The "nationalist" irony - they're globalism's jailers!

[Andy Wainwright]

The "nationalist" irony - they're globalism's jailers!


There's indeed advantages to localisation and also of having different
cultures and governments to go with them.

The problem is, just about every English and British nationalist group
I've encountered seems to be rather pro-globalisation, their only
opposition to globalisation is that ordinary people should benefit from it.

So the world's richest are free to travel around the world with their
money, the poor ain't. The multinationals are free to move their
operations to the places with lower wages and non-existant health and
safety or labour rights. Yet an ordinary person from one country wishing
to move to another to get on in their career is seen as the job-thief.

Go to pretty much any "nationalist" blog and you'll hear about the ills
of Islam, yet nothing about Rupert Murdoch, despite his boasts that he
can essentially fix elections here. So it seems OK for a foreign
billionaire to have control over how British live their lives...

Even more astoundingly is how so called "nationalists" will complain
about lax immigration rules in foreign countries. The reverse would make
sense, for instance an Indian having visa problems wishing to
legitimately maintain family or business link with those in Britain. But
why would a "nationalist" be concerned about "easy" immigration into
another country?

It seems foreign influence isn't what these dudes are fighting- instead
they see the "enemy" as those who wish to bring the privilages enjoyed
by the very wealthy to ordinary people home or abroad. This isn't
related to opposition to communism- forced equality, but instead those
opposed to forced inequality or the liberal.

Domestically, the same people seem opposed to personal freedom,
including stuff like sexual preference. Some will complain about Islam
being against alcohol but support persecution of those who use other
substances. Exactly how does giving the citizen less freedom make their
lives better? It seems just like globalisation, the society they wish
for is rather like the dour and drab Communist model, with strict,
repressive laws, the only difference being the rich are allowed to keep
their wealth, and usually therefore buy their way out of any laws that
restrict mere mortals.

Culture wise, again like communism, there's an opposition to organic,
people led cultural development, instead a favouring of the state lead
uniform model. That's why they'll brandish words like homogenious and so
forth. There's a notable dislike of living culture, with the crossover
between domestic subcultures and foreign ones that entails,prefering a
sterile and dead one. Not only does this, as with Communism, make for
more power to the corrupt and despotic politicians, but at the same time
also suit the demographic block marketing stratergies of big
corporations. So everyone's a winner, except of course ordinary people.

Perhaps the word "penner" would be a better choice than "nationalist"-
penning up the world's population so it can be better exploited by their
rich overlords. Not preserving a multi-government world, but creating a
world government based on the apartheid regime.

So why are people so avidly supportive of such an obvious con and power
grab? Again, like communism, it's jealousy- the belief that putting and
keeping others down will make oneself better off. In addition, some
people are stupid enough to prefer a wealthier lifestyle in a less free
community, due to the confused sense of priorities preached by the mass
media. Unfortunately, a rather disturbing truth was spoken by a
political great from the past- "the irony is that those who favour money
and comfort above freedom will lose those too".

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:16:47 +0000, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Perhaps the word "penner" would be a better choice than "nationalist"-
>penning up the world's population so it can be better exploited by their
>rich overlords. Not preserving a multi-government world, but creating a
>world government based on the apartheid regime.
>

Interesting term.

Sometimes past microcosms can illuminate
modern macrocosms. Consider the great
captains of industry and finance in late 19th
century America.

As retaining a trained, cheap, workforce was
good for their bottom line they arranged to trap
workers - underpaying them or even scheming
to keep them in perpetual debt to their bosses
so it became very difficult to leave a bad job.

Unions kind-of dealt with that ... but then the
unions became very corrupt and now most
are in it for themselves, not the workers.

Note too that in the 19th century there was a huge
need for bodies to put behind the machines. Mass
immigration was encouraged so the need could
be met. Today however ... well ... your job is always
just a heartbeat from being outsourced to China or
India ... assuming you weren't replaced by a robot
already. Now there's a surplus of workers, they
have little value, little clout and are easily replaced.

If "anybody" can do your job, well, that situation
traditionally equates to very low wages. Even the
unions can't help you now. If industry could figure
out how to beam 25% of the essentially useless
workers out into the vaccuum of space and blame
it on little grey aliens they'd do it ... so they would
not have to pay "welfare" just to keep them alive.

So, the same tricks used in the late 19th century
have been transcribed onto todays "globalized"
economy - and for similar reasons.

>So why are people so avidly supportive of such an obvious con and power
>grab? Again, like communism, it's jealousy- the belief that putting and
>keeping others down will make oneself better off.

It does. "Wealth" requires an unequal distribution
of money. Authority requires an unequal distribution
of power. If most people have less, what YOU have
is worth more.

Which is why we see this pattern repeated across
history and cultures. It works.

>In addition, some
>people are stupid enough to prefer a wealthier lifestyle in a less free
>community, due to the confused sense of priorities preached by the mass
>media.

"Less free" often means "better organized" and "more
efficient". While you may not have as many ways to
spend your money, if the most common necessities
and niceties become more plentiful then people will
be happy to accept "less free".

Of course there's no cap on this line of thinking ... there
is a significant danger of it proceeding to its logical
endpoint - slavery and micro-managing totalitarianism.

As for the mass media ... it's wholly owned by the power
elite and serves THEIR purposes first and foremost.

>Unfortunately, a rather disturbing truth was spoken by a
>political great from the past- "the irony is that those who favour money
>and comfort above freedom will lose those too".

Most of The System was described quite well by
Machiavelli centuries ago. The heirs of power still
use the same tricks - they've just become better
at it, have CNN and FOX to alter reality to suit
their needs.

And finally ... if after 12,000+ years of "civilization"
The People STILL haven't caught on to the games
their leaders play ... well ...... they're just never
gonna.

[Topaz]

The West is the White race.

The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.

And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.

Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.

Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."



http://www.ihr.org/ http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://heretical.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com