heads of state or government. Check the Internet.
As for the European Commission, which is submitted to the European Council, its members are nominated by the member States.
There is also the Council of the European Union (unrelated to the Council of Europe, as well), which gathers the ministers by portfolio.
The EU is thus effectively run by the States.
“Furthermore, as we know, the heads of state and foreign ministers of the member states are simply placemen imposed upon us by the oligarchs who dominate power politics and the media within the member states”
Exactly. That’s precisely the reason why a return to the nation-state alone would have no consequence.
“While you may dream of a European super-state representing the interests of all Europeans united under a common leadership, the EU is not that state”
I never said it was. What I said is that the EU was a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself.
“all of we peoples of Europe need to divest ourselves of it as soon as we can”
It won’t change a thing. Again, the example of Norway is telling.
Steve
- Edit
Sorry Roman but I think that’s a bit hair splitting, there are a number of these institutions, they all pretty much unaccountable & all basically working to the same agenda.
As much discussed the nation states or those who supposedly run them are all signed up to the same agenda of mass immigration, one world government & white race replacement.
Norway is interesting as much the same thing is happening there as here, which points to a hidden hand making sure they follow the agenda.
Norway is seen as anti Semitic because of its opposition to Israel, Breivik was praised by extremist zionists & Utoya island hosted Palestinian activists.
Breivik was a zionist & not a neo Nazi.
But they also had moslem politicians or potential ones like we do.
So I have never seen the EU as the beginning & the end of all our problems.
The problem then is you are in tin foil hat territory trying to find the link between Norway’s problems & ours, obviously people don’t like it if you say it’s all the Jews fault.
Is any other connection, Freemasons, illuminati responsible?
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“The problem then is you are in tin foil hat territory trying to find the link between Norway’s problems & ours, obviously people don’t like it if you say it’s all the Jews fault.
Is any other connection, Freemasons, illuminati responsible?”
The problem here is that when one starts talking about these things, the two first words that come to mind are “conspiracy theory.” But is there any conspiracy at all? The globalistic project (of, indeed, Freemasons, among whom Jews are over-represented; as for Illuminati, the problem since the banning of Weishaupt’s society is that it has become underground… it’s difficult to talk factually about it, though it is known that they subverted many Masonic lodges in Europe before being banned) is right in front of our eyes. From national governments to the EU to the United Nations, it is an in-your-face policy shoved down our throats. These last years, with the pretext of “global warming,” proponents of World Government have been increasingly vocal, and, as noted in the article, they felt no need to hide their thoughts.
Steve
- Edit
So the conspiracy is pretty much proved & it’s not a theory?
But who are the actual people who pull the strings are they a particular group?
What holds them together, just a desire to control everything?
Max Musson
- Edit
It’s time for you to take a refresher by reading the ‘Paradise Island’ trilogy again Steve.
.
What we see sometimes as a monolithic world-wide conspiracy, is in fact the result of organised minorities jockeying for power and mutual advantage. Some of the minority groups are ethnic in nature, while others are political or commercial. Sometimes they work in concert, while at other times they may compete over an issue, but the one thing they all have in common is the desire to bring about a state of affairs in which they emerge the dominant force throughout the world, as an elite with world-wide monopolistic powers over society, government and commerce.
.
The problem faced by we White’s is that we are one of the few racial groups that are not organised for our mutual advantage and therefore, we are losing out whenever our interests clash with any other ethnic or racial group, and also whenever our interests conflict with Freemasonry, the Bilderbergers, or any other socio-political / commercial interest group. Furthermore, this state of affairs has existed for so long now that within organisations such as the Bilderbergers, even deracinated White people are now underrepresented and other ethnic groups who have worked to gain a dominant position within such organisations are able to use them for their advantage and to our detriment.
Steve
- Edit
It’s all a bit too joined up for me, the way that all white countries are basically having the same problem of race replacement forced on them & destruction of their cultures by importing people who are very different & more likely to be violent.
Also a lot of these countries are adopting same sex marriages & I think polygamy will also become more widespread.
Also other trends will probably become apparent soon.
The Met police have announced a policy of only employing a white person if a non white is employed too?
Will this spread to other jobs?
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
Thousands of years ago, our ancestors, would look for signs and portents as a way of navigating through unknown phenomena, crop failures would require a sacrifice or offering to please the angry deity, shaman would ingest hallucinogens to access the spirit world in order to seek help from ancestors with regards tribal or individual problems.
As the populations grew and hunter gatherer tribes turned to farming around two thousand years ago, a shift from lunar to solar calendrical observation followed.
When Emporer Constantine decided that Christianity was to be the state religion of rome a great shift occured over a long period throughout the, as we now know it, Christian world. The pagan religions and their followers were forced to convert or be killed.
The same thing must have occured throughout the muslim world as beliefs such as zoroasronism and eastern pagan believers were converted.
Organised religion was in the ascendancy.
For us today, it seems proposterous that a witch would be thrown into a pond to see if she floated or sank, before being burned .
Today we live in an age that is a different world to that of our ancestors, who relied upon these methods for survival, from offerings made befor a hunt to sacrifices for a failed crop through penance and fear or the priests or witchfinders. We have sat nav and I pod , internet and mortgages and such. Whilst many still go to church and are believers, for many that faith coupled with that fear of an all seeing all knowing god, just does not exist.
Yet as steve said in his initial comment, nature abhors a vacuum and so maybe with that absence of a powerfull religion, these other beliefs such as ufo’s and aliens satisfy that part of the brain that processed the religious/spiritual aspect of life in a secular technological world.
Regarding the NWO, there is no theory, it exists, we can see it and have heard our leaders refer to it.
With other events that have doubts cast over the official statement of events, I suppose we can only wait to see and hear how things develop, or new information comes out. Then the question arises again, can I trust this information? Unless one witnesses something first hand, how can certainty be gained? Then there is the effect of time on the memory, did I remember this event happening like this or did it happen like that.
Two witnesses to the same event giving differing accounts for example
If there is documentary evedence then that helps to establish a realistic/truthfull account of things.
For our early ancestors, the world must have been a place that demanded much more attention to the natural and spiritual dimension as a means of survival than we today pay it, but then they weren’t facing the NWO.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
The question whether all peoples were equally “primitive” if only you go back enough in time is an interesting one. Anyway animism, which seems to be the universal type of religion among present day primitive peoples, exists also among the Japanese in the form of Shinto and among the ancient Romans in the form of their belief in genii. The tribal Celts and Germans knew human sacrifies.
If you want to rank peoples then perhaps a better criterium is the question whether they can develop a higher civilization on their own, or if confronted with one , learn from it. Then you see indeed great differences.
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
Yes, I think that, that could be possible, I have no way of being able to say with any great certainty.
Some years ago I read a book by the anthropologist Joseph Cambell ,The Hero With A Thousand Faces, in which he pointed to the various myths told by different peoples around the globe, linking common themes and recurring symbolism. The myth of a redeamer figure, being one that has/is fairly widespread. Admitably his chosen study subjects were peoples of high culture, the indo aryans and south american toltecs to name two, rather than tribal peoples. Although the aztecs who followed later performed quite barbaric human sacrifices.
The berzerkers of nordic tribes who ingested the fly agaric mushroom befor battle , whos descendents today are the peoples of the scandanavian countries , have moved on from this practice as their culture has advanced, however as you say many african tribes still practice the witchcraft that claims the lives of children even in the u.k.
Steve
- Edit
This is something I’ve discussed elsewhere, that there are only about 5 basic stories everything else is a rehash or a mashing together of those basic elements.
I guess it explains why Hollywood basically repeats itself along with the fact that propaganda is repetitive to drive a point home.
I remember a YouTube video that pointed out the amount of times the Jesus story or versions of it occurs in history.
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
I saw icke speak at one of his gatherings many years ago, I knew very little about him at the time. He spoke about the NWO or illuminati and mind control slaves which I could entertain as a possibility, however when he went on to tell the audience that the Queen was a shapeshifting lizard that he had witnessed these shapeshifters go from one form to another, thats where my mind lost interest.
What is your view of icke? You say he is not mad, do you think he is a deliberate misleader?
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
David Icke is reliable when he deals with conspiracies on the physical plane. As soon as he becomes “spiritual” however he loses all common sense. The idea that elite persons are actually “shapeshifting lizards” is ridiculous in the extreme. According to him these lizards would need to eat human babies regularly in order to keep their own human form intact. Imagine the practical problems for the elite to keep that hidden from their personnel, especially when travelling! Would the royal court of queen Elisabeth not have discovered that Her Majesty has strange food habits? What about prince Charles and the other members of the royal family? Keep in mind that the sexual escapades of these people are always discovered, but their food habits are not?
Furthermore, Icke averts that the elite consists of certain families who only marry among themselves and have kept their (lizard) blood pure in this way for thousands of years all the way going back to Babylon. But he forgets that many members of the elite are simply nouveaux riches, descendants of ordinary people, who became rich and powerful, and why would their ordinary ancestors have “kept their blood pure” throughout history if they never could have known that they belong to the elite? Most royal families of Europe cannot trace their lineage further back than the time of Charlemagne. Before that their ancestors too were ordinary people.
These are practical arguments against an already ridiculous idea. Whether Icke is mad or deliberately misleading is no more of interest to me. All his sound ideas about the real NWO conspiracy can be had from other sources, from which Icke himself shamelessly plagiarizes.
In short, for mad ideas we should reject Icke, for good ideas we don’t need him.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“British nationalism, or French nationalism are not outmoded until they have failed in this task.”
Well, they’ve always failed. There’s no reason why they would miraculously succeed in the future.
“To date we have had a succession of national governments who have chosen not to assert or protect the interests of our peoples, but it need not always be this way.”
The problem is: it is the case in every and all Western countries. The speed may vary (Switzerland is arguably the slower nation in this race to the cliff, Norway the faster), but the same process is underway everywhere in the West. If it had nothing to do with the nation-state (which I criticize very freely, as its modern form was invented in what used to be my country), then some would escape this process, but not a single one actually does. In every Western country, the governement is actually betraying its own people.
You’re right about the Lisbon Treaty, but let me bring an example to disprove the idea that the EU is really dangerous for European nations: Norway. It does not belong to the EU, still its situation is much graver than that of EU member-States, with the possible exceptions of Sweden and Holland. The government of Oslo is no less evil than any other European government or than the European Union, and actually much more than the governments of, say, Italy or Poland. I do think the EU is a symptom, not a cause.
“It is not our existing nation states that we should mistrust, but the governments elected to run them.”
The problem is that in the nation-state system, we always get these governments.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
The problem is the coopted elite, not the nation as such. The solution is to replace the hostile elite with a truely (ethno-) nationalist one. So the ideal should be : an ethnic nation ruled by an ethnic elite that cares for its own people. Greater regional structures, such as the European Union, could be allowed if they fully respect the sovereignty and identity of its members.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
And nations should respect the autonomy (not the independence) of regions.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
A reasonable form of regional autonomy is negotionable for me.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
By the way, the “members” of European/Western civilization are not nation-states, but ethnies.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
Yes, it is true not all European states are congruent with ethnies, but that is a problem all over the world. To get the ideal situation one would have to exchange great numbers of peoples. Whenever that happened in history it was accompagnied with violence. I think we should prefer an unideal situation above mass violence.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
People will have to be transferred if an even bigger bloodbath has to be avoided.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
How does the change in speed of transportation and communication affect yours?
Steve
- Edit
It makes mass immigration faster & easier.
You said “The current anti-European hysteria in Britain is a case of suicidal petty nationalism”.
I think you’re confusing a hatred of the EU with a hatred of European countries.
I hate the EU but like Europe as a place to visit, its culture & so on.
We need to leave the EU as one of things to gain control over immigration but also to get rid of the zionist establishment who encouraged immigration from before our membership of the EU & still do.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
No, I’m not confusing the two, read David Hamilton’s excerpt I quoted. It betrays a genuine will to separate from Europe.
Nigel Farage, who’s more known, said that between the broad reach and the continent, he would always choose the former over the latter. That tells you that Farage is not a nationalist, but a globalist, to whom the EU is just not global enough. And it also proves that the nation-state is no safeguard against globalization.
Europe is not just “a place to visit,” it’s the race and culture England and Britain originate from. England and Britain are organs of the European body, not bodies by themselves.
Leaving the EU won’t get rid of Pakistani gang rapists, Caribbean looters and Nigerian beheaders.
Going back to Britain prior to its joining the EEC would change nothing to what Enoch Powell warned about five years before that.
And, again, if EU is responsible for Britain’s current plight, how come that Norway, which does not belong to the EU, is in a graver situation? The anti-EU stance doesn’t hold.
Steve
- Edit
“An otherwise interesting author like David Hamilton was able to write that Britain is being “Europeanized” by urban planning, when it is actually being globalized, just like Europe.”
I assume that’s the quote you’re referring to?
I would broadly agree with that along with the systematic destruction of historic buildings & a general sterile blandness.
So you’re saying he wants to separate from Europe?
I think a lot of Nationalists don’t want that, they want partnerships with European white Nationalists.
I did cover the point about leaving the EU & what else has to be done, I have never solely blamed the EU for our plight but it adds to our problems & has to go for our sakes & our European Brothers & Sisters.
As for Farrago/Farage, I’ve never mistaken him for a Nationalist but if he can be used as a stepping stone to get the public away from the mainstream then good.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
No, the actual quote (what you cited was my comment) is:
“We see ‘social engineering by design’ in towns and cities throughout the country where European-style piazzas are built to make us feel more European, and thus less British.”
The article is there: https://www.traditionalbritain.org/content/architecture-urban-planning-and-identity
Of course, this is nonsense: these “European” piazzas are not European, they are global. You can find them in New York or Shanghai as well. This has nothing to do with Europe.
Steve
- Edit
OK I see he also says about our culture & its replacement with drab, soviet-style ‘accommodation’.
I think some of these piazzas are pretty Soviet as well, the product of a bureaucrat’s mind I guess.
Though that said I like some Soviet things, in their place of course, which isn’t here.
You could also make the same complaint about retail parks, where they are everywhere but represent nowhere.
David Yorkshire
- Edit
There has been some debate on the subject of what constitutes a nation. I use the older meaning of a people based upon a shared ethnicity: i.e. based primarily upon racial homogeneity and secondarily upon shared a culture and broad belief system (whether religious, philosophical or otherwise). A nation must retain its racial homogeneity to survive as a nation; therefore a nationalist is always antagonistic to globalism. People of nations of the same race but different yet similar cultures can be integrated into another nation in small numbers, as they will not affect the national identity. In any case, the cultural identity of a nation will inevitably evolve over time. I just thought I’d better clear that up.
Steve
- Edit
I’d support that.
David Yorkshire
- Edit
Oh, and if anyone says you’re as mad as a tinfoil hatter for saying the European Union project is an agenda for building up a world government, you might like to show them this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWeOa-FuyM
Steve
- Edit
Talk about charisma bypass, no wonder they call him the grey mouse, we need a cat that’ll deal with our rodent problem.
Steve
- Edit
“One of the things that often dismays me about our movement is the way it seems to attract cranks.”
Well in normal mainstream politics their cranks are the normal mainstream, otherwise how can they believe the ridiculous nonsense that they do?
Weard
- Edit
Great photo of Icke!
It seems to be the nature of things to aggregate – corporations merge to lower costs and consolidate power bases and it seems that this is happening on the international level too now.
I wonder if we can still equate our race with our nation? Seems to me we’ll have to unhitch that train at some point.