tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post3218103847923660363..comments2022-10-31T15:44:23.304-07:00Comments on Mjolnir Magazine: ANNE MARIE WATERS AND CONTROLLED OPPOSITIONDavid Yorkshirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07488196258965878134noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post-65254745485453847932017-10-24T05:12:35.583-07:002017-10-24T05:12:35.583-07:00No, I'm afraid we're not going to agree he...No, I'm afraid we're not going to agree here. You were clear in your argument, and I responded to that here:<br /><br />"This is not a political website, but a cultural one. We do not get involved directly with politics and do not engage in the subterfuge and shenanigens that entails, but merely say things as we see them."<br /><br />Perhaps here I wasn't clear enough. I understand what you're trying to do politically, but from a cultural perspective, it makes no sense, for you have legitimated her position on other aspects besides Islam. If that were to continue and more from the militant LGBT lobby were invited into the movement, things like homosexual adoption would be normalised. I personally think this might be a worse threat than Islam itself, for attempted destruction from without can be withstood when one has a healthy culture within, but inviting the destruction of one's own culture from within is pure folly. The argument is now closed.David Yorkshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488196258965878134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post-91416798191922014582017-10-24T02:39:34.888-07:002017-10-24T02:39:34.888-07:00"Would you describe this as traditional?"..."Would you describe this as traditional?"<br /><br />No, I wouldn't, far from it. As I said, perhaps not clearly enough above: "From a tactical point of view, there's something beneficial there to those who have more traditionalist ethnocentric/nativist and nationalistic points of view. Just as there is with those in Germany with Weidel."<br /><br />Culturally right-wing and traditionalist people are attacked - as Powell presciently said decades ago - by attaching them to particular types, placed in boxes. Then these ‘types’ shortly become a Pavlovian shorthand. The msm and others in positions of influence within the liberal Zeitgeist just need to dangle these types as a demonstration of their being bad, or low-class, or echoing barbarity to ward off general interest and to place the thing and by extension its arguments beyond the pale.<br /><br />This type of liberal-dissenter person we are discussing - provided they are anchored to a more traditional base (or are one of many speakers) - allow this tendency to be undermined. It is not so convenient to attack them using the same methods of old and in fact often uses the liberal Zeitgeist’s own value system against it by showing how its own values are undermined (FGM etc.) From a non-sexuality point of view, we might also mention Wilders. <br /><br />When you are in a position of great influence, tiny ideological differences become more important within even ideologically pure movements. When you are generally heaving at an obstacle from a greater distance with less influence, then others in the general landscape can fulfil shorter-term tactical interests at the behest of a wider strategy. With a general population immersed in at least 50 years (and arguably centuries) of liberal rot then sometimes one may parley with Whigs or others.<br /><br />In this article here it's clear that this wasn't the case of 'coming up with the best person to lead a party' but at best as you have suggested, provided a platform. <br /><br />Anyway, let's draw this to a close? I can see we are not going to agree on this much. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Stephen Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post-68799426683875701192017-10-24T00:00:37.849-07:002017-10-24T00:00:37.849-07:00In mentioning Alice Weidel there, you make my poin...In mentioning Alice Weidel there, you make my point for me. Weidel is bringing up two children with her Sri Lankan lesbian lover. Would you describe this as traditional? I would describe it as child abuse. When one woman is playing daddy, the whole issue of whether they are against the cult of transgenderism becomes a moot point. And if this is now normal even among the TBG crowd, the Muslims have a point when they say we in the West have become completely degenerate and depraved.<br /><br />However, as you say, there were those with 'hostile' questions and they were right to be so. They probably wondered, as did I, what she was doing at an allegedly traditionalist meeting. In fact, I asked as much during the live stream on the TBG's Facebook page, but my comment quickly disappeared. I, on the other hand, have given you fair hearing on here.<br /><br />This is not a political website, but a cultural one. We do not get involved directly with politics and do not engage in the subterfuge and shenanigens that entails, but merely say things as we see them. We shall continue to do so directly and honestly. As a last note, if Anne Marie Waters is the best person we can come up with to lead a party, the movement as a whole is in very dire trouble.David Yorkshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488196258965878134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post-52348076044449604952017-10-23T12:53:51.350-07:002017-10-23T12:53:51.350-07:00"It is clear Waters wishes to tap into the na..."It is clear Waters wishes to tap into the nationalist vote."<br /><br />Sure. And it also seems logical that much of her antipathy towards Islam has originally been rooted in sexual proclivity. <br /><br />But as said above, her comments on Islam have also been framed in a 'white interest' context going back at least five years or more. She attacks Islamic penetration (pun unintended) by reference to the rape of white girls, accusations of racism as an attack on the justified complaints of white men, Islamic creeds as an eating away of white culture etc. And the logical conclusion of her views on Islam would be the restriction on those of Islamic faith being admitted here: no more people from Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh etc. <br /><br />So we have a narrative of white self-interest and ethnically restrictive immigration policy. <br /><br />A few weeks ago, AMW was odds-on favourite to lead Britain's third (really fourth) political party. A party with activists or members in every town in Britain and had crawled -awkwardly- from complete bumbling foot-shooting amateurism, to something resembling a more polished presence. <br /><br />From a tactical point of view, there's something beneficial there to those who have more traditionalist ethnocentric/nativist and nationalistic points of view. Just as there is with those in Germany with Weidel. <br /><br />There are many very solid people win UKIP that were not progressed due to Farage's backslapping yes-man culture and his holding the pass at weak tea civic nationalism. <br /><br />Sadly the last few weeks have seen her lose that leadership and , imo, make a strategic error in leaving and starting a new party. <br /><br />But the cards last week, and the benefit of having a leader of a major UK party as speaker seem clear enough for the foregoing reasons. Or at least, I am pretty sure that must have been part of the thought process going on there.Stephen Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post-21141339200614367452017-10-23T11:58:19.134-07:002017-10-23T11:58:19.134-07:00The website you mention that she has written for i...The website you mention that she has written for is that of the National Secular Society, which, since being headed by Terry Sanderson, has just become a front for LGBT lobbying against ALL religiosities, as with Waters' statement below:<br /><br />"When religious discrimination against women or LGBT people is accommodated, what exactly does that say to women and LGBT people? It is, as Power says, a message of inferiority – contamination even – coming from the religious believer, which is then legitimised by accommodation, rather than being condemned as the humiliating and degrading treatment of another human being."<br /><br />However, she has indeed been against Islam from an LGBT perspective, I'll acknowledge that, and she has been a campaigner against female genital mutilation and child rape by Muslims. I have said in the article I have nothing against her anti-Islamic stance. It is the baggage she brings that is the problem.<br /><br />By backed, I don't necessarily mean financially (although her attire I would attribute to her lesbianism). Waters has been close to Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston since they launched Pegida UK together. Their ties to the Jewish lobby are well-known. There is a very famous photograph of Weston wearing a yarmulke that regularly gets passed around nationalist websites and their slavishness can be seen in many erticles and interviews. Pat Condell is another one like that. Robinson works for Ezra Levant's Rebel Media and covered For Britain's inaugural meeting, moaning that no one from the mainstream media was there. Why would they be? In fact, judging by the room, very few people in general were there.<br /><br />It is clear Waters wishes to tap into the nationalist vote. Are there not enough parties already out there I ask? Why does she have to have her own party led by her? It smacks to me of personal ambition and, yes, there will be backers. Every party has backers and needs backers. This is not conspiratorial so much as the fact that backers always have their own interests at heart. I would only back a party that is racially nationalist, for example. Jews generally back parties favourable to Jewish interests. It is no secret that Marine Le Pen has courted the Jewish lobby in France.<br /><br />This brings me to that article about Israel she wrote, which is very much about courting Jewish lobby groups. You will notice she is FOR lesbian adoption here and also shows a willingness to denigrate traditionally British attitudes and morality regarding LGBT issues. The TBG can of course invite whomever it wants, but equally I'm free to question the relevance of these speakers to a traditional Britain, indeed if they are traditional at all.<br /><br />As for being divisive, a line always has to be drawn somewhere at some point. Otherwise why not open our arms to the SJWs? Anne Marie Waters' primary concern is 'the LGBT community' and that puts hers at odds with mine. While I have no wish to see homosexuals who mind their own business thrown off tall buildings as under Shariah Law, equally I do not think homosexuals should be afforded rights of adoption, marriage, parades or any other propaganda for their lifestyle.David Yorkshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488196258965878134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5604071136466043657.post-59591086194007067182017-10-23T07:07:47.389-07:002017-10-23T07:07:47.389-07:00OK, I’ve now had a chance to read this.
In the i...OK, I’ve now had a chance to read this. <br /><br />In the item you link, she’s supportive of Israel and their tendencies towards homosexual equality. If you also see her articles on sites like the Secular Society, she is more generally supportive of civil rights legislation across the board and by dint of this site opposed to Christian schooling. That’s reasonably standard for those coming from the Counter Jihad circuit.<br /><br />On the other side of the fence, her articles criticising multiculturalism and attacks on the native white population, can be found going back at least 5 years or more, long before the recent decision to stand within UKIP (and thereafter leave and launch a new party.) It’s also my understanding that she attacks the transgender agenda (along with some feminists) and also, interestingly homosexual marriage. <br /><br />So she’s effectively of a type that we can all recognise.<br /><br />In your article on the subject you mention a few things, including:<br /><br />She’s backed by international Jewry; is “going to offer us a Jewish controlled LGBTJQ+ Britain or an Islamic vassal state like Transylvania during the Ottoman Empire”; and is a false hero figure.<br /><br />If she is backed by ‘international Jewry’ it doesn’t show in the attire she has purchased. <br />At the meeting to which she spoke, there was no hero worship, in fact at the questions at the end, about 7 of them were a mixture of openly hostile and silly. Past meetings of this group have been addressed by libertarians, civic nationalists/assimilationists, wet Conservatives (or rather classical liberals), men who whilst speaking out against the ‘great replacement’ are actually married to non-Europeans, farmers better known for putting buckshot in burglar’s buttocks or swearing on national television etc. All of them have brought some interesting elements to the table and none of them have been accepted as a saviour. <br /><br />I tend to the view that this ‘controlled / paid for opposition’ attitude leads us to an overly conspiratorial and managerial view of the political process that is more divisive generally. <br /><br />Some people there were supportive of her new political vehicle and from social media rmany others seem keen to join her new party and get involved. Other audience UKIPers were sceptical that a new party could achieve much - certainly my perspective. If it makes a splash at all, it will bring many people who see Islam as culturally incompatible together and drive a demand to have a discriminatory immigration policy put in place. A religious one but with a high ethnic element. It will also seek to make Britain more uncomfortable for those of a particular faith, so they consider other residential options. These things might not map uniformly with tradcon views, but they will certainly enable the advance of views that seek to expand cultural incompatibility to ethnic incompatibility and the awareness of a demographic existential threat. And clearly like UKIP, this micro-group's inevitable role will be to apply pressure on larger entities to take on board some of this, rather than ever being in a position to accomplish it itself. <br /><br />For these reasons for the TBG group that describes itself as being a broad alliance towards traditionalist ends, I don’t see much of an issue. <br /><br />I also saw many of the same people who support AMW today championing the Identitarians on Westminster Bridge and their opposition to the great replacement. There's a cross-pollination. Personally I had hoped she's stay in UKIP and open the cellar door and release those second and third rank captives where the likes of Crowther had thrown them and those solid conservative men could have gotten to work. It was not be be.<br /><br />Stephen Greennoreply@blogger.com