Non americans consistently vote for policy and actions I consider laughably suicidal and psychotic, the Euro who warbles and whines while his human "Privileges" are stripped away is in no way superior to the dark skinned welfare slave. No tint of whiteness stopped German autism from dooming the continent to a hundred years of psychotic self destruction, nor did the pale skinned slav resist the poison of communism better than his distant asiatic relations. The Italian, the nordic, the anglo, the semite, none have shown themselves more resilient than the negro, the mongoloid, or the latin, to the demoralization process. Americans have in a certain extent, we can boast well into a half of our nation is resisting, we have held on to our natural rights to an extent no one else has by a colossal margin, where almost every other country is an abstract failure. Half of america is insane, which is half more than every other country on the planet.
Then don't let those non Americans in? Close your fucking borders! Build a wall! What happened to that shit? You voted for it and it never came; all you got instead was 'So long as it's legal' bullshit as always. Though I am wondering what policies exactly my nation 'voted for' that you think were bad? I can name a lot but I'd be interested in an American perspective.
As to the 'demoralization' fuck off, Blacks and Latinos have 'fallen' to the demoralization more than whites, they overwhelmingly vote for democrats; they rock up in droves to welfare, and they
hate you.
Europe, is a failure. It's failure has been apparent since world war one, and every step they've staggered forward since that point has been a product of american effort.
Fucking lol, Europe would have been fine if America hadn't butted in waving it's cock around the place, WW1 didn't need you, WW2 didn't need you; the Cold War I'll grant it was good to have you around, but that shit only happened because you gave guns, and expertise and equipment to the fucking Soviets; at every turn America has been butting in where it doesn't belong because it is America that sees itself as the worlds police force, as the worlds 'guiding light'. If America hadn't gotten involved in Europe then all of this hell would have never happened to start with; you bastards were still ripping into our nations for your own self interests even in the dammed 90's when you bombed civvies because - and I'll let one of your own speak on this - of their ethnic makeup:
"There is no place in modern
Europe for ethnically pure states."
That's General Wesley Clarke after America occupied a nation that didn't want to get involved with their oh so fucking principled thermonuclear tipped dick waving competition with some slavs. So you pressed them with terms that amounted to 'Roll over bitch' and when they refused you allowed Muslims to murder and rape and pillage while at the same time bombing civilians into the dirt. America's role in Europe has been a steel toe capped boot to the ball one after the other. You bomb some shithole and they come flooding across our borders. That's the American story.
Blacks slanted highly conservative until we let the surviving confederfags put them back on the reservation. Many immigrant groups to the united states were suffering from generationally lowered IQs and exaggerated levels of crime, unlike the blacks and the latins, they were allowed to struggle towards prosperity for more than a single generation before being turned against themselves by social engineering.
No, blacks voted republican because for them at the time it was the party of giving away free shit; the democrats then did that, but better and the blacks voted for them instead. Why would they change now? Are the republicans going to start opting for welfare payouts?
What can a modern conservative movement give to a black voter that the democrats aren't willing to? Whatever you've been selling they don't seem that interesting in buying.
We tried that shit here. It doesn't work. We've got black mayors, politicians, policemen, teachers; we brought in generations and integrated them and gave them the chance to work and so far they have done nothing but dissapoint, they have the lowest literacy rates in our nation despite intensive programs to raise them, the lowest employment rates despite intensive programs to raise them, the highest crime rates despite the removal of systems that were considered 'biased'. This is true in France, in Britain, in Denmark, in every other country you want to name. The idea of integration of non Europeans into European nations and with European peoples has failed, it has always failed and it will always fail. Any attempt to do so will lead to nothing less than the destruction of Europe and the European peoples.
You wanna talk about communism in the east? The slavs did resist, that's why they got fucking liquidated; we have seen a rise all across Europe in nationalist parties, in people that understand that unless something changes (and it is changing, slowly yes, but surely) then we are fucked. From the Italians, to the slavs, to the French, to the English and every other group in Europe. What we need is time.
"Theres no such thing as scale mario!"
That's a copout and you fucking know it. You cannot on the one hand go 'Just rebel lol' and on the other go 'Nan it's about scale' when the issues presented are largely the same. Fixing our issues through the democratic system is something I agree with and violence should be a last resort only when such a system has failed, and as shit as things are I don't think it's failed. As 'boomerservative' as it is to say; Brexit is a sign that it can work.
If you think this is gonna happen, you are as delusional as the pro-immigration Americans who think that any number and kind of immigrants will adapt the best of their customs just out of niceness upon spending enough time on American soil.
For it to work, at minimum it would require UK's legal, social, law enforcement and welfare regulations to change in drastic ways, at minimum as much as they have changed since the 1950's, probably more, and that change would have to happen much quicker.
Without that happening, they will laugh at your 15 grand, most of them would have far more to lose from taking this deal than 15 grand.
And on the contrary, if a nationalist faction would have the power to force such changes, then most of those who would have taken this deal would leave on their own, due to their current lifestyle no longer being feasible, or to avoid worse fates.
I believe that with time, we can convince more people within the UK to wake up, see the danger and organise against this; it's not going to be a straight shot to:
Ideally these people would be gone before anything of that sort would ever be needed. I myself am part of several activist groups that are trying to organise to spread these sorts of messages, to talk to people, to try and push this issue into the public consciousness as much as we can. Ideally increased repatriation of criminals would be the first step, and the removal of passports of non British criminal citizens if it is possible. A hostile environment policy (a real one, not the bullshit the Guardian sperged about) would help, closed borders would also help.
I agree that should a decent nationalist party rise these people may leave or be made to leave before these sorts of methods are needed, but I also think that I and other British patriots have a duty to push for these methods regardless, to try and open the public to the idea of it.
First off, America as a country is differently set up than what you might think of a typical nation-state. For various reasons including the circumstances of its establishment and politics behind it, it's a federation (and before that, confederation) of states, united and regulated under the constitution. Over time it also has developed some degree of shared culture, something that has helped greatly in its stability and success, but that, just like in more formerly uniform nation-states, is being changed by mass immigration.
But it never was that united, contrary to what the name might suggest. This system has its pros and cons. Preserving that system is also creating some oddities you might notice when discussing policies with Americans, like being way more allergic to all sorts of centralizing policies than Europeans, like state run healthcare systems. Their setup is designed to accommodate much larger degree of cultural and social differences between member states than one would want in a nation-state, and include a number of populations that don't necessarily consider themselves one nation, society, community, and culture like Poles, Japanese, Hungarians or Zionists would consider themselves.
Due to the inherent implication that differences will be there and they need to agree to disagree about them, such centralized systems based on the idea of everyone being close enough to the same countrywide seem dangerous, destabilizing and potentially destructive to their way of doing things. After all, for various circumstances, the different communities may have different needs and different willingness to spend on healthcare, creating the obvious problem that in a centralized systems some peoples will be forced to subsidize others, and some will end up telling others how to live, regardless of their particular culture and customs - indeed a troublesome suggestion to a country whose internal stability is conditioned upon being able to just agree to disagree on some issues.
Yeah I know, despite my 'REEEEEEEEEEEEEE'ing at Shipmaster I don't actually dislike America, I love the American ideal, I think it's fucking amazing. I went to work there and ended up living for a good while; considered settling down but I wanted to get my degree first, so I came back home. I liked the idea of individualism; I was going to set up there; I'm CADCAM trained, a decent carpenter, bricklayer, welder and plasterer, I was all set to stay there; but I came home and I can't bring myself to leave her like this, wallowing in the mess our politicians and our people have made of it, and realistically I don't think I would have ever really integrated into America, I hold many of your principles as true, but I do not believe that you can integrate away your demographics problem; nor do I think that America would be willing to give up its principles. Though ironically I can't really ever imagine America going away, or becoming less than it is. Probably a 'too big to fall' mindset.
I don't think that Europe is anyway the same as America; nor do I think that methods I would want here would work over there. But from my own reading into it, and from history, and from what I can see I don't see America going down a good path with its demographics and I don't see how you guys can fix that.
Secondly, your sole focus on non-whites is a mistake, as it is a sign of acceptance to the progressive left's framing of political battlegrounds, its chosen way of drawing the frontlines. Cultural particularities, national (or other group) allegiances and loyalties are the most decisive factors in where does a particular person stand and belong. Of course through the basic fact of most non-whites in a country like UK being immigrants from distant and very culturally different lands, or raised among families and local communities of such immigrants, vast majority of them will represent foreign cultures regardless, and due to that, side with their own factions, or if such are too minor, leftist big camp pro-foreigner political faction. It's not a classic "not all" argument, and the numbers that don't qualify might by symbolic, but to ignore this issue and qualification is an unnecessary blind spot.
I focus on non whites because they are the biggest and most prevalent problem we have right now. I'm also not a fan of Romanian fruit pickers or Vladislav building the conservatory. But realistically they are probably going to be easier to integrate for the simple fact that they look like us, I don't really want them to integrate, I want them to fuck off back home.
There is also the reality of the matter that these groups do organise and do act along racial lines and these groups don't see the difference between the racial and the cultural lines. Black britons are Black first, Pakistani Britons are Pakistani first; how much of this is due to an inherent characteristic or simple as a result of modern policy is not relevant when the fact is that they do move that way. They know this, we know this; our own government knows this from the report that they are delaying publishing. The only thing we have to do is to get the British people to know and act on this.
For this reason many feel tempted to discard this detailed distinction and not keep track of it, but that would not be such a good idea when the mirror side of this distinction is much more significant in scale, and much more controversial and delicate in right wing circles - what about the cosmopolitans? The people who nominally, by heritage and culture, should be considered natives of the British Isles, but by personal allegiance and belief don't want to act like it, or even be seen as such? They are white and speak your language, but by own chosen allegiance are as hostile to the nationalist's cause as the most hostile of exotic foreigners are. Pretty much the same kind of people as the previously described case of leftist Swedes.
Honestly, I think we need a concrete constitution laying down exactly what is and is not acceptable and unalienable. One of the main reasons I see modern UK conservatism as pathetic is because it's founded on nothing more than a desire to make money, to squeeze the last drops of profit out of our nation as possible. A solid foundation of what rights a British person has when compared to a non British person; a solid foundation as to what a country should be for and why. That would hopefully curtail the cosmopolitan tendencies of certain people in our country. I am not unaware of cultural differences even within the UK, I just don't see them as relevant right now. To me it's like being worried about your clothes smelling of fire when the building is ablaze; a secondary concern that can be worked with once the main problem has been dealt with.
As for the ones it doesn't curtail? I'd consider them traitors yes, and I feel that lamppost maintenance technicians are always needed.
However, if you take some different cases of similar problems, unrelated to the recent mass immigration siphon countries, it becomes easier to see the borders of social groups and tensions on these borders properly.
Take Ukraine and its current civil war for a good example. The two sides there are based about cultural and national allegiance above all. One side considering themselves Ukrainians, and other Russians, who expectedly are quite insistent on living in very close relationship with the Russian homeland, where most of their compatriots live. Something that the Ukrainians, whose nation has a rather bumpy history with the Russian one, nevermind Russian state, are not nearly so keen on...
Sounds like a pretty damn serious disagreement, the two sides fighting with tanks, attack helicopters and artillery barrages. The above stuff is enough by itself to make their quarrel this intense.
Yet in more general terms, they aren't that different at all. They are both Slavs, visually they are indistinguishable, culturally the differences are rather small, their languages similar (and most Ukrainians can speak Russian too anyway).
But that, and the separate allegiance is enough.
Yeah, that's the powderkeg for you. Hell my great grandfather was an ardent and proud member of the IRA whereas I see them as filthy traitors. Internal tensions will always exist, but that's no good reason to ignore or downplay the - right now - far greater threat of external invasion by foreign cultures spearheaded by our globalist elites.
I've spent about an hour trying to find any format that sums up what Rush believes concisely, but... Rush is a capitalist. While you can find many snippets and tidbits that will agglomerate into the whole, you'll have to either buy the Limbaugh Letter, one of his books, or become a paid member of his website if you want his more specified material.
If you want to listen to his show, it's on from noon-3 Eastern, which means an hour ago until two hours from now, every weekday. Here's one of the online radio streams I use to listen to him sometimes:
1340 AM KGFW - Rush Limbaugh
If you want Rush summed up concisely, here's the first of his books:
Thanks, I'll have a listen. I'm always on the prowl for more interesting material. If you're interested in my particular brand of conservatism then I'd recommend Mark Collet, to an extent Farage, Patriotic Alternative is a good example for me. Though they do have a thing about Jews that I don't really agree with, I can see why they feel the way they do after looking at the materials they present but I just can't agree with their conclusion that it's 'The smallhats' rather than it being a bunch of parasitic globalists who happen to be Jewish. Though in defence of Collet he's totally fine with debating over that rather than just sperging out and reeing about the Jews like a lot anti semites do. He had a pretty good debate on PWR about that. Keith Woods is alrightif you get past his voice belonging to a man five times his age and eight times his body mass, Edward Dutton was someone I've listened to in person and he convinced me to go into university, until then I'd written it off as a lost cause; Simon Harris (RIP) is good and Bowden from the BNP is always fun to listen to for his insights into our treacherous politicians. There are a few others, but by and large I'm a catholic, ethnonationalist conservative who likes capitalism but also thinks there should be checks on it.
As to the stuff that was just below, I actually agree with all of that. I was ignorant of some aspects of American conservatism and it seems I was listening and reading more about the financial material and the Libertarian side of things than I was the foundations of American conservatism and I was clearly projecting my own frustration with my own politicians onto American ones.
However I don't think that all of it could be applied to Europe, I do think that we should have a constitution laying out exactly what rights we have as citizens, and I do think parity of defense with the government should be one of those rights. I disagree with the idea of small government; I am unabashedly in support of a safety net system to help people when they are down, I am in support of healthcare, and I firmly believe that both the state and the people should strengthen each other rather than a hands off approach. Though when I was working in America I did quite enjoy the 'fuck it' mindset that many of my coworkers had to things.
I could keep going through the Constitution, and that's kind of the point. Conservatism is at core very simple; that people are self-governing, and the government should only step in when a citizen violates the rights of another. Rights are God-given and inherent to the people, not a gift of the government that it can revoke at whim.
When Charlton Heston, shortly after the Columbine shooting, stood up on stage with a rifle in his hands, and said "From my cold dead fingers," for Conservatives, that is not a joke.
There is a lot of crap we put up with, that we try to redress at the ballot box, to limited success. But if someone tries to actually revoke the Second or First Amendments, you will have a civil war.
Because unlike, to the best of my knowledge every other European-descended nation, including all the British Commonwealth nations, we have not abdicated our right to self-defense and self-determination in gun ownership. The majority of firearms are still legal, and private gun ownership in the USA eclipses gun ownership through the entire rest of the world combined, including all militaries. And 'all militaries' there includes the military of the US itself.
(I'm aware that very limited gun ownershp is still legal in some Commonwealth nations, but it's absurdly difficult to get and has rules about what you can even do with guns in your own home.)
The USA is the only place in the world where if, and in the long run of generations and centuries, almost certainly when, the need to truly become serfs of the state or fight to remain free men arises, our people still have the capacity, and amongst a large enough minority to win also the will, actually fight.
I think that's admirable. I think it's also delusional. America is not the 'only nation' where the right to remain free is something that would trigger a civil war, but I do think it'd probably be the bloodiest one. We have the capacity to rise against our government now; we simply lack the will or the perceived need. Which I suppose could be argued is the same as capacity. I do think that we as a people have become lazy, decadent and complacent with our slowly simmering pot; but also that we can be salvaged and fixed if we work together, and if we cannot then we'll be gone with no one to blame but ourselves if we're too weak to even defend ourselves.