The left, seeking to undermine the capitalist state at every point turned to anything or anyone that weakened it. Historically this was immigrants (the strategy was recent explicitly conceded in England by the left) or gays (used as stalking horses for the dominant discourse of Judeo-Christian ethic).

Now, having accomplished this to a great degree and sufficiently undermined capitalism the economic situation is perfect for the switch to Fascism.

Reason two now kicks in. Without a growing pie and mutually beneficial exchange possible, we’re faced instead with a fixed pie for which one must fight at the expense of the other fellow. Welcome to the new zero-sum world. Vaguely sensing that they have been had, the electorate finds itself in the position of ether having to acquiesce to its own extinction or to a sub-human perpetual slavery; it naturally and predictably, chooses instead to fight for its own survival. Now at least there are some 20% of the English population who indicate willingness to at this point anyway. This is not a good sign. It is a low survival instinct to which they turn brought about by the death of their more generous and higher original ideology. Capitalism it seems is not a plant that grows wild. It requires a higher form of civilization that we currently admit.

This is the socio-economic logic implicit in the Socialist model, for once their blatantly false premise of perpetual and apparently magical growth is shown for what it is – a vampirism only made possible through the prodigious production of Capitalism – that the true cost of turning Peter into a slave for Paul strikes home.

This is the true evil of Socialism and the ugly face behind the envy that motivates it. Enjoy . . .

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/farewell-freedomit-was-nice-knowing-you.html

“By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.” — didn’t the Nazis (the inspiration for the BNP) cull the slaves and jews? If the British elite wishes to cull Brits, whence the objection to culling immigrants?

“The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children.” — this obsession with women’s uteruses is something Hitler (more babies) and Mao (fewer babies) shared. If the British elite wishes to control reproduction, then the only argument is when, how, and who.

I don’t have any quick quotes on the anti-semitism of the British elite, but the elite’s anti-semitism is certainly widespread and popular.

The sewer of ideas from which the BNP draws its sustenance is shared among the self-proclaimed British elite. Based on their ideas (not class), the BNP is just another usual British party of the elite. Why shouldn’t they attract voters?

Excellent point, to go with an excellent post by Whiskey.

It does appear sometimes that feminism was never intended to truly benefit women? Instead, it appears that it’s intent was to cause an adversarial relationship between Western men and Western women. I was reading about the surge of rape against Northern European women by Muslims. In the article a European feminist actually suggested that Dutch women were somewhat to blame for being “insensitive” to Muslim culture (Muslim men are unable to control themselves due to the provocative nature of Western women’s dress). This is 100% contrary to feminist ideology.

It almost appears that western men are first being tore down (by anti-male socialization in media, education, and popular culture), then, being told that they need to be more feminine (the ones can’t be feminized are encouraged to join the military to fight wars against Islamofascists), and last, being replaced by Muslim or other non-Western men whose culture are “celebrated” in the media, educational system, and popular culture.

This fits my earlier post which suggested that the elites prefer a mixed population with a plastic popular culture, to one with a homogeneous population and a traditional culture. Every time you see a “Diversity is Strength” poster in a school, hospital, or corporation, this should probably be looked at as demographic war propaganda?

The America of the years before the 70’s was an almost uniformly white and English speaking country.

But the identification as “white” was relatively weak in the country outside the Deep South. Most people identified with their European ethnic origin or religion before they identified as white. Certainly, people didn’t think of themselves as “white” in the same manner that people in France think of themselves French. Tellingly, in the Deep South there was strong identification as “white” and there things were not pretty.

And it had a government far smaller in scope and intrusiveness then today

Depends on where you were. In the urban cores, corrupt political machines dominated by mobbed up unions micromanaged people’s live to a shocking degree. The machines determined whether a big chunk of the population had jobs, where they lived,how they got city services and even if they got police protection. In the deep South, you a racial-socialist state that micromanaged people’s lives based on race. The laws dictated not only where people could live, what curfews they had to follow, where they were educated and got medical but also what jobs they could hold.

The pre-1960’s pattern was that local governments in parts of the country were very invasive and controlling while the Federal government was relatively weak save in times of war. We have seen greater centralization of power at the Federal level with a trade off in a weakening of local tyrannies. If you lived under one of the local tyrannies, your freedom increased after the 60s. If you lived in an area with good local government, the increase in Federal power reduced your freedom.

Do you see the growth of government and its move towards authoritarianism as a function of diversity? If yes, why?

Again, the historical record contradicts you. The America of the years before the 70’s was an almost uniformly white and English speaking country. And it had a government far smaller in scope and intrusiveness then today. As it has become more “diverse” in racial and ethnic terms, the size of government has exploded, amd its authoritarian nature has become sharply accented.

According to liberalism, there are not supposed to BE “subpopulations”. Different peoples are supposed to govern themselves.

And liberalism expicitly appealed to group identity. The European nationalist movements of the 19th cenury were all liberal movements. The revolutions of 1848 were liberal revolutions with the explicit goal of breaking up multinational empires and creating autonomous homelands for people of different race and ethnicity. The creation of the specifcally Jewish state of Israel was a more recent example of the same thing. So was the forced expulsion of Germans from other parts of Europe back to Germany in the aftermath of WWII.

So, for that matter, was the US Revolution. You’re engaging in some historical revsionism here and adapting chunks of the lefts agenda. Left-libertarianism can only get us to the lefts prefered destination.

Modern left-liberal Britain is already an authoritarian state, so this concern of yours that it might become one seems a little peculiar.

And the analogy between the BNP and the Nazis is just silly. I don’t think that Poland need start bolstering its defences if the BNP somehow take power, and I doubt if you think that either.

Are you serious, or is this some sort of bad joke? I suggest you spend a little time getting familiar with the history of liberalism. Including that of the Founders, who had pretty explicit ideas on whether citizenshp was tied to membership in a racial or ethnic group. I’ll give you the Cliff Notes version – they thought it was.

it’s just that is the type of authoritarian shift were talking about in Europe

Europe is already an authoritarian state, as are most of its constitutent parts. You might care to investigate the state of freedom of speech in Britain these days. The goods news is that you’ll no longer have to worry about the BNP. The bad news is that its because what you fear is already here. Assuming what you fear is actually authoritarianism. Your comments leave me slightly skeptical on that score.

I respectably disagree. I find it amazing that German, French, British, Swiss, and even Eastern European Nationalists are aligning and attending conferences together. This indicates to me that Europeans are staring to see themselves as “white” more and more and putting Nationalist differences to the side.

“A working class white guy in the Bronx and working class white guy in rural Texas don’t share the same degree of mutual identification as do any two working class white guys in Europe” (S. Love)

I would argue that the WWAMC of America share MORE, than say a white from Italy and a white from Germany. However, as I said above this seems to be changing in Europe. As far as the US and the WWAMC goes, look at the Minutemen project. Here we saw WWAMC ex military and police from all over the country forming a somewhat paramilitary nationalist organization. You’re correct regarding the Bronx and Texas as being very different, however, Upstate NY (West of the Hudson river especially rural NY) IMO is more Texas-like then NY City is any day. What we call “Middle America” (the Hudson river to California) has the potential to form its own Nation State (separate from the Boswash corridor).

“I doubt America is in as much danger of a sudden shift to authoritarianism as is Europe because being “white” in America does not have the same bond as does the ethnic-nationalism of Europe.” (S. Love)

The authoritarianism that I see as being likely is not from the WWAMC, instead, I see the elites becoming fearful of the WWAMC and declaring a “War on Hate” which would replace the increasingly difficult to manage “War of Terror.”

“I don’t think immigration is an elitist conspiracy. If nothing else, I don’t think we have any elites who are organized and disciplined enough to carry out a conspiracy of that magnitude.” (S. Love)

OK, but you will admit that the elites like their positions in life and will do what they can to remain in power? Right? This is standard Poli Sci 101 stuff. I realize my comments about bringing immigrants to white geographic areas is unorthodox, but this method of breaking up homogeneous areas was effective in the past in the USSR and is today in China. In China the Han fear Tibetan Nationalism and have been transferring Han there for the last 50 years. The former USSR literally split up whole ethnic groups in the attempt of decreasing their geographic power. There’s an excellent book titled “The Geography of Ethnic Violence” (Toft) which lays out which type of spatial configurations tend to result in separatist movements with the highest probability. The book indicates that ethnic groups are most “dangerous” to the status quo when they have a geographic core in which to organize and feel safe. In order to prevent any “dangerous activity” from the WWAMC (as the WWAMC becomes more and more unhappy with the status quo) in the form of a separatist movement, the best strategy would be to dilute areas which are “too white.”

This is questionable. In his essay The Doctrine of Fascism (probably ghost-written), Mussolini is quite clear that fascism is more collectivist than (Marxian) socialism exactly because fascism does not recognize any divisions within the State. If Mussolini was not a fascist, then who is?

Sure, Hitler did not consider non-Aryans to be equally entitled, but then, he never considered them to be part of the nation: he never considered them to be entitled at all. And anyway, Hitler was a nazi, not a prototypical fascist.

In fact I’ll expand on my earlier statement
and assert that not only was private property not recognized as a legal right in
Nazi Germany, but that according to the nazis everything was owned by the state
and any item a person nominally had as a possession was legally on loan from the
state and the responsibility of that person to take care of and use properly.
Thus under nazi law, a person could be prosecuted and sent to prison for not taking
care of, say, their house.

That is probably a fair description which is why I termed private property in Nazi Germany as notional. But to return to my original point, do you know what the attitude towards private property was in first thirty years of Taiwan? Even lacking a ideological basis, clearly the people of Taiwan did not have true property rights. If nothing else, the rulers viewed deeds acquired during the 50 years of Japanese colonial as invalid. On a more practical level, there was little to no rule of law. An individual’s ability to legally defend their right to their property depended almost entirely on the patronage of one of the oligarchs. The rights of people on the political outs got no protection from the state.

The authoritarian government of Taiwan was in no way of the same magnitude of evil as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union but they were of the same basic mold. In all cases you have a powerful elite largely unrestrained by the rule of law. Everything else was detail.

It was however, this very centralized authoritarianism that allowed Taiwan to survive under communist pressure, to industrialize and to eventually democratize. Authoritarian regimes can work short term in certain circumstances.

Well I have to say I have not, as yet, found a quote that demonstrates the truth of my
earlier statement,

[i]Private property was illegal in Nazi Germany.[/i]

I believe it’s out there. I certainly remember such. Unfortunately for me it’s taking
some time to track it down.

In any case, I wanted you to know that I’m making the effort. I have found a few quotes
that hint show such a law would not be incongruent.

Here’s one from Adolf Hitler:

[i]It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his
own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation;
that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of
the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the
individual… is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great
dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the
unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the
spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life
of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests
of the individual.[/i]

Here’s another from Joesph Goebbels:

[i]Fifty or a hundred years from now, National Socialism, too, will
have become a philosphic system that can be studied at the universities
for four or five semesters, just as today, theology or classical
economics are academic subjects. If at such a time, I should ask a
representative of National Socialism, “Can you tell me in a word what
you mean by National Socialism?” he would give me the same answer to
the question which I now will. It is this. The difference between
National Socialism and all previous systems, particularly the system it is
now conquering, is that its starting point is the community, not the
individual. This gives a different character to all our social ideas.
What I mean when I say war, or society, or economics, or political
philosophy, all these things suddenly appear from a different angle.
We do not see these things from the point of view of the individual,
but from that of the community. The basic principle with which we
brought the whole German people to follow us was a very simple one.
It was “The Common Interest Before Self-Interest.”[/i]

["Der Kriegals Weltanschauungskampf" (Berlin, 1944), p. 9. (from "The Nazi Years:
A Documentary History," edited by Joachim Remak.)]

And here’s another item. It’s a quote from an essay by Jean van Heijenoort,
a dutch commnunist. It was published in December 1941 in the “Fourth Internationale.”
To give some context, in this essay Jean van Heijenoort argues that Communism and
National Socialism are different things and tries to persuade other communists
not to become National Socialists. When Van Heijenoort says improvisors, this
is his word for the dutch communists that favored joining the national socialists.

From Van Heijenoort’s 1941 essay:

[i]The improvisers take private property as it is legally defined, jus utendi
et abutendi, the right to use and abuse, and they oppose this definition to
the actual situation. The divergence is so marked that they rush to conclude
that private property has been abolished.[/i]

Ok, what does that mean in context? First of all one has to know the that the
abolution of private property has long been one of the goals of most if not all
communists. Second, the Van Heijenoort’s “improvisers” have apparently come up
with a list of National Socialist goals and achievements that matched Communist
goals and achievements. And likely their argument was that given the similarties that
the Communists and the National Socialists should come to an accommodation.

But we can’t know for sure since the “improvisers” argument has been lost.

We do though see some of their argument because in Van Heijenoort’s lengthy essay
he addresses many of their points.

To put the above in different words the improvisors argued, according to Van Heijenoort,
that german capitalists have precious little control of the property they allegedly own
and that therefore it isn’t really private property anymore.

Heijenoort’s response is to argue that private property is an illusion anyway, and
so this isn’t really progress.

I frankly think that this is kind of juvenile counterargument. But that’s not the
reason I’m mentioning it. What seems significant to me is that even a hostile
party, and Van Heijenoort was definitely hostile, did not dispute that in practice
the reality of “private property” in nazi germany had become tenuous.

This doesn’t prove that private property was actually formally illegal in nazi
germany, but it doesn’t support it. In fact I’ll expand on my earlier statement
and assert that not only was private property not recognized as a legal right in
Nazi Germany, but that according to the nazis everything was owned by the state
and any item a person nominally had as a possession was legally on loan from the
state and the responsibility of that person to take care of and use properly.
Thus under nazi law, a person could be prosecuted and sent to prison for not taking
care of, say, their house.

Or so I recall.

Your problem lies in thinking that authoritarianism can only come via white people acting as a group.

No, it’s just that is the type of authoritarian shift were talking about in Europe. America’s innate diversity (racial, ethnic, regional etc) insulates it against that particular type of shift.

That’s the entire definition of the British state, indeed of all liberal states – that they exist to represent the interests of their own people, and have no legitimacy when they fail to do so.

Except the definition of “people” in a liberal state is not necessarily attached to a specific ethnic or racial group. It certainly isn’t in America. The “people” should be all human beings lawfully within a state’s domain, not just a particular group that’s lived there the longest. The real danger of fascism lays in its appeal based on group identity and the idea that certain subpopulations are more entitled to protection and benefits of the state than other subpopulations.

It’s not a conspiracy, insofar as there is nothing remotely secret about it. But the open borders movement certainly exists and is vastly better funded and organized than its opposition. It even controls “both” of our parties.