A debate flared up recently in the comments section of an article on this website regarding the possibility of free energy.
The original commenter linked to a PDF alleging to list many free energy devices which actually work and instructions on how to assemble them, and I stated that free energy devices cannot exist according to what I have learned.
In this article I am going to clarify what is meant or can be meant by free energy, why it seems to be impossible using certain definitions and why I believe nationalism ought to avoid embracing and advertising pseudoscience and fringe science.
Recently my views on the necessity of a moderate message as opposed to a radical one changed somewhat.
This may have had something to do with the furore over David Icke's nonsense and the responses made to it, but the repeated failure of moderate or 'fluffy' organisations, especially Britain First, to take off in any meaningful way has certainly contributed.
The new-found success of the Golden Dawn is of course equally important.
Last night, I was struck with not a logical proof but what I see as a systematic demonstration of the necessity of radical nationalism. My thought process was very similar to the nine points listed in order below. If anyone finds fault or agreement with them, I would be happy to see their responses in the comments section below.
I would argue that the most important debate raging within nationalism at present concerns the nature of our rhetoric. Nationalists hold several core principles: opposition to foreign interference in our politics, rejection of multiculturalism and the promotion of indigenous rights to name but a few.
Although individuals may disagree over peripheral issues or interpretations of historical fact, generally there is more than enough common ground between nationalists to form a cohesive movement. What, then, is the problem?
The issue dividing nationalism – and if it were only an intellectual or theoretical divide, then this would be mostly benign – is the degree to which the truth should be enunciated exactly as it is seen and the manner in which this ought to be done.
With a title like Zionism is racism, this article could easily be a scathing criticism of political Zionism based on Israel’s racial hypocrisy. However, I think any reader of The British Resistance who has entertained even a fleeting interest in Zionism will already understand the thrust of that argument.
The point I wish to raise is very different but still in keeping with the title, as you will see if you click on the “Read more” link below. My argument may prove to be controversial but it is almost certainly not original.
One of the favourite angles of attack for this site’s detractors has always been to lie about our popularity – to claim that our readership is plummeting, or that nobody reads our articles, and so on. As frequent readers will know, the British Resistance site features its three-month average Alexa ranking on the front page, making it very easy for visitors to check just how well we are doing compared to the rest of the Internet in terms of readership.
Although I didn’t take part in the comments thread on Albion’s article yesterday, I’ve been watching it with fascination and dishing out several thumbs up as everybody else piled in their own opinions, including Britain First’s coordinator for Scotland, Gary Raikes. I would like to address the thread as a whole and Gary’s comments specifically.
Broadly speaking there are two schools of thought. One holds that we would have been better off in the long run had the Germans been able to invade Britain in the Second World War, and the other suggests that this type of discussion is exactly what gives the nationalist movement a negative image and should not be allowed. In this article I will attempt to hopefully reconcile the two groups: if you begin to think I disagree with you, please pay careful attention and read to the end because I might not be.