Why do they struggle so much with the civ-nst Vs Ethnat question. It's not a difficult one!
Here is a very simple and obvious answer:
The emergence of our ethnocentrism naturally stems from a shared racial identity, though people of other ethnic backgrounds can certainly nest themselves within this ethnocentric circle or sympathize with it. While it may not be strictly rational to favor those of your own ethnic group, it is not irrational to embrace a group's ethnocentrism once it exists—as it inevitably will, given it is human nature—because it provides protection against the ethnocentrism of others. This does not exclude non-hostile minorities; rather, it recognizes that identity and ethnocentrism are strongest within a majority White British population, defined here as those who self-identify as such and share common ethnic interests.
And when you will inevitably be asked what a white British person is:
When defining what constitutes a "White British" person, the criteria rests primarily on self-identification rather than arguments for genetic purity. The goal is not a biological absolute, but the maintenance of a nation that does not forego its ethnic interests, thereby avoiding vulnerability to outside groups seeking to prioritize their own agendas.
While factors like cultural familiarity and historical continuity serve as important addendums to this identity, they are often secondary (and are relied upon too much by right wing politicians and thought leaders too scared to mention race). Relying too heavily on these nuances can leave an argument vulnerable to "nitpick-style" questioning that seeks to deconstruct the group's legitimacy. By focusing on the simple, pragmatic basis of avoiding tribal and ethnic conflict, the position becomes much harder to argue against. This approach recognizes that without a cohesive majority identity, a society effectively invites the very discord and sectarianism it seeks to avoid
'... as yesterday’s article sets out, the British Parliamentary system is well set up for somebody to adopt the clothes of centrism until they are in power before implementing an invisible revolution.'
Completely but who in his right mind thinks that Nigel is Tony II? The problem that your analysis overlooks is that Tony I was able to do what he did because he and his regime had elite permission and support. Anyone trying to undo Tony I would face the wrath of the elite rather than their assistance.
Well Farage managed to, with the help of many people, mainstream the Brexit position, which was so fringe in the 90s that the security services infiltrated it. He appears to be a teenage Powellite on the verge of winning power, seems to mirror Blair being a Trotskyist at University. He’s clearly talented at politics; whatever else you might think.
The elite thought they could win the brexit referendum as they had done the Scottish independence referendum.
The elite has been radicalised by brexit. Their reaction has been to flood the field with alien combatants and their proxies, as it has been to Trump's first term.
The elite isn't planning on making the same mistake twice. It's planning on neutralising us.
Just to be clear, Farage is the next step in eliminating the uniparty but he's not the messiah. The elite isn't ready for the second coming. Lowe isn't the messiah either but he too will be a step when his time eventually comes. You will know the messiah is here when the elite starts openly killing the indigenous en mass at the hands alien in response.
Another highly informative article. Whilst reading about de-statting is unpleasant, it is also good to hear about it in that it gives further context behind the 1958 Notting Hill Race Riots. What could be interesting would be if someone was to try and find the decreasing number of Britons who used to inhabit areas that are now predominantly black and to interview them about the period in which the blacks moved in. There are likely some people still alive who can remember the process of ethnic cleansing, and it would be good to get the stories from across Britain to build a national picture of the problem. The crown is lying the gutter for anyone who wishes to rewrite the history of the post-War British Far Right by researching further de-statting, evidence of rape gangs in the 50's, and mapping these phenomena with membership and activity of the National Front and other organisations.
Informative, but as so often a tad 'rantergun' (quite possibly intentional I accept)
That's passion Andrew. And for that I cannot apologise.
Why do they struggle so much with the civ-nst Vs Ethnat question. It's not a difficult one!
Here is a very simple and obvious answer:
The emergence of our ethnocentrism naturally stems from a shared racial identity, though people of other ethnic backgrounds can certainly nest themselves within this ethnocentric circle or sympathize with it. While it may not be strictly rational to favor those of your own ethnic group, it is not irrational to embrace a group's ethnocentrism once it exists—as it inevitably will, given it is human nature—because it provides protection against the ethnocentrism of others. This does not exclude non-hostile minorities; rather, it recognizes that identity and ethnocentrism are strongest within a majority White British population, defined here as those who self-identify as such and share common ethnic interests.
And when you will inevitably be asked what a white British person is:
When defining what constitutes a "White British" person, the criteria rests primarily on self-identification rather than arguments for genetic purity. The goal is not a biological absolute, but the maintenance of a nation that does not forego its ethnic interests, thereby avoiding vulnerability to outside groups seeking to prioritize their own agendas.
While factors like cultural familiarity and historical continuity serve as important addendums to this identity, they are often secondary (and are relied upon too much by right wing politicians and thought leaders too scared to mention race). Relying too heavily on these nuances can leave an argument vulnerable to "nitpick-style" questioning that seeks to deconstruct the group's legitimacy. By focusing on the simple, pragmatic basis of avoiding tribal and ethnic conflict, the position becomes much harder to argue against. This approach recognizes that without a cohesive majority identity, a society effectively invites the very discord and sectarianism it seeks to avoid
'... as yesterday’s article sets out, the British Parliamentary system is well set up for somebody to adopt the clothes of centrism until they are in power before implementing an invisible revolution.'
Completely but who in his right mind thinks that Nigel is Tony II? The problem that your analysis overlooks is that Tony I was able to do what he did because he and his regime had elite permission and support. Anyone trying to undo Tony I would face the wrath of the elite rather than their assistance.
Well Farage managed to, with the help of many people, mainstream the Brexit position, which was so fringe in the 90s that the security services infiltrated it. He appears to be a teenage Powellite on the verge of winning power, seems to mirror Blair being a Trotskyist at University. He’s clearly talented at politics; whatever else you might think.
The elite thought they could win the brexit referendum as they had done the Scottish independence referendum.
The elite has been radicalised by brexit. Their reaction has been to flood the field with alien combatants and their proxies, as it has been to Trump's first term.
The elite isn't planning on making the same mistake twice. It's planning on neutralising us.
Just to be clear, Farage is the next step in eliminating the uniparty but he's not the messiah. The elite isn't ready for the second coming. Lowe isn't the messiah either but he too will be a step when his time eventually comes. You will know the messiah is here when the elite starts openly killing the indigenous en mass at the hands alien in response.
Another highly informative article. Whilst reading about de-statting is unpleasant, it is also good to hear about it in that it gives further context behind the 1958 Notting Hill Race Riots. What could be interesting would be if someone was to try and find the decreasing number of Britons who used to inhabit areas that are now predominantly black and to interview them about the period in which the blacks moved in. There are likely some people still alive who can remember the process of ethnic cleansing, and it would be good to get the stories from across Britain to build a national picture of the problem. The crown is lying the gutter for anyone who wishes to rewrite the history of the post-War British Far Right by researching further de-statting, evidence of rape gangs in the 50's, and mapping these phenomena with membership and activity of the National Front and other organisations.
LOL, BAPNigger
I scribed after reading your last article which was an excellent and in depth analysis of the political situation on the right.