Search This Blog

Monday, 10 January 2011

Changing Attitudes – Changing Races through Neo-Marxists and Fruedians


Changing Attitudes – Changing Races PDF Print E-mail
Written by Mister Fox   
  January 2011
From the early 1950s a new intellectual orthodoxy was being introduced through the culture. and it was dominated by the Neo-Marxists and Fruedians in the US. Dissenters were pathalogised as paranoid or racists with connotations of mental illness. Thus began a move to dehumanise “Whites” so that no evil done to us is wrong, and there are many evils being done to us. (1)
The influential academic books beginning in the early 1950s attributed the blame for everyone not combining as a whole to us and begun their research from that prejudice. They assumed that people like me are prejudiced, yet they are not; people like me they thought jump to conclusions, but they do not; our way of thinking has no evidence, their's was reason; we were frightened of change, they were ushering it in.
They think that in life you get to know people and find that some will be alright, some will not. They think we are terribly unjust and that if we were tolerant we should get to know the “other”and get on with them which we do in our personal lives. However, in heavily mixed areas this line of reasoning is not valid and only applies in limited circumstances because the “other” stick with their own kind.
We are supposed to pretend that the “other” are not different, but their different features betoken a different heritage; a different heritage betokens a different culture; and a different culture betokens a different mental furniture. Blacks know they are descended from slaves and this informs their outlook, their behaviour, their attitudes towards us. The wise and experienced judge people on their appearance,body language and how they are looking at you and deal with them accordingly.
They addressed "human kind" as two different species: wicked racist Whites and the saintly “other”, bearers of virtue and diligence. Attributing virtue to the “other”excuses our rulers fawning on them; Pretending the “other” are harmless makes people feel safe.
In his introduction to the 1998 reprint of the 1948 study Negroes in Britain by Kenneth Little, Leonard Bloom declared:” Little wrote “... they are rejected by the host population and that causes ambivalence about the self, with personal and social maladjustment.”. There from the beginning was the bias against the host population (Whites) for harming the “other”. This now being done to us. (2)
There is a lot of peculiar sexual behaviour now which relates to my first point as well as the second. Our manners are degraded and we are becoming lawless. We have to value ourselves. Its not so much feeling good about ourselves as having a sense of responsibility for what we have inherited. We see the symptoms that are around us in public social life in conquered peoples. Native Indians and Aborigines went to pieces. We are becoming maladjusted.
The Picture Post of 2nd July 1949 popularised this attack on our communal integrity in an article:”Is there a British Colour Bar?” The titular rhetorical question was answered with a simile from a popular film:” Invisible, but like Wells' Invisible Man it is hard and real to the touch … and it is when you get lower down the scale you find that it hits the hardest Yet despite the insignificant proportion of people from overseas, prejudice and discrimination existed.” The post thought this was because of ignorance.
The title of “Colour Prejudice in Britain” by Anthony Richmond proclaims the author's prejudices and “Under Siege”, with an introduction by John Pilger, castigates us as wicked racists for trying to conserve our communal integrity. These malicious academics were denying us our need to have territory.
Changing our attitude of looking down on other racial groups has caused the opposite and now Muslims look down on our women as recent exposes In The Times and The Mail of Muslims gang raping young White girls show: ” Police and social services have fuelled a “culture of silence” which has “allowed hundreds of young white girls to be exploited by Asian men for sex … prosecutions for grooming young White girls aged between 11 and 16 were used by “men of Pakistani heritage.” The police and social workers have been aiding and abetting Muslims to rape young White girls.
In 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.
Experts were quoted as saying that the statistics “represent a mere fraction of a tidal wave of offending” in counties across the Midlands and the north of England which has been going on for more than a decade.
Chief Inspector Alan Edwards of West Mercia police was said: White “girls are being passed around and used as meat …. stop this type of crime you need to start everyone talking about it but everyone's been too scared to address the ethnicity factor … No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication." In Wrexham raping young Whites is carried out by by Iraqis.
Parents must gather their courage and teach their children to avoid people from ethnic groups to save their children. It is state education that sets the children up for this by constantly praising ethnics. (3)
This will get much worse as the evil elites import ever more Muslims. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, thus tacitly accepting our replacement. Around 8 years ago The Birmingham Post quoted a former senior Central TV official as saying we must prepare people for Muslims to become the majority. In a radio interview Jans Orbeck former Swedish PM admitted Muslims would take over.
It’s when one enters Africa and Asia in Britain that one walks into the academics dream - “race replacement”. One gets a clear view of the future as Enoch and Chris Pary saw it. (4)
Some areas are 25 to 30% vibrant though it’s much more in some areas. They are changing our territory to suit their cultural prejudices. Within a few yards on Spittal Hill in Sheffield there are two shops named after Malcolm X! It is this ceding of territory to the colonialists that demonstrates to them the weakness and effeteness of our rulers. Alternating governments are but aspects of one elite and have been acting illegally under the UN Genocide Act which nullifies any obligation to maintain the multi-racial state.

Trainee teacher are taught that only whites are racist and White children labelled as “racists” as young as five. The thing that really is socially constructed in Britain today is the school subject of history. A fifteen-year old correspondent had this to say about state education :
"In Year 3 we learnt about the Great Fire of London and Henry the 8th with his array of wives. Besides, it was nothing serious as you're only 8 years olds in Year 3. Throughout my time in secondary school I've heard many the history teacher denounce the BNP and British patriotism whilst proclaiming that "communism works in small communities".
Of course it's not on the syllabus, but the teachers are left unburdened to make their wild remarks which go unchallenged - that's where most of the anti-British sentiment comes from. Apart from that, none of the GCSE exams in the course I'm taking are anything to do with Britain, we look at America mostly, with a slight twinge of the Russian Revolution and Hitler's rise to power, which, as you can imagine, portrays Trotsky and Lenin as saviours come to liberate their country from the boundless tyranny of Tsar Nicholas II (it's all Stalin fault apparently, without him we'd be living in a one-world stateless utopia by now!), whilst illustrating Hitler as some sort of Nationalist lunatic blaming the immigrants for all of Germany's woes, foaming from the mouth as he personally beheads and thereafters eats Jewish children for fun."

The consistent underlying theme is to render “Whites” a non-people with this ideological interpretation presented as fact: “Vikings come from a similar racial background, but the Britons of the period had already been interbreeding with Europeans, Moors and probably a good few Arabs, so the Vikings, on their separate branch of development would have had a bit of spice to add to the genetic mix.”

So what? What is that supposed to suggest that it is alright to dispossess us now? I use no scientific supports for my views. My arguments are based on the common human nature - of all peoples, throughout all time: the need to belong to a people have territory to call one's own and the instinct to put their own people first.
It is a natural part of human being and arises from emotion. This has been broken down by elites who are against their own people. A quick example of outside groups being given priority over the indegenous people, is the recent decision to give gypsies preferential service for unemployment benefits. Many, like students, go along with the hegemonic ideology and don't questioned it.

What pupils and students are programmed to do is oppose new British-revivalist thinking with the standard orthodox ideology they are taught. People imbibe it without being aware and use it to stop new ideas. Whether they know it or not they are protecting the "hegemonic" elites from criticism and demonstrations.
You can see the ideology is out of kilter with reality by going round places like Brixton or Bradford but these programmed people believe what they are told by the elites through education and the media. This new patriotic thinking requires independence of mind, thinking for oneself and collating the evidence from field study and that is scary.

Ideology is a political system of abstractions which lead to a goal(utopia) and have an enemy who are held to the cause of the problems that the ideologues want to solve. to the Nazis it was jews, to multi-racialists it is us Whites.
If, for example, a White employer wanted to sack a recalcitrant "ethnic" worker that employes could be prosecuted and fined for "racism". Is that is building equality?

I make no scientific claims as they just start a debate not answer the question. We have beliefs to guide us on conserving our homogeneity and our ethnicity - shared culture, religion and ancestors. I believe we have a duty to conserve what we inherit from our ancestors and a responsibility to pass it on to our descents. At present our children are being dispossessed and disinherited and that is morally evil.
The basis on which elites take large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that those who benefit are people like us. When society becomes diverse, lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes imoral to sustain the universal welfare state, as it loses its legitimacy. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are not like me and do not belong here by ancestral prescription and inherited shared values? Progressives want diversity but they undermine the moral consensus on which sustains a welfare state.
This is not some innocent move to multi-racial heaven on earth but a permanent scapegoating of Whites and we have to defend ourselves. Even if we were once immigrants that does not mean we should sit back and allow new immigrants to push us out. The Anglo Saxon thnic-cleansing of Celts is a historical lesson on what the elites are inflicting on our children. To prevent us saving our people we are demonised as rascists. That is not socially constructing reality but persecuting innocent people in the homeland they have emotionally bonded with over 1500 years.
To an extent "Reality" is determined by ruling elites but when they directly try to change inbuilt human nature we get the evil genocides as with Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc.

We must ask ourselves with whom do I belong? With whom do I share mutual obligations? Our affinities extend out from our families and communities, to the nation, Europe then the Anglosphere but not beyond. That view is opposed to the orthodox universalist one which sees us as obligated to all human beings and misappropriates tax payers money for their fellow elites in the third-world. We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We also have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.

Our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. Men and women are distinctive sexual beings within their inherited collective identity. We belong to our kin, above strangers, and this affects the type of community we create.

The family, community and nation, are parts of a natural, organic state as opposed to an artificial one based on planning. The modern world is dominated by artificial empires, Global corporations and bureaucracies, which treat human beings as abstract entities. However, tribalism is re-emerging and the future belongs to these human scale structures which develop over time, not instant and artificial creations. Each man and woman are part of a continuity. The individual dies, but descendents live on.

We must keep our land because we are emotionally bonded with it and it contains the remains of many of our ancestors. That makes it sacred to us, but our nation is our people and one of the earliest definitions of a nation, as defined by the Romans who called the various Germanic travelling tribes "nations" - is that a nation is a people that can move from place to place and still be who they are. The Goths lived in north Africa at one time - but they were still the integral Germanic nation.

We need to re-sacrifice our territory by burying our people in our soil as it strengthens our emotional bonds with our territory. There was a suburb article “How can we honour the dead?” by Dr.John Casey in the third edition of The Salisbury Review in 1983.

We have to be public spirited and do things for our group. Its alright to object to ethnics getting preferential treatment in, say, employment as under Harman's discriminatory Equalities Act, but we have to go beyond moaning and break ground, become the driving force behind a new and powerful movement on the frontline. People don't vote for moaners but the confident with a vision of a better future for their people. It is natural to follow the stronger more dominant force and that is why we need to project confidence in ourselves and what we have to offer.

We have to recover aspects of our past and reconstitute ourselves: what traditions to be continued, what rejected; which to re-link to, what to create.

We are morally obliged to put our people first, as we do with our families, even when foreigners are more in need of our help. Supporting outsiders against our own people is morally wrong.