Drudge and the Guardian Libel Golden Dawn

Drudge links this Guardian article and uses its “Neo-Nazi” description.

“Neo-Nazi”, or Nazi, or nazi, or fascist or racist or whatever just mean “don’t think this, don’t pay attention to it accept to vilify it.” But nationalism is not going away. It’s a serious political movement, much more advanced in Europe than here but coming here sooner or later. I have no interest or faith in conventional politics but any significant social trend will have a conventional political effect eventually. Various people, Steve Sailer, Maureen, Mindweapon, have noted this article discussing how some British elites are backing off on immigration. I think they realize they have a problem on their hands and need to get a grip before British nationalism gets stronger.

This kind of thing would be unthinkable in the US. American nationalism is a stretch because it’s always been so tightly controlled by the elite, who turned it into internationalism and globalism, and there are multiple American nations. VDare has been noting the lack of immigration articles on Drudge; Fox News is pushing amnesty, although most of their viewers must oppose it. The neocons are in the tank for elite internationalism, but the people are waking up, however slowly.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Drudge and the Guardian Libel Golden Dawn

  1. BIGDOUG says:

    what are you’re views on white nationalism

  2. Jehu says:

    Elites would be wise to tread carefully as this kind of nonsense has the potential to create large numbers of REAL, OLD SCHOOL Nazis. If the only group that can be trusted to defend your demographic hegemony goes full Nazi, what is there left to say? My guess would be ‘Hail Victory’.

  3. Brandon says:

    …”nationalism is not going away”.

    It’s just getting started, for it is the visible manifestation of righteous, angry, masculinity, which multiculti feminazis have stirred up and attempted to hold down/suppress for 100+ years.

    Hail Golden Dawn and Russia’s Putin!

  4. Abelard Lindsey says:

    There isn’t really a basis for this kind of nationalism in North America because we are all immigrants at one point in the past. However, the case can be made that the U.S. is the creation of a combination of English common law tradition combined with the European-based Renaissance and Enlightenment, which would favor the primacy of Euro-caucasion culture. Modern-day immigrants who display work ethic and entrepreneurial drive would fit within this cultural milieu, whereas immigrants from cultures who do not exhibit these traits would not.

    In any case, immigration, particularly from Latin American societies, is declining mainly due to long term demographic trends. Birthrates all over the world are declining on a long-term basis. This suggests that immigration and the assimilation of such will decline as political issues in the coming decades.

    BTW, other than immigration, I’m not sure what is meant by the term “globalization”. Does this refer to doing business internationally? I could be the owner or the sales manager for a small scientific instrument manufacturer that sells worldwide. Such a company might have 5-7 employees, but we sell through independent sales reps in Asia, Europe, as well as North America. All technology manufacturers sell worldwide. Does being an opponent of globalization mean that I should limit my company’s sales to domestic markets only? This makes no business sense at all.

    If small organizations such as mine can tap global markets. does this not suggest that globalization is indeed empowering of individuals and small organizations, and not just limited to large corporations? If so, what basis is there for opposition to it?

    • fnn says:

      The industrial working class in the US has been destroyed-and it’s due far more to outsourcing than to automation. 60,000 factories with an average of 700 employees have been closed in the US since 2000. In 2000 20% of all US jobs were in manufacturing. Today it’s only 5%. R&D will eventually follow the manufacturing facilities.

      • Abelard Lindsey says:

        So, when someone uses the term “globalization” they are really talking about outsourcing. Is that correct?

        It seems to me that a lot of the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing is due more to excessive regulation on the part of the federal government than it is because of the wage differential between U.S. and Chinese wages, which is continually decreasing. Ross Perot made a big stink about outsourcing to Mexico as the reason for his opposition to NAFTA. What he did not realize at the time was that it was true that the average U.S. blue collar worker made 4 times what the average Mexican did, but that he was at least 4 times more productive. In addition, Mexico is a very corrupt place, with a different culture to boot. This is why relatively few jobs got outsourced to Mexico.

        China is somewhat different. They are a corrupt place as well, but different from Mexico. However, their culture is even more alien from Anglo American culture than Mexican culture, plus the time difference to boot. Chinese wages have increased and continue to do so. This is why the outsourcing has slowed in recent years. Outsourcing is a pain in the ass (ask any manager and he will tell you).

        I would like to see the opponents of outsourcing address more often the considerable government regulation involved in any manufacturing operation as a driver for that outsourcing. They generally do not.

    • fnn says:

      “In any case, immigration, particularly from Latin American societies, is declining mainly due to long term demographic trends.”

      The key concept here is “demographic momentum.”

      • fnn says:


        Even despite Mexico’s high emigration rate, the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest official estimate is that the population in Mexico will grow from 106 million today to 148 million in 2050. That’s an increment of another 42 million … not to mention the tens of millions of extra Mexicans who will be living in our country at mid-century if the current non-enforcement of the laws continues.

        Why is there such a difference between the rosy picture of Mexican population growth that Dowd paints using dabs of data and the alarming picture projected by our Census Bureau? Because Dowd is conveniently ignoring what demographers call “population momentum.” “A population will typically grow for 50-60 years after reaching replacement level fertility,” and Mexico hasn’t even reached that birthrate yet.

        “Population momentum” is a little complicated to explain, but try thinking of it from a grandparent’s perspective. Imagine two neighbors comparing notes on who has more grandchildren. The one who lives on the north side of the street says, “My children each have two children in their families.”

        The neighbor who lives on the south side of the street replies, “So do mine.”

        The northern neighbor says, “Then you must have four grandchildren, just like me.”

        The southern neighbor laughs, “No, I have eight grandchildren! See, you only had two children, so you have four grandchildren. But I had four children, so I have eight grandchildren.”

        (No doubt he would be too discreet to point out this means his less fecund neighbor is subsidizing his progeny via taxes.)

        In America, the white total fertility rate (babies per woman lifetime) dropped below the replacement rate of 2.1 by 1972, over three decades ago, so the white population has almost stabilized by now. In Mexico, however, the total fertility rate was 6.82 in 1970, 5.30 in 1980 and 3.61 in 1990, so there are a whole lot of Mexican women between ages 15 and 35 who are still having children. Even if they only have the replacement rate each, the total Mexican population will continue to rise for decades.


        In the United States in 2003, the official total fertility rate (projected babies per lifetime) of Hispanic women was 2.8, up from 2.7 in 2002. That’s higher than in Mexico. (By the way, 45% of births to Hispanic women in America were illegitimate.)

        The 2003 total fertility rate for women of specifically Mexican descent in the U.S. hasn’t been released yet, but it typically runs a little higher than the overall Hispanic rate. It’s probably almost 3.0.

        According to the federal government’s National Vital Statistics Report:

        “In 2003 only the total fertility rate (“TFR”) for Hispanic woman exceeded the level of ”replacement” (2,100 births per 1,000 women), the rate at which a given generation can exactly replace itself. The TFRs for the remaining groups (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, AIAN, and API women) were below replacement.”


    • fnn says:

      The left is hegemonic to the extent that they have no opposition worthy of the name. You have to locate which regulations they are willing to sacrifice. Please prepare a list.

      Here’s some help from the French New Right on “globalization.”:


      In the course of the 1970s, the Fordist era began to wither away. The explosion of the Bretton Woods monetary system, which in 1971 had put a seal on the fixed-rate system, the oil shock of 1973 and 1979, the stagflation, the debt crisis in the Southern hemisphere in 1982, the collapse of the Soviet system, the economic and financial globalization—all this led to the disconnection of the interest of the middle class from those of capital. Things changed profoundly when state interventions, which once played an important role in the establishment of national markets (i.e. when capitalism was still anchored at a national level), turned out to be incompatible with the internationalization of the markets, all of which was carried out within the context of globalization. A new brand of totally deterritorialized capitalism took the upper hand, with its major driving force being the emergence of large international firms and financial markets, spearheaded by the new American hegemony. This resulted in a considerable expansion of international trade whose rapid growth rate surpassed the growth of national wealth. What one witnessed was the end of social democratic consensus which used to be a trade mark of the immediate post-war period—a consensus that became increasingly irrelevant as about the same time the Soviet Union had disappeared.

      It is from that time on that the market has attempted to resolve the economy of global society by means of a rapid liberalization of the international flows of goods and capital. From now on, as was very well explained by Bernard Conte, growth was no longer self-centered and the surpluses were no longer automatically redistributed. “Free trade allows the flooding of the markets with low-priced commodities that stand in the competition with domestic commodities, thereby showing their own lack of “competitiveness.” Consequently, in order to stay competitive, one has to lower the costs of production, both directly and indirectly. This approach entails the reduction of real wages, benefits, and, generally speaking, “clientelist” matters (corporate expenditures usually associated with corruption), as well as the reduction of expenses related to the welfare state. Under the guise of competition—profit must be boosted. In order to achieve this, it is essential to adjust national, economic and social structures to the rules of “laissez-faire,” “laissez-passer,” albeit extended, this time around, to the entire planet. As there are too many poor people amidst the population, with the rich being exempted, it is the middle class that must bear the brunt of the adjustments. Due to its unjustified existence—the fact that, in other places around the world ,the jobs of the middle-class people can be performed at lower costs—the middle class thus becomes the “enemy” of financial capitalism. Capitalism has rejected the compromise previously made and moved on to the “euthanizing of the parasitic middle class.” [2]


      Being the transmission belt of new ferocity, this third type of capitalism, often dubbed “turbo capitalism” or “neoliberal capitalism” in the functioning of economy, sanctifies the crucial role of financial markets. Essentially, this is what financial capitalism is all about. Since the early 1980s, financial transactions have brought in more assets than the capital once invested in the manufacturing of goods. The purchase and the sale of fictitious capital on the stock markets bring in more than the value added of the productive real capital. For example, prior to the 2008 crisis, out of 3200 billion dollars traded on a single day, less than 3 percent corresponded to actual goods and services. This may give an idea as to how disconnected the speculative economy has become from the real economy. The liberal justification for this phenomenon is that financial markets must be the sole mechanisms in the efficient process of capital allocation; hence it is important not to impede, let alone regulate their operations.


      • fnn says:

        Moldbug on another side of globalism:


        …However, I think serious discussions began on both sides when CFR personnel began appearing on television news programs with the person’s name and the simple title, “Council on Foreign Relations” beneath. Personally, I keep tabs on the world conspiracy by reading Foreign Affairs every month. At $32 a year (two years for $60)you may peer directly into the core of the Progressive-Universalist nervous system, and monitor the most intimate and therfore banal goings on there. Wells was right – the conspiracy is totally open. I mean really – what are you going to do about it? FA is evil at its wonkiest: how best to achieve a federated world state without sexism or racism, managed by transnational NGOs of zero accountability? The rest of it is even more trivial: now that we have the levers of power, what settings are best? The siesta-inducing cover story this month is concerned that globalization’s benefits are insufficiently distributed, which any honest economist (not that there are any living) could have told you would be the case. The apparatchik’s solution: a New Deal for Globalism! Well, that can’t go wrong. Once the UN is granted direct power to tax, all of the successes that the US is currently enjoying from the Income Tax, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Movement, et. al. can be expanded to encircle the globe. The rough beast come round to Bethlehem at last!…

        If that guy ever came back, I hope I’ve been of help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s