Thursday, 18 February 2016

In this film made by the journalist Simon Winkler (presumably the same Simon Winkler who was president of the Jewish Society at York university a few years ago was involved in trying to hound a university officer from his job for having mocked Israel's use of "antisemitism" accusations to silence criticism, see here), the moral and intellectual limitations of Tommy Robinson, Paul Weston, et al are in evidence.

"Multiculturalism's alright", says Tommy. Sikhs, Hindus, negroes are fine. It's just Muslims that are the problem. No, not Muslims, Islam. No, not Islam, "radical" Islam. Paul Weston describes how they put together a flag showing a white and black hand shaking to demonstrate their rejection of "racism".

Rather than challenge the ideology of our ruling class, they internalise it and accept it and try to keep themselves safely within its boundaries. But those boundaries were defined in such a way as to make meaningful dissent impossible. Tommy speaks of the courage he has shown in standing up to physical intimidation. And I respect that. But people find moral and social intimidation even more threatening than violence. Scientific studies have shown that will expose themselves to physical jeopardy more readily than they will incur peer group disapproval. Most people would rather be beaten up than become known as a "racist" or "antisemite".

What our rulers call racism is simply the natural resentment the invaded feel for the invader. It is the distress Europeans experience at having their ancestral homelands taken away from them; their cultural and genetic identity eroded and destroyed. It is neither a pathology nor a form of wickedness. It is, on the contrary, a healthy instinct towards self-preservation. Nor is it uniquely European. Any people on earth would feel such distress in similar circumstances. And almost any non-European people would react to the experience far more violently than Europeans do.

Multiculturalism, which is just a euphemism for the colonisation of European societies by non-Europeans, is, at best, a dice roll. Or, to put it another way, a game of Russian roulette. To conclude that Hindus and Sikhs "aren't that bad" so multiculturalism is alright, is like saying "Well I pulled the trigger a couple of times and I'm still here so Russian roulette is alright". The behaviour of our own people is highly predictable because they have grown up in the same environment as us and been shaped by the same culture, not just in their lifetime, but over the centuries.

Their genetic makeup has been shaped by the culture of their and our ancestors because any culture has eugenic effects, meaning it favours or disfavours the reproductive success of people with certain characteristics, causing those characteristics to become slightly more frequent or slightly less frequent in the gene pool with each generation. Over extended periods, these minor alterations have significant effects. [I will expand on this point in another post soon.]

The predictability that comes from shared ancestry is a valuable asset: a form of social capital. When you allow alien peoples to colonise your land, you have thrown that social capital away, because their behaviour is much less predictable. The voluntary assumption of unnecessary risk is not rational, even if, in specific cases, the danger does not materialise.

Nor does the "multiculturalism's alright" crowd take any account of demographics. Like our ruling class, they pretend there is no difference between allowing a few brownskins to take up residence in your country and allowing in so many that they become the majority. Scientific studies have shown that racial similarity induces empathy effects that subconsciously influence behaviour in many ways. The Europeans of the future, who will have been condemned to live as ethnic minorities in what were formerly their own lands by those who thought, or pretended to think, that "multiculturalism's alright", will learn, on a daily basis, how important these empathy effects are. They will be ruled over by aliens who do not empathise with them, permanently dependent on their goodwill, goodwill which will not always be forthcoming. They will never be safe. And they will have nowhere to retreat to.

Do Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston really believe that a Britain in which Hindus, Sikhs and negroes constitute the majority of the population would be "alright"? Probably not. Probably they would feel just as distressed about that prospect as I do. But they won't say that publicly. Because they have been intimidated by the ideology of our rulers. And they lack the knowledge, lack the intellect and lack the moral courage to confront and challenge it, rather than acquiesce in its genocidal implications for all European peoples.


  1. En realidad en un patriotismo falso, no porque sea en Reino Unido, ésto ocurre en muchas naciones en toda Europa.

    Están subvencionados y promocionados por La Masonería, una parte de ella, que se oponen a islamizar Europa, pero están a favor de otras etnias que no son occidentales y no democráticas.

    Hay verdaderos movimientos patriotas en Reino Unido, donde sus líderes han sido expulsados y perseguidos por mantenerse en pié y fieles a sus convicciones patriotas verdaderas :

  2. ‘Truly, this is a country and a people staring into a racial and cultural abyss. A civilised indigenous race seems to have rolled over and allowed itself to be defiled, abused and defeated by the uncivilised detritus of the Third World.

    ‘What happened to us? When did we lose our will to survive as a proud and unified people? What on earth is wrong with the British? Our immediate ancestors would have been rioting in the streets long, long ago.

    ‘Can it really be because we are afraid of being called a word?

    ‘Are we really so frightened of being called “racist” we are prepared to allow our children and grandchildren to inherit Hell on Earth? If defending your people, your culture, your country and your very civilisation apparently makes you a racist, then it is a badge I will wear with pride.’

    Paul Weston has changed his mind out of all recognition since 2013. I wonder why.

    1. Weston and He of the Many Aliases ('Robinson', 'Lennon', et al) have been puppets of the jewish agenda driven 'counter jihad' all along. It follows an obvious path: remarks that seem to mirror the larger public's unspoken views, appear to be bravely withstanding physical intimidation, qualify one's remarks to engage the 'big tent' of all 'minorities,' and then align oneself with the outward opposition (moslems) whilst remaining totally faithful to one's real masters (not a single cj group has ever exposed or criticised judaism as an ideology or the political and social conduct of massive jewish lobbyists in fomenting wars in the ME or legislating for crippling restrictions on free speech, right to bear arms in various congresses or parliaments in the Western world or that ethnic group's stranglehold on media and academia. I have noticed lately how English people are accepting the great lie that 'anti-semitism' is a mental disease rather than what it is, a realistic assessment of an ideology's actions and goals.