In the UK, the so-called far-right‘s stance on immigration is said to be driven by “the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.” According to the influential global think tank the Institute for Strategic Studies (ISD):
Much though for food there, with important ingredients on the menu, some infused with poison.
There certainly is a replacement programme to my eyes over world. Disempowered people is tactic precisely because they are disempowered & must resort to criminal activities to flower.
In UK you encourage rapist, murderer pimps from eastern Europe war zones, & wonder why communities turn to shit: why so much crack everywhere, where have ducks on the pond gone, why so many new babies from pregnant wives of immigrants then used in abuse networks= fucking heck sad & obviousness.
Buckminster Fuller genius inventor & lovely mind mention Technocracy take over FOR WORLD WAR 1 in fascinating work = Spaceship Earth, where he says power shifted from CABAL (HORSE breeders) to Scientists. Partly correct but not really overall because the Scientists were under power of CABAL still, but point taken, horse power replaced by machine power.
Great to see much maligned comedy legend Bernard Manning busy posing as Peter Sutherland, he looks so happy now he has expense account for luncheons.
Too many important ingredients in Mr Davis' essay to digest in reply without writing return essay, however some notes= economists = bullshit merchants as no science exists & until recently 'people' were not factored into equations, so almost all economists = frauds among fraudsters. Economy is in constant real decline, so who is being smart except thieves there?
''there is a deliberate plan to undermine European white society by a campaign of mass immigration, integration and miscegenation conducted by sinister (and often Jewish) elites.'' is terminal truth, not hard to prove & ingrained in Hixos belief /dogma/ writings . Sad to swallow but there if look with clear eyes & open mouth.
''.. will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.'' Is hilarious yet sad.
People are now less individual than ever in so many views.
I sit on bus in Tooting with 99% dark skinned youth who all talk & act the same like clones, their white(ish) mates do the same. just platitudes & crippled by conformity.
I sit in cafe with opinionated students & it is like lobotomy of rabbits all waiting to be put into mincer of gullibility & suicidal reasonableness. I work among reggae peoples & hairdressing empire builders. Well meaning whiteys behave full of misplaced guilt over unknown ancestors, while dark skinned folk work hard to become new slave masters, seeing exploitation in past not as vengeance horror but INSPIRATION !
''the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics.'' is very very furious & busy among elites upon public despite being pseudo. While pandemics , nuclear threat etc should also be labeled pseudo, as they are imaginary construct for fear factory.
''energy certificates'' will be key to new phase of latest industrial revolution, & horror will hit if knowledge of ETHERS becomes digested by thinking people. Then technology backlash inevitable. This topic is worthy of entire books to showcase disgusting horrors ahead in IONISATION/PLASMA vampire circus.
''spontaneous natural priority'' = inverted lie= catalysts for psychopathology.
'' “replacism.'' is intrinsic with HYPER REALITY, the Spectacle replace real-life with simulation, simulacrum & spectacle= fact only ignored by blind & soul-dead.
''The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.”'' = absolute truth. It is not RACIST , it is cultural. Almost no real person cares about skin colour in these times, all colours are lovely, hower cultures are not all compatible easily, often even diametrically opposed, so culture clash is main dynamic of resentment all over now. It is mediated by MEDIA which de-cultures & commodifies instead.
Last paragraph of utmost importance all should remember='This irrelevant distraction, embodied by the vacuum of party politics, leaves the global public-private partnership free to push ahead with the rollout of Technocracy while the people engage in counter-productive arguments and continually fail to recognise their real enemy: the oligarchs.'
There is no real LEFT or RIGHT politics anymore,as noted, it is bickering distractions & time vampire initiatives to keep peoples busy & and remain opinionated islands without bridges of empathy.
The technology rollout was described as a STEAMROLLER by great writer Bernard Wolfe in essential book written in 1950s called LIMBO '90. Story involves pacifist mania in future where to prove pacifism people become actually limbless to be seen as harmless/armless, but technology gives them artificial limbs that were in effect dangerous weapons.
Apologies nothing funny in this & length like essay, but too serious to find jesting applicable.
Excellent retort from an outsider who -according to the warped British moral code- is permitted to offer a balanced view (which necessarily involves criticising the foreigners arrivals )
I say the evidence speaks for itself. It only took 70 years for the native population to become a minority. No accident
UK was always an invasion zone seemingly, but previous travellers become enamoured to magic of landscape & varied peoples who are mostly social, empathy driven & have to be community co-operative. Even many 'windrush' Jamaican folk considered themselves British & acted as such, retaining own lovely culture but also embracing new home without massive conflict.
Some bigger problems occurred with 'Indians' taking over local shops , but locals usually happy for longer opening hours! (I know this is very simplified, apologies not wanting to bore on!)
Then,sometime in 1990's it all become more bitter, with young JA/UK brat students crying about the past like missing limb, while long time UK folk fed guilt of their exploiter/capitalist 'leaders' by evil media & school system. All fake or constructed resentments to generate endless misery. But still it was not real colour issue, like Muslims is not real religious issue, the real horror is importing criminal minds & incompatible cultures to my eyes.
Also, topic always evaded is CROWDS & POWER & how individual can be sublimated by mass. So good minds can twist into cruelty from conformity & consensus. Magic is more predominate than ever, yet lie of rationality is glaring veneer blinding proper debate & views.
The “Superclass" definition as “people who influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis" is a new one to me but a good one, albeit it has a positive ring.
Quite why they facilitate mass immigration and people trafficking, I don't know but from their point of view there must be a few positives. It might weaken a society that you want to become subservient, it can hasten economic decline and cause civil unrest, all without having to go to war with the target. Plus the countries that have been left, lose a generation of young men. Hardly good for their population.
Moreover, the immigrants will be dependent on the state and ideal material for the little housing pods and monitored lives that human capital markets will require. If required, they could be hired to act as state police/heavies.
The fact that human trafficking pays is an added bonus. The criminals in charge of our country already move guns and drugs around the world so why not people too? The odd boat that sinks in The Channel will be publicised to generate sympathy for the victims.
A one world governance system will encourage a mash up of dependent, rootless humans to control like slaves were in the past.
With regards to the 'Superclass' thing - IGSP-Studies has a lot of info on this. Hold on, I'll get the link for you: https://www.isgp-studies.com/index
That Peter Sutherland bloke apparently ranks at number 40 on the list of Superclass members.
He definitely looks like a monster, that's for sure. And as a member of the Bilderberg steering committee I would not in the least be surprised if he was involved in the child abuse network, along with the likes of Etienne Davignon and such like. igsp studies also has a fair few articles on the network as it happens - although it makes for extremely disturbing reading, so it comes with that trigger warning. What it does show, however, is what utter inhuman monsters these creatures are - they simply do not behave or think like normal human beings. Personally that makes me believe they must have a different neuroanatomy - one which should, in fact, classify them as a separate species.
Bringing in migrants from war torn nations is intended to divide and demoralise the working class. They have the least to lose, the most to gain, the highest numbers and the greatest propensity for violence.
As such their aquiescence is paramount to rolling out an agenda.
"If we think about it, the Great Replacement, as espoused by a tiny number of far-right voices, doesn’t make much sense. By all socio-economic and political measures, it is the the migrant populations in most countries that are the poorest and and least able to exercise either social or political power. If multiculturalism is the “planned” replacement of the indigenous ethno-culture, as the fringe “far-right” claims, it has been a miserable failure."
Devil's advocate here!
Immigrant populations may exert significant overt and covert power regardless.
Indiscriminate immigration - numbers and values - can critically impact nations.
Too many and too poor can be drug sponges and crime factories.
Poor immigrants can drain welfare resources, to which they are arguably not entitled on an equal basis, especially if citizens are disadvantaged and taxpayers are forced to cover the extra costs.
Some immigrants make excessive demands on the basis of "non-discrimination" regardless, while
westerners would have absolutely no "equal rights" in the home nations of these immigrants.
For instance, trying to have western religious holidays banned on the basis of non-discrimination!
If westerners tried to have religious holidays banned in other nations, how would this go down?
Some immigrant groups presume, that they are entitled to pursue their political agendas in public in ways that are unacceptable to the majority, causing widespread offense, anger and unrest.
Rich immigrants can exert inordinate power in national economies and governments.
Rich mafia figure "immigrants" cause untold damage overt and covert.
The claim that immigrant populations are mostly poor and powerless, is questionable, as are the causes and intent of mass indiscriminate immigration worldwide
However one "dresses up" the philosophy of tyranny in all it's guises over time, it is always about centralisation of power by the rich elite who are desperate to protect and expand their riches. They sow division and hatred along the way to deflect from their ambitions.
I think your final word is the best bit here, Iain - what I mean is, any system is only as good as the quality and attitude of the people controlling it. Seems to me, for example, that Kalergi envisaged a system which would be controlled by benevolent people (and it would work too if that were the case) - there were, after all, a lot of genuine idealists in those days (and since the Enlightenment, for that matter) - most of whom would be horrified to see how their ideas have been hijacked by all those Epsilon semi-morons calling themselves 'the elite' (cf. Nietzsche - Nietzsche understood perfectly that these 'elites' are actually the lowest kind of species).
The real problem - as you intimate towards the end when you mention the effectively 'manufactured conflict' - is that most people have been misdirected, deliberately diverted into focussing on 'the system' (cf. CJ dumbass or shill you choose Hopkins), as if 'the system' has some kind of conscious agency of its own. Of course it doesn't, it's just a fucking system. That's Marxism for you, I suppose. (Another shill, was Marx - diverting attention away from the perpetrators and onto 'the system' itself).
The simple and only explanation for the horrorshow dystopia is the CHARACTER AND PSYCHOLOGY of the people who have managed to put themselves in charge of things. It doesn't matter what kind of 'system' they have - if they are evil monsters, as they undoubtedly are, then they can use any system to oppress and enslave people (and historically have done). Technocracy, feudalism, capitalism, Marxism, whatever. They don't, actually, care. In fact the existence of superficially 'competing' systems serves their purpose as a perfect diversion.
In the same way there is only one, simple final solution to all of this - and that is to 'replace' (ha ha) the evil monsters with intelligently selected benevolent people. If you want to call this 'technocracy' then fine - I would support it like a shot (so long as I was one of the chief social decision makers of course - being a genius, you know). But in the end it doesn't matter what it's called. There should, indeed, be a meritocracy - but 'merit' needs to be redefined to include the crucial element of 'benevolence'. At the moment, we have the opposite - 'malevolence'.
Malevolence - this explains everything. That's why I do get just a tad suspicious of people who either fall for all the talking points, or blame this or that 'system'.
It's the existence of evil monsters which are the problem. It's that simple. Understand that, and the solution is blindingly obvious.
(P.S. - although notice, however, how they have conditioned people to view that 'solution' as taboo...)
I can see what you're saying and perhaps you are misunderstanding me - I agree that it should be up to the majority to wake up, grow up, learn how to care about one's own species and just eliminate the fuckers.
Ultimately, it's true, it really is the fault of the majority for allowing it to happen. And I do get alternately despairing and angry about them. The rest of the time I just pity and despise them.
In general, yes, it would work. The current parliamentary system does, contrary to most people's awareness, have all the necessary features for a genuine participatory democracy - for example, as well as having a right to see your MP, every citizen does have the right to petition a sub-committee. Then there's local democracy which does have more direct and immediate accountability. Mind you, if every representative was good they wouldn't need to be petitioned, they'd just do what needs to be done anyway.
Having said that, there are a few obvious aspects to the system which I think good people would automatically tweak or change, simply out of common sense. The most obvious being public ownership of the money supply (Bank of England), and the City of London for that matter (with a decent transaction tax). In fact you wouldn't have private banks at all. And if the people/treasury needed more money then the bank would simply type the number in and give it to them.
Obviously there's a whole thesis to this - it would, I'd say, end up as a liberal socialist system. At least to start with. Once there were no bad people in the world then they wouldn't need to be told how to behave, thus you can have true anarchy. With no money.
I'm trying to restrain myself from a ramble by the way. Having some rice on the go helps, as I am mindful of the simmering.
My short answer, though, yes, with a few obvious tweaks, is yes.
That is encouraging. We musn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially as the destruction of nation states and our hard won democracy is on the agenda.
I agree completely - for 'nation states' though, I would want to see much smaller countries each of which is mainly defined by the majority of the inhabitants (say, 90-95% at least) sharing the same cultural or social group identity. That doesn't necessarily mean 'racial' identity - or any other identity for that matter.
I think there has been too much (deliberately manufactured) focus on 'national identity' as 'racial' identity, when it should rather be defined as 'cultural' identity. Yes, it is also true to a great extent that (at least with the older countries) historically there was never much distinction or difference between 'racial' and 'cultural', simply because 'a people' tended to stick to their own ancestral homelands - e.g. 'Welsh Celts', 'Cornish Celts', Scottish, Irish Celts, Anglo-Saxons (once arrived in Britannia that is) etc. Today, people readily confuse these two concepts 'racial' and 'cultural' - plus they are provided with a self-serving image of that 'national identity' by the Establishment - which does foster resentment to 'others'. Ironically the 'British' Establishment are not native - they are effectively Norman (they brought feudalism with them in order to subjugate the native population - which is still in place today of course).
So, yeah - I am a big believer in each 'cultural identity' having their own 'autonomy' or 'national sovereignty' - but I guess what we really need, in order to get people understanding this distinction is to put cultural studies on the national curriculum.
We should also note that because of normal human psychology, being social animals, people of the same social group tend to behave well to each other (partly through fear of ostracism) - thus, in a more homogenous cultural nation state you would be able to have far more liberal laws, and less of them too. And with 'self-confidence' (and lack of external or internal threat) in that identity, there would far less 'fear of the other' and thus less 'racism' or 'identity politics' or its antagonist.
Thanks for subscribing, btw - I shall have to do some more for the liberal socialism section soon (and the classified K for that matter), as I have a lot of subscribers who like that kind of thing...
Thank you for your reply. I am interested in the history of Britain so will look into your comment re. the British establishment being effectively Norman. Quite why so many of the powerful call themselves Jewish I don't know, but maybe that is just the ones we know about!
When I say the British Establishment are 'Norman' I'm not actually talking about ethnicity/race, but rather 'cultural identity'. Or even just 'identity', if we define identity in a kind of ideological, or 'attitude towards other social groups', or personality-terms.
So, what I am saying is that the 'identity' of the current British Establishment (and American too, interestingly) is the same as the identity of the original Normans who invaded and occupied Britain in 1066. So these foreign invaders/occupying forces became the 'Establishment', and this lasted pretty much until 1485, when Henry Tudor and his cronies carried out their coup d'etat (interestingly, an act of treason which arguably renders every subsequent 'monarch' and thus every parliament and every law, technically and legally illegitimate!).
The Norman 'identity' is/was characterised by barbarism, fascism (i.e. feudalism as it was called then - an oligarchy, essentially), colonialism, warmongering, terrorising the native population into submission, resource theft, and all those other attributes you would be familiar with when we talk about the globalist cabal. As such, they saw the native population (Celts and Anglo-Saxons) as their subjugated possessions/serfs/slaves/units of economic productivity/cannon fodder for wars, and so on. The native population, in other words, are the 'other', because we have a very different 'cultural identity' to the occupying Normans. The Normans, I should've added, were also deeply racist, most obviously to the native population.
Ironically they didn't actually have much in the way of what most people would understand as 'culture' - they weren't, after all, exactly 'civilised' now, eh!
You can probably see where I'm going with this - what I am saying is that in the centuries since, the 'ethnicity' (or race) of the 'Establishment' may have changed, so it's no longer purely Norman, but the cultural identity has not. The Establishment has always had the same identity since 1066, regardless of its genetic makeup. This, naturally, absolutely explains their attitude towards the 'common people' - the 'common people' are essentially the 'native population' in a piece of land (the island of Britain) which the Establishment see as their property by right of historical conquest etc.
The Establishment still treat the people in the same way the Normans did. Obviously they have to disguise this - under the Norman occupation (similarly under the Roman occupation - cf. Boudicca) it would've been obvious to every Anglo-Saxon that they were an occupied people. Today, if the Establishment actually came out and said this overtly, then they would not be able to contain the revolution. Thus, they have to lie and 'pretend' that they too are 'British' - but if we define 'British' as an 'identity', then we are talking about pre-Norman, and we are talking about the 'common people'/'native population'.
Likewise, this 'Establishment' have their own 'narrative' about history - and this is the one they project onto the common people, deceiving the common people into thinking they have a shared historical narrative. This is why they often bang on about 'Churchill' and 'WW2' and 'Blighty' and all the rest of it. The 'British' Empire, however, was nothing whatsoever to do with the native population - it was the 'post-Norman Establishment's Empire', with the island of Britain as their effective HQ. Similarly, I would also perhaps suggest that the 'HQ' may have simply been moved to 'Washington' since WW2. But they are the same people, in terms of their 'cultural or social group identity'.
By extension, of course, this also explains the attitude of the globalist cabal to the entire peoples of the world. It's exactly the same as the Normans vs. the English. They see us as 'the other', as 'an occupied people to be exploited' etc.
Once we start thinking in terms of 'cultural identity' in this way, then we can see this big picture far, far more clearly.
Oops - that was a bit long! It was quite good though - I've been meaning to find a good way to say all of that for a while now. Hmm, maybe I should copy it and paste it into a little post for my site. What do you think?
Ah - I should probably clarify what I'm on about here actually!
This is kind of what I'm getting at when I try and make a distinction between 'racial' identity and 'cultural' identity. 'Cultural' can of course encompass an 'attitude' and an 'ideology' even. This is certainly arguable if we're talking about Jews - if we define a Jew as someone who practises 'Jewism'. i.e. Judaism - this is a linguistic thing with regards to English, in which the person 'Jew' doesn't have the 'd' in it. In German, ironically, it's much clearer as the word for the person 'Jude' obviously relates to the -ism 'Jude-ism' (Judaismus is the actual German). This may of course explain the historical German attitude towards Jews (i.e. 'followers of Judaism') - given the critique of monotheism/Judaeo-Christianity inherent in 'the Enlightenment', which was very prominent in Germany of course, it kind of explains the development of anti-Judaism in Germany. In that sense, it also suggests that the definition is not based on 'ethnicity' or 'race', but on 'ideology'. And naturally it's perfectly acceptable to criticise an ideology, because it's not perceived as 'personal' - although, foolishly imho, an ideology that is dressed up to look like a 'religion' is suddenly granted the status of a 'protected characteristic' for the purposes of 'hate crimes'. What they call 'hate speech' carries an exemption if you say it's part of your 'religion'. If your ideology doesn't claim to be a religion, however, you don't get that exemption under the hate speech laws. That seems pretty incongruous to me, to put it mildly, especially given the obvious other-ism in all the Abrahamic ideologies.
Anyway - that was a bit of an intended digression - I'll tackle the Norman/British Establishment thing separately otherwise this will be a TLDR-possibility.
Another interesting thought you just prompted me with actually (thanks!), with my Medieval Historian's hat on, does concern that medieval history of the Jews in Britain and the Normans. I would have to do a little research to verify it, but I'm fairly certain that before 1066 there weren't any Jews in Britain. After Hastings, though, the Normans did allow (or bring, even) Jews into the country, where they formed their own enclaves/communities etc. This continued until the late 13th century when they were all expelled (partly following the reaction to rumours about blood sacrifices and such like in places like York - what they now call 'blood libel' - even though there is some historical evidence to suggest that some of these incidents did actually happen - like with St. Simon of Trent, 1475 - one can still argue these were isolated incidents though of course, so from a certain perspective it is a libel to accuse all the Jews of doing it - most of them didn't do such things. But still - it would've been seen as a 'pretext' for expelling them and not having to pay back all the debt etc.).
Anyway, then there followed about 200 years of Britain without any Jews until after 1485, when the Tudors allowed them back in again. Arguably, those 200 years are marked by a lot of social, economic, and intellectual progress, but that's another matter.
I was thinking though that this would make an excellent topic for a medieval history thesis/book. Someone might have written it already though. I don't know. I doubt I'll ever get round to it, more's the pity.
Anyhow - that was the thought you prompted me about. So I had to mention it.
The reason for all of the migration from south to north was spelled-out long ago as a step to incite The Great Collapse of Society by the Frankfurt School:
The Great Collapse of US Society:
The Frankfurt School and “Critical Theory”
The “Frankfurt School,” or Institute for Social Research, was set up by a group of Marxist intellectuals in Germany in 1923, affiliated to the University of Frankfurt and independently of the Communist Party, which has been influential in the development of Marxist theory ever since.
The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further advance their ‘quiet’ incremental cultural revolution (Fabian Socialism) – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
Divide and Conquer.
The oppressed and their oppressors.
1. The creation of racism offenses.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking/drug abuse.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pan-sexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors.’
Everyone "cherrypicks" stuff that suits their argument. As a member of the NF/BNP over a 40 year period, I do not accept that racial nationalists are necessarily crazy or irrational.
Amazing piece of work, thank you, so great to see important ideas worked through logically and comprehensively rather than the conceptual soundbites we are often too content to regurgitate. An important step towards my hope that one day the so called "left" and the "right" finally manage to talk to each other and start creating an economy and culture that could be a proper alternative to the onslaught of techno-imperialism.
This reads like a gaslighting article by the actual Guardian newspaper.
Massive demographic transformations are clearly taking place across the West. It is in all the official data and anyone with half a brain and one eye can see it, native Europeans are becoming a minority in our homelands.
Genocidal levels of mass immigration are being prepared for the West under the U.N Migration Pact.
It is not happening by accident. It is an agenda of a certain elite who have taken over our key institutions and clearly despise people of European ancestry.
Now who could that elite be?
Mr Davis, you have discredited your excellent and forensic work on the COVID scam with this absurd article.
Fascinating. Your dialectical skills are formidable but I sense a weakness in your argument against so-called replacement when you dismiss it out of hand because "migrants generally possess less power than the indigenous population".
Initially, yes, but soon they fill jobs at the low end of the labour market (though soon, too, most human beings will have been replaced by machines at all levels). And while they themselves may not possess any power at that point, those exploiting their labour have certainly gained it with their coming.
After one or two generations, however, a good number of the newcomers will have risen to higher social strata, and certain of them, nursed by identity politics, will have gained positions of influence (viz. Britain's generally exacrable African/ Caribbean and Indian/Pakistani politicians), ported into power by the black-multicultural-woke electoral alliance. Ethnic cohesion in migrant communities, encouraged by real or imagined racial discrimination and class-based inequality, can make a powerful electoral resource to be exploited. The other side of the coin is the relative powerlessness and prevailing social dissipation of the indigenous community, its peculier and general cultural decay (brought about by technology, among other things, as you point out), in a curious reversal of the roles of coloniser and colonised of earlier centuries.
Even as an underprivileged amorphous mass the migrant community can fulfil another of its intended roles: the massive presence of "The Other", which alone serves as a powerful force for social division. In keeping with the ideas and schemes of Sutherland & Co. you so well describe here, the overweening ambition of the so-called super elites, expressed by their political lackeys' current policy of mass immigration everywhere, is clearly the dissolution of ALL social cohesion in order to facilitate total social control (the recent slight pullinhg back slightly from this policy in, for instance, Britain and Germany, merely for temporary public consumption only).
The intentional, well-coordinated promotion, funding and facilitation of significant numbers of criminal elements from 150+ nations across the northern and southern borders of the U.S. is already producing some of the expected (desired) outcomes: importing mercenary, military-aged criminals from third world cultures to conduct infrastructure and societal disruption is already evident in multiple areas. While today it is Venezuelan gangs, it is a large cross-section of the "thug" class (who create chaos and fear) and those in more seasoned and practiced ranks (CCP representative troops well organized and dispersed throughout the nation) who have pre-planned their more tactical, targeted, multi-facted vectors upon from which they will focus their conquests. What matters is the rationale for U.S./U.N., NGOs of many stripes and creeds, IOM, Jewish Immigration and other heavily subsidized and affiliated agencies (like Catholic Charities) that are working in tandem to expedite, by pass and reward those who heed the invitation, follow the well-crafted maps, obtain the prized money and privileges visited upon them as they cross into a land rife with opportunity -- whether by force & domination, or by sheer ineptitude and purposeful surrender as the longed-for and well orchestrated fall of western civilization is accomplished. Western nations who are presently operating under the illusion of sovereignty will be neutered to enable to rise of the global technate so earnestly sought and so long planned and codified. Once electrical grid systems are disabled and the illusion of the "two-party" dialectical constructs have been destroyed, the unleashing of all manner of chaos and deprivation has taken its intended toll, economic and societal underpinnings destroyed and the clamor for a solution -- ANY solution -- has been raised en masse by those who survive the initial culling, whether from manipulated climate excesses, kinetic or electronic warfare, demoralization of the masses (psychological warfare) and the use of biological terrorist measures in concert with famine and desperation promoting dystopian conditions imposed, a heavy-handed, totalitarian globalist cabal and its many sycophants will happily surface to complete the selective culling of the undesirables (those resisting the inevitable) and to establish (or unveil preexisting) methods for control of every facet of every life, without exception (other than the privileged few who will leverage their considerable data, AI-assisted resources and access to and control of the world's resources to complete the electronic/biodigital panopticon for those deemed necessary for preservation as the new slave class/caste. The new transnational global governance, if established as contemplated, will be a culmination of secular and mystery religious alchemys -- the enthroning of evil and the attempted dissolution of any and all manner of good/God. This is a war from the creation forward that cannot end, in the end, as those aspiring and plotting intend, but instead must produce from the disruption and distraction, the disaster and the widespread fear and deprivation, the emmergence ofthe final unveiling of the true KING, LORD & all-powerful GOd -- the One who has restrined Himself for just such a time as this. WE who hope for that day and remain steadfast in our trust and faith in the unveiling instead of His eternal Kingdom and the destruction of the machinations and systems of mankind, especially of those who have been placed in temporal places of power to expedite the ultimate contrast between the light and the darkness will have their justice and those who have remained faithful to their LORD will receive theirs. This world is a shadow, a pretext, a matrix and the one that awaits us is far more genuine and tangible and trustworthy than the one that is rapidly decaying and vanishing into a lapse of moral, ethical and humanitarian degradation and the failed attainment of the wet dreams of those who have long sought to displace the eternal with their dark, faux replica that in the face of reality will fail and cease to exist except as a memory and reminder of the depravity if humankind apart from an indwelling Savior/LORD who replaces love of world for love of God.
I believe the purpose of mass-immigration and globalists like Peter Sutherland who push it is to exploit migrants as a weapon to break down countries, allowing large numbers in to dilute and weaken the sense of being a single nation with its own unique culture and identity. Independent countries and cultures act as a bulwark against globalists' overall control and the imposition of their culture (i.e. net zero, zero covid, multiculturalism, LGBT, BLM etc.), so it's no wonder they want to get rid of them and create superstates, in the pursuit of their supposed global utopia.
Opposition to this gets misconstrued as being racist, but racism is a separate issue. If anyone is racist, it's those who advocate high levels of immigration. Peter Sutherland, or the (very white middle-class) Socialist Workers' Party and others, are simply using migrants for political and social ends, not because they like them or respect their cultures. In the former case, as a weapon to break down countries, and in the latter SWP case, out of some sense of guilt at their white privilege and the historically racist, imperialist behaviour of their white-majority country, which migrants act as a kind of vaccine against.
Only a blind man can say that the great replacement theory is false. The leading and managerial elites in Western countries have gotten out of control (this is how Emmanuel Todd thinks). They believe that their compatriots are stupid and that they are not capable of making important decisions (in other words, democracy should be abolished and replaced with a false substitute). Although they have no friends in their own countries, they have found like-minded people in other countries.
Not every social phenomenon and disorder can be blamed on evil elites in the form of Bond villains, but that does not mean that some of them came as ordered. The demographic crisis served as a justification for the immigration of new workers who would do undesirable jobs and support national economies from collapsing.
National elites actually hate their own peoples and most certainly prefer what is coming, an amorphous mass of inhabitants with whom they can do whatever they want.
This has to do with the possible model of government in a country: the more ethnically and culturally homogeneous the population of a country is, the more equal participation in government, that is, democracy, is possible. The more mixed the population and deprived of common culture, beliefs and myths, the more democracy as a system of government is impossible. Only an imperial system of government is suitable for such societies.
Much though for food there, with important ingredients on the menu, some infused with poison.
There certainly is a replacement programme to my eyes over world. Disempowered people is tactic precisely because they are disempowered & must resort to criminal activities to flower.
In UK you encourage rapist, murderer pimps from eastern Europe war zones, & wonder why communities turn to shit: why so much crack everywhere, where have ducks on the pond gone, why so many new babies from pregnant wives of immigrants then used in abuse networks= fucking heck sad & obviousness.
Buckminster Fuller genius inventor & lovely mind mention Technocracy take over FOR WORLD WAR 1 in fascinating work = Spaceship Earth, where he says power shifted from CABAL (HORSE breeders) to Scientists. Partly correct but not really overall because the Scientists were under power of CABAL still, but point taken, horse power replaced by machine power.
Great to see much maligned comedy legend Bernard Manning busy posing as Peter Sutherland, he looks so happy now he has expense account for luncheons.
Too many important ingredients in Mr Davis' essay to digest in reply without writing return essay, however some notes= economists = bullshit merchants as no science exists & until recently 'people' were not factored into equations, so almost all economists = frauds among fraudsters. Economy is in constant real decline, so who is being smart except thieves there?
''there is a deliberate plan to undermine European white society by a campaign of mass immigration, integration and miscegenation conducted by sinister (and often Jewish) elites.'' is terminal truth, not hard to prove & ingrained in Hixos belief /dogma/ writings . Sad to swallow but there if look with clear eyes & open mouth.
''.. will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.'' Is hilarious yet sad.
People are now less individual than ever in so many views.
I sit on bus in Tooting with 99% dark skinned youth who all talk & act the same like clones, their white(ish) mates do the same. just platitudes & crippled by conformity.
I sit in cafe with opinionated students & it is like lobotomy of rabbits all waiting to be put into mincer of gullibility & suicidal reasonableness. I work among reggae peoples & hairdressing empire builders. Well meaning whiteys behave full of misplaced guilt over unknown ancestors, while dark skinned folk work hard to become new slave masters, seeing exploitation in past not as vengeance horror but INSPIRATION !
''the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics.'' is very very furious & busy among elites upon public despite being pseudo. While pandemics , nuclear threat etc should also be labeled pseudo, as they are imaginary construct for fear factory.
''energy certificates'' will be key to new phase of latest industrial revolution, & horror will hit if knowledge of ETHERS becomes digested by thinking people. Then technology backlash inevitable. This topic is worthy of entire books to showcase disgusting horrors ahead in IONISATION/PLASMA vampire circus.
''spontaneous natural priority'' = inverted lie= catalysts for psychopathology.
'' “replacism.'' is intrinsic with HYPER REALITY, the Spectacle replace real-life with simulation, simulacrum & spectacle= fact only ignored by blind & soul-dead.
''The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.”'' = absolute truth. It is not RACIST , it is cultural. Almost no real person cares about skin colour in these times, all colours are lovely, hower cultures are not all compatible easily, often even diametrically opposed, so culture clash is main dynamic of resentment all over now. It is mediated by MEDIA which de-cultures & commodifies instead.
Last paragraph of utmost importance all should remember='This irrelevant distraction, embodied by the vacuum of party politics, leaves the global public-private partnership free to push ahead with the rollout of Technocracy while the people engage in counter-productive arguments and continually fail to recognise their real enemy: the oligarchs.'
There is no real LEFT or RIGHT politics anymore,as noted, it is bickering distractions & time vampire initiatives to keep peoples busy & and remain opinionated islands without bridges of empathy.
The technology rollout was described as a STEAMROLLER by great writer Bernard Wolfe in essential book written in 1950s called LIMBO '90. Story involves pacifist mania in future where to prove pacifism people become actually limbless to be seen as harmless/armless, but technology gives them artificial limbs that were in effect dangerous weapons.
Apologies nothing funny in this & length like essay, but too serious to find jesting applicable.
Excellent retort from an outsider who -according to the warped British moral code- is permitted to offer a balanced view (which necessarily involves criticising the foreigners arrivals )
I say the evidence speaks for itself. It only took 70 years for the native population to become a minority. No accident
Thanking you for kind words.
UK was always an invasion zone seemingly, but previous travellers become enamoured to magic of landscape & varied peoples who are mostly social, empathy driven & have to be community co-operative. Even many 'windrush' Jamaican folk considered themselves British & acted as such, retaining own lovely culture but also embracing new home without massive conflict.
Some bigger problems occurred with 'Indians' taking over local shops , but locals usually happy for longer opening hours! (I know this is very simplified, apologies not wanting to bore on!)
Then,sometime in 1990's it all become more bitter, with young JA/UK brat students crying about the past like missing limb, while long time UK folk fed guilt of their exploiter/capitalist 'leaders' by evil media & school system. All fake or constructed resentments to generate endless misery. But still it was not real colour issue, like Muslims is not real religious issue, the real horror is importing criminal minds & incompatible cultures to my eyes.
Also, topic always evaded is CROWDS & POWER & how individual can be sublimated by mass. So good minds can twist into cruelty from conformity & consensus. Magic is more predominate than ever, yet lie of rationality is glaring veneer blinding proper debate & views.
That's genocidal. You wouldn't say ito a Mauri that his People don't exist and you underestimate Anglo-Saxon potential anger towards snakes like you
🙄😆😂 Are you sucking juices from own anus Jonah thong?
What is genocidal, where do I under estimate AngloSaxons?
Why are snakes bad creatures & why do you imagine I am a snake ?
You really seem to have triggered yourself into some embarrassment frenzy today !
I'm not sure WTF Johnathong is on about either 😂🤣😂.
He is certainly triggered about something , even if it is only a byproduct of his imagination.
& I imagine for a minute he was reasonable empathy commentator!
🙄😆😂😆
But over nothing he get triggered & bolt the gate, then run into a moat & start splashing about!
Poor little pony, give him a carrot & keep him happy & out of mischief.
The “Superclass" definition as “people who influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis" is a new one to me but a good one, albeit it has a positive ring.
Quite why they facilitate mass immigration and people trafficking, I don't know but from their point of view there must be a few positives. It might weaken a society that you want to become subservient, it can hasten economic decline and cause civil unrest, all without having to go to war with the target. Plus the countries that have been left, lose a generation of young men. Hardly good for their population.
Moreover, the immigrants will be dependent on the state and ideal material for the little housing pods and monitored lives that human capital markets will require. If required, they could be hired to act as state police/heavies.
The fact that human trafficking pays is an added bonus. The criminals in charge of our country already move guns and drugs around the world so why not people too? The odd boat that sinks in The Channel will be publicised to generate sympathy for the victims.
A one world governance system will encourage a mash up of dependent, rootless humans to control like slaves were in the past.
Bingo!
This was never about "population replacement" but rather population MOBILITY.
The 2017 "Migration in the 2030 Agenda" by the International institute of migration (a UN agency) makes it crystal clear!
With regards to the 'Superclass' thing - IGSP-Studies has a lot of info on this. Hold on, I'll get the link for you: https://www.isgp-studies.com/index
That's the index/homepage of course. This is a more detailed page, and is an excellent resource: https://www.isgp-studies.com/ngo-list-foundations-and-think-tanks-worldwide
That Peter Sutherland bloke apparently ranks at number 40 on the list of Superclass members.
He definitely looks like a monster, that's for sure. And as a member of the Bilderberg steering committee I would not in the least be surprised if he was involved in the child abuse network, along with the likes of Etienne Davignon and such like. igsp studies also has a fair few articles on the network as it happens - although it makes for extremely disturbing reading, so it comes with that trigger warning. What it does show, however, is what utter inhuman monsters these creatures are - they simply do not behave or think like normal human beings. Personally that makes me believe they must have a different neuroanatomy - one which should, in fact, classify them as a separate species.
Bringing in migrants from war torn nations is intended to divide and demoralise the working class. They have the least to lose, the most to gain, the highest numbers and the greatest propensity for violence.
As such their aquiescence is paramount to rolling out an agenda.
Concisely:
1. Create problems until life is hell.
2. Sell your solution.
"If we think about it, the Great Replacement, as espoused by a tiny number of far-right voices, doesn’t make much sense. By all socio-economic and political measures, it is the the migrant populations in most countries that are the poorest and and least able to exercise either social or political power. If multiculturalism is the “planned” replacement of the indigenous ethno-culture, as the fringe “far-right” claims, it has been a miserable failure."
Devil's advocate here!
Immigrant populations may exert significant overt and covert power regardless.
Indiscriminate immigration - numbers and values - can critically impact nations.
Too many and too poor can be drug sponges and crime factories.
Poor immigrants can drain welfare resources, to which they are arguably not entitled on an equal basis, especially if citizens are disadvantaged and taxpayers are forced to cover the extra costs.
Some immigrants make excessive demands on the basis of "non-discrimination" regardless, while
westerners would have absolutely no "equal rights" in the home nations of these immigrants.
For instance, trying to have western religious holidays banned on the basis of non-discrimination!
If westerners tried to have religious holidays banned in other nations, how would this go down?
Some immigrant groups presume, that they are entitled to pursue their political agendas in public in ways that are unacceptable to the majority, causing widespread offense, anger and unrest.
Rich immigrants can exert inordinate power in national economies and governments.
Rich mafia figure "immigrants" cause untold damage overt and covert.
The claim that immigrant populations are mostly poor and powerless, is questionable, as are the causes and intent of mass indiscriminate immigration worldwide
However one "dresses up" the philosophy of tyranny in all it's guises over time, it is always about centralisation of power by the rich elite who are desperate to protect and expand their riches. They sow division and hatred along the way to deflect from their ambitions.
I think your final word is the best bit here, Iain - what I mean is, any system is only as good as the quality and attitude of the people controlling it. Seems to me, for example, that Kalergi envisaged a system which would be controlled by benevolent people (and it would work too if that were the case) - there were, after all, a lot of genuine idealists in those days (and since the Enlightenment, for that matter) - most of whom would be horrified to see how their ideas have been hijacked by all those Epsilon semi-morons calling themselves 'the elite' (cf. Nietzsche - Nietzsche understood perfectly that these 'elites' are actually the lowest kind of species).
The real problem - as you intimate towards the end when you mention the effectively 'manufactured conflict' - is that most people have been misdirected, deliberately diverted into focussing on 'the system' (cf. CJ dumbass or shill you choose Hopkins), as if 'the system' has some kind of conscious agency of its own. Of course it doesn't, it's just a fucking system. That's Marxism for you, I suppose. (Another shill, was Marx - diverting attention away from the perpetrators and onto 'the system' itself).
The simple and only explanation for the horrorshow dystopia is the CHARACTER AND PSYCHOLOGY of the people who have managed to put themselves in charge of things. It doesn't matter what kind of 'system' they have - if they are evil monsters, as they undoubtedly are, then they can use any system to oppress and enslave people (and historically have done). Technocracy, feudalism, capitalism, Marxism, whatever. They don't, actually, care. In fact the existence of superficially 'competing' systems serves their purpose as a perfect diversion.
In the same way there is only one, simple final solution to all of this - and that is to 'replace' (ha ha) the evil monsters with intelligently selected benevolent people. If you want to call this 'technocracy' then fine - I would support it like a shot (so long as I was one of the chief social decision makers of course - being a genius, you know). But in the end it doesn't matter what it's called. There should, indeed, be a meritocracy - but 'merit' needs to be redefined to include the crucial element of 'benevolence'. At the moment, we have the opposite - 'malevolence'.
Malevolence - this explains everything. That's why I do get just a tad suspicious of people who either fall for all the talking points, or blame this or that 'system'.
It's the existence of evil monsters which are the problem. It's that simple. Understand that, and the solution is blindingly obvious.
(P.S. - although notice, however, how they have conditioned people to view that 'solution' as taboo...)
"It's the existence of evil monsters which are the problem. It's that simple. Understand that, and the solution is blindingly obvious."
Or it is the evil little monsters inside each of us which are the problem. It is that simple. Understand that, and the solution is blindingly obvious.
Rather tired of the endless condemnation of the "evil elite minorities" who always manage to enslave the "benevolent non-elite majorities".
Well the elite have money, and money buys power, and there is nothing we can do about it.
The majority, just have to suffer and die, at the hands of the minority.
That is just life - history - just the way things are.
Something not adding up here.
Time to take accountability, or go on suffering and dying until we do.
I can see what you're saying and perhaps you are misunderstanding me - I agree that it should be up to the majority to wake up, grow up, learn how to care about one's own species and just eliminate the fuckers.
Ultimately, it's true, it really is the fault of the majority for allowing it to happen. And I do get alternately despairing and angry about them. The rest of the time I just pity and despise them.
So, would you say that our current Parliamentary system would work if we replaced the MPs with better people?
In general, yes, it would work. The current parliamentary system does, contrary to most people's awareness, have all the necessary features for a genuine participatory democracy - for example, as well as having a right to see your MP, every citizen does have the right to petition a sub-committee. Then there's local democracy which does have more direct and immediate accountability. Mind you, if every representative was good they wouldn't need to be petitioned, they'd just do what needs to be done anyway.
Having said that, there are a few obvious aspects to the system which I think good people would automatically tweak or change, simply out of common sense. The most obvious being public ownership of the money supply (Bank of England), and the City of London for that matter (with a decent transaction tax). In fact you wouldn't have private banks at all. And if the people/treasury needed more money then the bank would simply type the number in and give it to them.
Obviously there's a whole thesis to this - it would, I'd say, end up as a liberal socialist system. At least to start with. Once there were no bad people in the world then they wouldn't need to be told how to behave, thus you can have true anarchy. With no money.
I'm trying to restrain myself from a ramble by the way. Having some rice on the go helps, as I am mindful of the simmering.
My short answer, though, yes, with a few obvious tweaks, is yes.
That is encouraging. We musn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially as the destruction of nation states and our hard won democracy is on the agenda.
I agree completely - for 'nation states' though, I would want to see much smaller countries each of which is mainly defined by the majority of the inhabitants (say, 90-95% at least) sharing the same cultural or social group identity. That doesn't necessarily mean 'racial' identity - or any other identity for that matter.
I think there has been too much (deliberately manufactured) focus on 'national identity' as 'racial' identity, when it should rather be defined as 'cultural' identity. Yes, it is also true to a great extent that (at least with the older countries) historically there was never much distinction or difference between 'racial' and 'cultural', simply because 'a people' tended to stick to their own ancestral homelands - e.g. 'Welsh Celts', 'Cornish Celts', Scottish, Irish Celts, Anglo-Saxons (once arrived in Britannia that is) etc. Today, people readily confuse these two concepts 'racial' and 'cultural' - plus they are provided with a self-serving image of that 'national identity' by the Establishment - which does foster resentment to 'others'. Ironically the 'British' Establishment are not native - they are effectively Norman (they brought feudalism with them in order to subjugate the native population - which is still in place today of course).
So, yeah - I am a big believer in each 'cultural identity' having their own 'autonomy' or 'national sovereignty' - but I guess what we really need, in order to get people understanding this distinction is to put cultural studies on the national curriculum.
We should also note that because of normal human psychology, being social animals, people of the same social group tend to behave well to each other (partly through fear of ostracism) - thus, in a more homogenous cultural nation state you would be able to have far more liberal laws, and less of them too. And with 'self-confidence' (and lack of external or internal threat) in that identity, there would far less 'fear of the other' and thus less 'racism' or 'identity politics' or its antagonist.
Thanks for subscribing, btw - I shall have to do some more for the liberal socialism section soon (and the classified K for that matter), as I have a lot of subscribers who like that kind of thing...
Thank you for your reply. I am interested in the history of Britain so will look into your comment re. the British establishment being effectively Norman. Quite why so many of the powerful call themselves Jewish I don't know, but maybe that is just the ones we know about!
Ok - this is the reply I intended to do.
When I say the British Establishment are 'Norman' I'm not actually talking about ethnicity/race, but rather 'cultural identity'. Or even just 'identity', if we define identity in a kind of ideological, or 'attitude towards other social groups', or personality-terms.
So, what I am saying is that the 'identity' of the current British Establishment (and American too, interestingly) is the same as the identity of the original Normans who invaded and occupied Britain in 1066. So these foreign invaders/occupying forces became the 'Establishment', and this lasted pretty much until 1485, when Henry Tudor and his cronies carried out their coup d'etat (interestingly, an act of treason which arguably renders every subsequent 'monarch' and thus every parliament and every law, technically and legally illegitimate!).
The Norman 'identity' is/was characterised by barbarism, fascism (i.e. feudalism as it was called then - an oligarchy, essentially), colonialism, warmongering, terrorising the native population into submission, resource theft, and all those other attributes you would be familiar with when we talk about the globalist cabal. As such, they saw the native population (Celts and Anglo-Saxons) as their subjugated possessions/serfs/slaves/units of economic productivity/cannon fodder for wars, and so on. The native population, in other words, are the 'other', because we have a very different 'cultural identity' to the occupying Normans. The Normans, I should've added, were also deeply racist, most obviously to the native population.
Ironically they didn't actually have much in the way of what most people would understand as 'culture' - they weren't, after all, exactly 'civilised' now, eh!
You can probably see where I'm going with this - what I am saying is that in the centuries since, the 'ethnicity' (or race) of the 'Establishment' may have changed, so it's no longer purely Norman, but the cultural identity has not. The Establishment has always had the same identity since 1066, regardless of its genetic makeup. This, naturally, absolutely explains their attitude towards the 'common people' - the 'common people' are essentially the 'native population' in a piece of land (the island of Britain) which the Establishment see as their property by right of historical conquest etc.
The Establishment still treat the people in the same way the Normans did. Obviously they have to disguise this - under the Norman occupation (similarly under the Roman occupation - cf. Boudicca) it would've been obvious to every Anglo-Saxon that they were an occupied people. Today, if the Establishment actually came out and said this overtly, then they would not be able to contain the revolution. Thus, they have to lie and 'pretend' that they too are 'British' - but if we define 'British' as an 'identity', then we are talking about pre-Norman, and we are talking about the 'common people'/'native population'.
Likewise, this 'Establishment' have their own 'narrative' about history - and this is the one they project onto the common people, deceiving the common people into thinking they have a shared historical narrative. This is why they often bang on about 'Churchill' and 'WW2' and 'Blighty' and all the rest of it. The 'British' Empire, however, was nothing whatsoever to do with the native population - it was the 'post-Norman Establishment's Empire', with the island of Britain as their effective HQ. Similarly, I would also perhaps suggest that the 'HQ' may have simply been moved to 'Washington' since WW2. But they are the same people, in terms of their 'cultural or social group identity'.
By extension, of course, this also explains the attitude of the globalist cabal to the entire peoples of the world. It's exactly the same as the Normans vs. the English. They see us as 'the other', as 'an occupied people to be exploited' etc.
Once we start thinking in terms of 'cultural identity' in this way, then we can see this big picture far, far more clearly.
Oops - that was a bit long! It was quite good though - I've been meaning to find a good way to say all of that for a while now. Hmm, maybe I should copy it and paste it into a little post for my site. What do you think?
Ah - I should probably clarify what I'm on about here actually!
This is kind of what I'm getting at when I try and make a distinction between 'racial' identity and 'cultural' identity. 'Cultural' can of course encompass an 'attitude' and an 'ideology' even. This is certainly arguable if we're talking about Jews - if we define a Jew as someone who practises 'Jewism'. i.e. Judaism - this is a linguistic thing with regards to English, in which the person 'Jew' doesn't have the 'd' in it. In German, ironically, it's much clearer as the word for the person 'Jude' obviously relates to the -ism 'Jude-ism' (Judaismus is the actual German). This may of course explain the historical German attitude towards Jews (i.e. 'followers of Judaism') - given the critique of monotheism/Judaeo-Christianity inherent in 'the Enlightenment', which was very prominent in Germany of course, it kind of explains the development of anti-Judaism in Germany. In that sense, it also suggests that the definition is not based on 'ethnicity' or 'race', but on 'ideology'. And naturally it's perfectly acceptable to criticise an ideology, because it's not perceived as 'personal' - although, foolishly imho, an ideology that is dressed up to look like a 'religion' is suddenly granted the status of a 'protected characteristic' for the purposes of 'hate crimes'. What they call 'hate speech' carries an exemption if you say it's part of your 'religion'. If your ideology doesn't claim to be a religion, however, you don't get that exemption under the hate speech laws. That seems pretty incongruous to me, to put it mildly, especially given the obvious other-ism in all the Abrahamic ideologies.
Anyway - that was a bit of an intended digression - I'll tackle the Norman/British Establishment thing separately otherwise this will be a TLDR-possibility.
Another interesting thought you just prompted me with actually (thanks!), with my Medieval Historian's hat on, does concern that medieval history of the Jews in Britain and the Normans. I would have to do a little research to verify it, but I'm fairly certain that before 1066 there weren't any Jews in Britain. After Hastings, though, the Normans did allow (or bring, even) Jews into the country, where they formed their own enclaves/communities etc. This continued until the late 13th century when they were all expelled (partly following the reaction to rumours about blood sacrifices and such like in places like York - what they now call 'blood libel' - even though there is some historical evidence to suggest that some of these incidents did actually happen - like with St. Simon of Trent, 1475 - one can still argue these were isolated incidents though of course, so from a certain perspective it is a libel to accuse all the Jews of doing it - most of them didn't do such things. But still - it would've been seen as a 'pretext' for expelling them and not having to pay back all the debt etc.).
Anyway, then there followed about 200 years of Britain without any Jews until after 1485, when the Tudors allowed them back in again. Arguably, those 200 years are marked by a lot of social, economic, and intellectual progress, but that's another matter.
I was thinking though that this would make an excellent topic for a medieval history thesis/book. Someone might have written it already though. I don't know. I doubt I'll ever get round to it, more's the pity.
Anyhow - that was the thought you prompted me about. So I had to mention it.
The reason for all of the migration from south to north was spelled-out long ago as a step to incite The Great Collapse of Society by the Frankfurt School:
The Great Collapse of US Society:
The Frankfurt School and “Critical Theory”
The “Frankfurt School,” or Institute for Social Research, was set up by a group of Marxist intellectuals in Germany in 1923, affiliated to the University of Frankfurt and independently of the Communist Party, which has been influential in the development of Marxist theory ever since.
The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further advance their ‘quiet’ incremental cultural revolution (Fabian Socialism) – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
Divide and Conquer.
The oppressed and their oppressors.
1. The creation of racism offenses.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking/drug abuse.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pan-sexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors.’
The British Oligarchy’s Fourth War on America
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/the-british-oligarchys-fourth-war?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Everyone "cherrypicks" stuff that suits their argument. As a member of the NF/BNP over a 40 year period, I do not accept that racial nationalists are necessarily crazy or irrational.
Amazing piece of work, thank you, so great to see important ideas worked through logically and comprehensively rather than the conceptual soundbites we are often too content to regurgitate. An important step towards my hope that one day the so called "left" and the "right" finally manage to talk to each other and start creating an economy and culture that could be a proper alternative to the onslaught of techno-imperialism.
IF we ever agree that there is only ONE MOUNTAIN to climb, we will probably disagree and fight and kill, about the RIGHT WAY to reach the top!
Actually the answer is not at the top of the mountain, where a self-proclaimed guru is enthroned, with horns or a halo depending on my preference.
The real answer is found in the HEART of the mountain.
We all ignore the paths INTO the mountain, in our compulsion to reach the top!
This reads like a gaslighting article by the actual Guardian newspaper.
Massive demographic transformations are clearly taking place across the West. It is in all the official data and anyone with half a brain and one eye can see it, native Europeans are becoming a minority in our homelands.
Genocidal levels of mass immigration are being prepared for the West under the U.N Migration Pact.
It is not happening by accident. It is an agenda of a certain elite who have taken over our key institutions and clearly despise people of European ancestry.
Now who could that elite be?
Mr Davis, you have discredited your excellent and forensic work on the COVID scam with this absurd article.
School children in England aged 5 ( i.e new enrolments to school) are 50% non English parentage.
This took 70 years and in the face of overwhelming opposition among the public.
I's not an accident.
Fascinating. Your dialectical skills are formidable but I sense a weakness in your argument against so-called replacement when you dismiss it out of hand because "migrants generally possess less power than the indigenous population".
Initially, yes, but soon they fill jobs at the low end of the labour market (though soon, too, most human beings will have been replaced by machines at all levels). And while they themselves may not possess any power at that point, those exploiting their labour have certainly gained it with their coming.
After one or two generations, however, a good number of the newcomers will have risen to higher social strata, and certain of them, nursed by identity politics, will have gained positions of influence (viz. Britain's generally exacrable African/ Caribbean and Indian/Pakistani politicians), ported into power by the black-multicultural-woke electoral alliance. Ethnic cohesion in migrant communities, encouraged by real or imagined racial discrimination and class-based inequality, can make a powerful electoral resource to be exploited. The other side of the coin is the relative powerlessness and prevailing social dissipation of the indigenous community, its peculier and general cultural decay (brought about by technology, among other things, as you point out), in a curious reversal of the roles of coloniser and colonised of earlier centuries.
Even as an underprivileged amorphous mass the migrant community can fulfil another of its intended roles: the massive presence of "The Other", which alone serves as a powerful force for social division. In keeping with the ideas and schemes of Sutherland & Co. you so well describe here, the overweening ambition of the so-called super elites, expressed by their political lackeys' current policy of mass immigration everywhere, is clearly the dissolution of ALL social cohesion in order to facilitate total social control (the recent slight pullinhg back slightly from this policy in, for instance, Britain and Germany, merely for temporary public consumption only).
https://migrationnetwork.un.org/resources/world-migration-report-2022
The intentional, well-coordinated promotion, funding and facilitation of significant numbers of criminal elements from 150+ nations across the northern and southern borders of the U.S. is already producing some of the expected (desired) outcomes: importing mercenary, military-aged criminals from third world cultures to conduct infrastructure and societal disruption is already evident in multiple areas. While today it is Venezuelan gangs, it is a large cross-section of the "thug" class (who create chaos and fear) and those in more seasoned and practiced ranks (CCP representative troops well organized and dispersed throughout the nation) who have pre-planned their more tactical, targeted, multi-facted vectors upon from which they will focus their conquests. What matters is the rationale for U.S./U.N., NGOs of many stripes and creeds, IOM, Jewish Immigration and other heavily subsidized and affiliated agencies (like Catholic Charities) that are working in tandem to expedite, by pass and reward those who heed the invitation, follow the well-crafted maps, obtain the prized money and privileges visited upon them as they cross into a land rife with opportunity -- whether by force & domination, or by sheer ineptitude and purposeful surrender as the longed-for and well orchestrated fall of western civilization is accomplished. Western nations who are presently operating under the illusion of sovereignty will be neutered to enable to rise of the global technate so earnestly sought and so long planned and codified. Once electrical grid systems are disabled and the illusion of the "two-party" dialectical constructs have been destroyed, the unleashing of all manner of chaos and deprivation has taken its intended toll, economic and societal underpinnings destroyed and the clamor for a solution -- ANY solution -- has been raised en masse by those who survive the initial culling, whether from manipulated climate excesses, kinetic or electronic warfare, demoralization of the masses (psychological warfare) and the use of biological terrorist measures in concert with famine and desperation promoting dystopian conditions imposed, a heavy-handed, totalitarian globalist cabal and its many sycophants will happily surface to complete the selective culling of the undesirables (those resisting the inevitable) and to establish (or unveil preexisting) methods for control of every facet of every life, without exception (other than the privileged few who will leverage their considerable data, AI-assisted resources and access to and control of the world's resources to complete the electronic/biodigital panopticon for those deemed necessary for preservation as the new slave class/caste. The new transnational global governance, if established as contemplated, will be a culmination of secular and mystery religious alchemys -- the enthroning of evil and the attempted dissolution of any and all manner of good/God. This is a war from the creation forward that cannot end, in the end, as those aspiring and plotting intend, but instead must produce from the disruption and distraction, the disaster and the widespread fear and deprivation, the emmergence ofthe final unveiling of the true KING, LORD & all-powerful GOd -- the One who has restrined Himself for just such a time as this. WE who hope for that day and remain steadfast in our trust and faith in the unveiling instead of His eternal Kingdom and the destruction of the machinations and systems of mankind, especially of those who have been placed in temporal places of power to expedite the ultimate contrast between the light and the darkness will have their justice and those who have remained faithful to their LORD will receive theirs. This world is a shadow, a pretext, a matrix and the one that awaits us is far more genuine and tangible and trustworthy than the one that is rapidly decaying and vanishing into a lapse of moral, ethical and humanitarian degradation and the failed attainment of the wet dreams of those who have long sought to displace the eternal with their dark, faux replica that in the face of reality will fail and cease to exist except as a memory and reminder of the depravity if humankind apart from an indwelling Savior/LORD who replaces love of world for love of God.
Billionaire techno/fascists are eager to usher in a totalitarian neofeudal technocracy enforced by deploying
eugenics/ transhumanism.
I believe the purpose of mass-immigration and globalists like Peter Sutherland who push it is to exploit migrants as a weapon to break down countries, allowing large numbers in to dilute and weaken the sense of being a single nation with its own unique culture and identity. Independent countries and cultures act as a bulwark against globalists' overall control and the imposition of their culture (i.e. net zero, zero covid, multiculturalism, LGBT, BLM etc.), so it's no wonder they want to get rid of them and create superstates, in the pursuit of their supposed global utopia.
Opposition to this gets misconstrued as being racist, but racism is a separate issue. If anyone is racist, it's those who advocate high levels of immigration. Peter Sutherland, or the (very white middle-class) Socialist Workers' Party and others, are simply using migrants for political and social ends, not because they like them or respect their cultures. In the former case, as a weapon to break down countries, and in the latter SWP case, out of some sense of guilt at their white privilege and the historically racist, imperialist behaviour of their white-majority country, which migrants act as a kind of vaccine against.
Only a blind man can say that the great replacement theory is false. The leading and managerial elites in Western countries have gotten out of control (this is how Emmanuel Todd thinks). They believe that their compatriots are stupid and that they are not capable of making important decisions (in other words, democracy should be abolished and replaced with a false substitute). Although they have no friends in their own countries, they have found like-minded people in other countries.
Not every social phenomenon and disorder can be blamed on evil elites in the form of Bond villains, but that does not mean that some of them came as ordered. The demographic crisis served as a justification for the immigration of new workers who would do undesirable jobs and support national economies from collapsing.
National elites actually hate their own peoples and most certainly prefer what is coming, an amorphous mass of inhabitants with whom they can do whatever they want.
This has to do with the possible model of government in a country: the more ethnically and culturally homogeneous the population of a country is, the more equal participation in government, that is, democracy, is possible. The more mixed the population and deprived of common culture, beliefs and myths, the more democracy as a system of government is impossible. Only an imperial system of government is suitable for such societies.