At Last the 1948 Show?

Posted by FDS on October 18, 2009, 08:15 PM | #

Translation: The residents of the Myrha Street (18 borough of Paris), its population is of foreign origin, increasingly undergo the invasion of their public space by Muslims who impose their prayers on the entire population

The newcomers find this spectacle exotic. The good socialist parishioners pity the Muslims for not having enough space to pray, but don’t lend them their church. Finally, there are those who live in one of the streets used for prayers, and who cannot either enter or leave their apartments for two hours each Friday - they’re forced to deal with it.

When women without the veil - the veiled ones don’t dare it - attempt to walk on those streets during prayers, they get brutally shoved. Recently, a friend has told me that she was shoved and fell to the ground while trying to go home, Affre Street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYTuwqz9v6A&feature=player_embedded#

Les habitants du quartier de la rue Myrha (18e arrondissement de Paris), dont la population est majoritairement d’origine étrangère, subissent de manière grandissante, l’invasion de leur espace public par des musulmans qui imposent leurs prières à l’ensemble de la population.

Les nouveaux arrivants trouvent ce spectacle exotique. Les bons paroissiens socialistes plaignent les musulmans de ne pas avoir assez de place pour prier, mais ne leurs prêteraient pas leur église. Enfin, il y a ceux qui habitent dans l’une de ces rues utilisées pour la prière,et qui ne peuvent ni rentrer ni sortir de chez eux pendant deux heures chaque vendredi – alors, ils s’organisent, contraints et forcés.
Quand des femmes non voilées – les voilées ne l’osent pas – essaient de passer dans ces rues pendant la prière, elles se font repousser un peu brutalement. Dernièrement, une amie me rappelait qu’elle avait été bousculée au point d’être presque renversée alors qu’elle essayait de rentrer chez elle, rue Affre.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 18, 2009, 08:19 PM | #

Who could possibly object to “negotiation and consent”? You can always ask someone to leave your house, but it doesn’t mean they’ll do so.

Posted by Captainchaos on October 18, 2009, 09:53 PM | #

The statement is sufficiently vague that it could be interpreted as advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants and unjustified cases of asylum seeking, and incentivizing the voluntary repatriation of legally settled immigrants.  It is also sufficiently vague for the hardcore set to interpret as code for eventual, total expulsion of all non-Whites and mongrels.  Why bother repealing it?

Posted by Bill on October 18, 2009, 10:00 PM | #

I’ve not seen Boulton perform before, he seemed so bored with the whole thing he never even bothered to launch the obligatory opening RPG - are the BNP a racist party?

He had a clipboard of tick-box questions and as soon as he had obtained the desired result he ticked the box and was no longer interested in what Griffin had to say - poor Nick, still answering the last question with a dead pan Boulton half way through the next question.

Indigenous Brits.  Nick seemed to steer clear of any connection with indigenous Brits and being being white - well at least in this interview.  Is this policy?

Civically British - Hmmm?  Nick is saying long settled non-white immigrants who have fitted into the British way of life are no problem to the BNP.  In fact he says he’s being saying this for the last ten years.  Boulton was happy with this and ticked another box, he didn’t ask and Nick didn’t volunteer to opine what would happen when there would be millions of such settled people - would Britain still be Britain?

What a tangled web.  Holocaust denial, mixed marriages, women’s lib, the SS, Dresden.  Nick’s past youthful sojourn into such territory was a cheap victory for Boulton, barely stifling a yawn as he ticked yet more boxes.

Did Mr Griffin agree with L J B’s comment that modern women are gorgon monstrosities? (or some such) Nick laughingly agreed when it was pointed out he could be sitting next to one this coming Thursday.

Opportunities are opening up by the bucketful for the BNP to cease being reactive and wade into the attack two fisted, forcing the Boulton’s of this liberal world to defend their cheer leading for the extinction of the British people.

Bring it on.

PS.  Cameron’s secret weapon, Hezeltine is back.  Woy Hattersly next?  Old farts and failed politicians.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 18, 2009, 10:13 PM | #

Why bother repealing it?

Once the membership issue has been defused sights will be trained upon the other aspects of the BNP’s constitution that can be depicted as ‘racist’. Calling for a ‘return to the demographics of 1948’ is a conspicuous example and is obviously completely at odds with the party leadership’s current stance that acculturated ethnics who civically British are ‘welcome to stay’.

It is such a glaring contradiction that it is surprising that Griffin hasn’t been seriously troubled by it before. But we can be certain that more accomplished inquisitors than Adam Boulton won’t hesitate to confront him on the matter.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 18, 2009, 10:21 PM | #

FDS:  given all this outrage, why don’t more Frenchmen vote for Le Pen?  What’s wrong with their cervelle?  Qu’est-ce qui va pas, d’après toi?

Posted by Captainchaos on October 18, 2009, 10:41 PM | #

I can see the point in dropping the “that existed in Britain prior to 1948” bit, however who is ‘civically British’ is subjective and provides wiggle room.  Griffin’s incessant harping on Islam is clearly one example of a demographic he purports as being all but incapable of being ‘civically British’.  The point is to clear this hurdle and keep fighting, not to submit to being deradicalized into nothingness.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 18, 2009, 10:44 PM | #

Dan,

Thanks for this.  I did not know that the 1948 committment was in the Constitution.  The case for it is very strong, of course.  And it can be cast in political terms - it doesn’t have to be only racial.  I was trying to make that distinction today at CiF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/18/catherine-bennett-nick-griffin?commentid=360418af-2dde-4815-b292-c9fc46e243e2

(That’s almost the only surviving comment with any sort of content in it from two CiF/BNP threads hi-jacked today.)

Whether a political slant would evade the net cast by devoted racialisers like Phillips and Wadham is another matter.  However, there must come a point when the persecution of the party will go too far for the public’s taste, and the moral pendulum will swing.  I believe that this is already very close.  You hear Grffin, Darby and others complaining that the indigenous British are being denied their identity, and that’s wrong or racist, etc.  This isn’t quite the right way to go with it - too abstract, too defensive, too much of the “British”.

For me, this would knock em back in the aisles:

“You are taking our England from us.  Now you want our very being.  You stand there and tell us we English do not exist or we are not people of consequence like West Indians or Africans or Pakistanis.  But we are the English, damn it.  We are people of consequence, and this is our land, sacred to us.  And the whole meaning of the British National Party is to keep this land for our people, our children, our life.

You say that is racist.  I say that is just and right.  But let the English have their say - unless, of course, you do not trust them to speak.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 18, 2009, 11:08 PM | #

Bah...you’re still in a defensive mode. If you have to plead with the invader to let you survive, it clearly illustrates who has the upper hand. I’m somewhat amused by the trend of Asiatic foreigners saying that they’re English. I first saw that years ago in France when Africans and Arabs referred to themselves as Europeans and French. It’s a wonderful example of usurped identity. ("You say you’re John Smith and the rightful owner on this land? Well, I’m also John Smith and the rightful owner of this land. What are you going to do about it?") A way of pointing out that you have no more claim on this territory than we do. Actually, they’re very explicit about it. Ultimately, it’s all very theoretical and abstract. Historically speaking land belongs to those who are willing to fight and die for it. The Israelis took the land from Palestinians Arabs and cleansed it of them. To this day Israel thumbs its nose at U.N. resolutions that plainly state that the land Israelis are occupying since the war of 1967 contravenes international law. Israelis, however, don’t seem to care much about such abstract principles like international law. Alsace Lorraine is claimed by both Germans and the French and has been going back and forth between the two nations. Examples are countless. It all comes down to Will. It seems to me that the English, and more generally western Europeans, aren’t willing to do what it takes to reclaim their territories from foreigner invaders. It’s a question of vitality, strength, and philosophy. Decades of liberalism has sapped the energies and self-defence mechanism of an entire dying and raped people. They’re gently acquiesce to go into that long night of oblivion. I don’t see the trend reversing itself. It’s all a question of time before the English are completely wiped out...with the collaboration of their elites. Ditto for western Europe. Perhaps only the Slavs will survive a bit longer.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 18, 2009, 11:19 PM | #

Friedrich,

That’s how the English do these things.  We don’t get that German self-assertion, and all the stuff about “strength”.  You will never hear an Englishman laud such things, and the French and Scandinavians, too, are temperamentally ill-disposed to them.

The “pleading”, if such is what you perceive, is with the propositional BBC interviewer, btw - not the racial aliens.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 18, 2009, 11:38 PM | #

Still obsessing about Krauts? Do you dream of them at night? I’m sure you’ve noticed they’re half dead. You may relax. Since you’re an expert on Scandinavians and the French, it seems that between the Viking raids and the colonization of Russia, the British Isles and sailing all the way to North America the Scandinavians showed quite a bit of it for a tiny populace. As for the French, it takes strength to dominate much of Europe and a good portion of the world. Call it what you want, but it takes strength to refuse one’s dispossession. When you have it, there’s no need to talk about it. And Germans aren’t going to show anyone the way, not this time. You’re on your own.

Posted by john rackell on October 19, 2009, 12:07 AM | #

Mr. Braun, regarding Will I think it will ultimately decide the issue.  I think what you fail to bring to the fore is that to exert their Will the indigenous must engage in civil war. The colonists can wage war against us but we have to wage war against ourselves and against them.  Waging war against the colonists is the easy part and will be child’s play when the emotional furies of civil war are unleashed.  But I think it takes a long preparation before one is prepared to fight ones’ own kith and kin.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 19, 2009, 12:16 AM | #

Will, like strength, is a German invention. See post above.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 19, 2009, 12:19 AM | #

But I think it takes a long preparation before one is prepared to fight ones’ own kith and kin.

It seems British history is replete with civil wars - big and small. You’ve been there before.

Posted by Armor on October 19, 2009, 01:39 AM | #

It’s a wonderful example of usurped identity. ("You say you’re John Smith and the rightful owner on this land? Well, I’m also John Smith and the rightful owner of this land. What are you going to do about it?") A way of pointing out that you have no more claim on this territory than we do. (—Friedrich Braun )

Foreign claims on European land don’t surprise me. What surprises me is when they claim to be us, when they claim they have a right on us, our lives, and our money. But in fact, most African and Arab immigrants are proud to say they are not French. The rhetoric about non-whites being French is mostly Jewish.

Alsace Lorraine is claimed by both Germans and the French and has been going back and forth between the two nations.

I think it is no longer claimed by Germans. Alsatians themselves are afraid to say that they are German. It would probably be racist to say so.

It seems British history is replete with civil wars - big and small. You’ve been there before.

Then it must be the fault of television. It saps the will !
There was no television during the last English civil war.

Posted by Lurker on October 19, 2009, 01:42 AM | #

What happened to FB, or perhaps, what happened to the real FB?

Was he got at, turned?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 19, 2009, 02:29 AM | #

”The rhetoric about non-whites being French is mostly Jewish.” (—Armor)

Another bit of rhetoric that’s mostly Jewish is the one about immigration of non-whites being “une chance, une grande chance pour la France” (“an opportunity for France”).  Getting filled to bursting with mulattoes from the Maghreb and Sub-Saharans from Cameroon and points south, with the concomitant driving out or miscegenating of all white Frenchmen, is “une chance, une grande chance pour la France.” They never say that would be a grande chance pour l’Israël, only for la France. 

Here’s the French Jew Jean-François Copé spouting it (check out his picture, by the way — did you ever see anyone more Jewish-looking?):

”Il faut que l’on positive le fait d’être une population aussi diverse que l’est devenue la nôtre, qu’on le vive comme une chance.”

[ http://www.fdesouche.com/articles/73932 ]

Here’s French Jew Julien Dray:

”D’abord je vais vous dire moi, dans cette situation, quand je vois Fari j’ai mal.  J’ai mal parce que je me dis que c’est une chance pour la France, une chance énorme de disposer d’un jeune qui a fait tous ses efforts pour arriver là où il est arrivé.  Et c’est un crime contre la République, c’est un terrible crime pour la République, contre la République, de le voir dans cette situation.  Et si on avait changé le discours depuis vingt ans — si au lieu, en permanence, de désigner les immigrés comme responsables de tous les maux de cette société — si on s’était dit une fois pour toute que c’est une chance, peut-être tout n’est pas formidable mais que c’est une formidable chance pour la France de disposer de jeunes comme lui”

[ http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/m_le_pen_has_a_new_spokesperson/#c66613 ]

I saw a video where French Jew Jack Lang said it, and French Jew Jacques Attali has spouted it.  Dégueulène Royal isn’t Jewish but got her talking points during her campaign fed to her by the throngs of Jews who surrounded her, such as Julien Dray who was her press secretary for a time, and she spouted it.

It’s typically French-Jewish rhetoric.

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 02:43 AM | #

@Friedrich

Bah...you’re still in a defensive mode. If you have to plead with the invader to let you survive, it clearly illustrates who has the upper hand.

I do think there may be a problem with Griffin’s tactics here. I think it’s easy to get the idea that access to television is the key and jumping through whatever hoops are neccessary to get TV access is justified. The problem with that is the mass media is entirely in the hands of the enemy and is the enemy’s chief weapon. They’ll set up an endless sequence of hoops to be jumped through and in such a way as to make sure by the time you’ve jumped through the last one your position is no longer a threat to them.

I think the attitude of a first-stage nationalist party to the mass media should be extremely hostile as after all, these are the people who every day deliberately cover up the murders of White people by invaders. The aim i feel should be political activity that is reasonable to the public but unacceptable to the enemy so as to provoke inevitable media attacks that are perceived as unreasonable and disproportionate. This reveals the mass media as part of the enemy and helps to radicalize people. My first thought when the BNP got the two MEPs was griffin should announce a boycott of the BBC.

On the other hand Griffin’s played his cards well so far so who knows. I’ll wait and see. I hope his aim isn’t to become “respectable” as i feel that will be a long slow kiss of death. I hope instead he plans to dodge his way through all the obstacles to the largest platform available and then release the genocide meme into as wide an audience as possible and then keep doing it till they ban him.

Decades of liberalism has sapped the energies and self-defence mechanism of an entire dying and raped people. They’re gently acquiesce to go into that long night of oblivion. I don’t see the trend reversing itself.

The invasion of the Falklands Islands was perceived as dispossession and the British people instantly reacted in the same way their ancestors would have. The same with Saddam Hussain. In fact as long as you call a potential enemy “Fascists” or “Nazis” or accuse them of genocide then all of a sudden there’s a huge amount of strength and will because we’ve all been programmed that way for sixty years - hence why the jewish-Bolshevik mass murder of Ukrainians is suppressed as that would point the guilt the wrong way and give the Germans a valid reason for being so violently anti jewish-Bolshevik and thereby making the jewish-Bolsheviks the primary cause of everything that followed including their own casualties.

The current genocide through mass immigration is not perceived as dispossession because the vast bulk of the population have succumbed to the sixty years of psychological warfare directed at them by hostile mass media and the even worse but more recent effect of our enemies conquering the education system and poisoning the minds of the next generation through their text books.

I don’t think liberalism is the cause of the demoralization. I think the triumph of liberalism is a symptom of the demoralization. I think the demoralization comes through imposed guilt. I’d say the closest analogy is a bullied wife or hen-pecked husband who lose their ability and will to defend themselves after relentless negative domestic psychological warfare. The problem (imo) is waking people up from thisr brain-washing. The strength and will would immediately re-appear if that could be achieved.

(Number 15 on http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/ says some interesting things about conditioning.)

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 02:54 AM | #

What surprises me is when they claim to be us

It’s the ultimate dispossession. In Kosovo the enemy not only drove out the Serb people but eradicated all trace they’d ever been there by destroying all the old buildings and turning the cemetaries into car parks. This is even worse as they say we don’t even have our own separate genetic existence while we’re still alive and standing in front of them.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 19, 2009, 06:09 AM | #

Guessedworker - You hear Grffin, Darby and others complaining that the indigenous British are being denied their identity, and that’s wrong or racist, etc.  This isn’t quite the right way to go with it - too abstract, too defensive, too much of the “British”.

I tend to agree. ‘Britishness’ has been dramatically devalued in recent years to the extent that whenever the term ‘Briton’ appears in the national press, especially in connection with some international terrorist activity, we can be quite certain that it refers not to an ethnic Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman or Irishman but rather to a ‘New Briton’ of Afro-Asian provenance.

The unfortunate reality is that today the protective umbrella of ‘Britishness’ is of greatest utility to those recent incomers who can make no claim to indigeousness but for whom having British nationality, in a legalistic, administrative sense provides many benefits. For an Indian or Pakistani, for example, possession of a British passport opens many doors that would otherwise be tightly closed.

The time is nigh, it seems, for the emergence of an English National Party; perhaps the BNP can repurpose itself as such, perhaps not. In which case the field would be open.

Posted by Bill on October 19, 2009, 06:47 AM | #

The stark truth is, the media is wiping the floor with Griffin, I can’t stand blood, I keep wanting the referee to step in and stop the fight.

And this is the secret of the Griffin’s success.  The English detest bullying and the media are bully boys.  Griffin is David standing up to Goliath, the English appreciate that.

Nick’s got too much baggage, Wonderin is right; the media has sufficient ammunition to continue creating hoops for the BNP to jump through for ever.

Should Nick sacrifice himself and go for broke and tell it as it is, make it so outrageous the media have no option but to defend themselves.  I can’t see any mileage in this constant ducking and diving.  It’s like having a weapon of mass destruction in your back pocket and not using it - I don’t get it.

Maybe he’s keeping his powder dry - who knows?  Maybe he’s playing a canny game.  Maybe he just wants to become part of the scenery.  Whatever he’s doing - he’s all that we’ve got.

We’re witnessing one of the most bizarre events ever – a cash strapped inexperienced minnow of a political party locked in a life and death psychological struggle with the most powerful apparatus of the state media ever known, and do you know what?  They’re winning.

The truth is, and I keep repeating, all that Griffin and the BNP have to do is continue to hang on in there.  The BNP are a beacon of resistance, they are the only glimmer of hope in a long dark tunnel, there is no other, and it’s because of this the people will gradually, oh so gradually flock to the BNP standard.

That’s why our political and cultural elite are waging all out war against them.

Friedrich Braun October 18, 2009, 11:08 PM

it’s all very theoretical and abstract. Historically speaking land belongs to those who are willing to fight and die for it.

Too true, the only human right is the right to fight for human survival - that’s the law of nature.

Wandrin. October 19, 2009, 02:43 AM

A splendid post - one of your best.

Dan Dare October 19, 2009, 06:09 AM

The time is nigh, it seems, for the emergence of an English National Party; perhaps the BNP can repurpose itself as such, perhaps not. In which case the field would be open

More on this later.

Posted by Bill on October 19, 2009, 07:43 AM | #

Dan Dare October 19, 2009, 06:09 AM

The British self loathing, or should I say the cosmopolitan poltical elite’s number one enemy oppressor is the English.  I do not detect any animosity shown by the politcal establishment against the Scottish, Irish or Welsh national politics.  Why is that?

Scotland has it’s own national party, no problem for the elites there, no ganging up by the media against them.

The English are being targeted as enemy number one from elsewhere.  They say the English are historically evil racist oppressors, it’s in our genes they say and shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

Somebody badly wants England gone - got rid of!

The Scots, the Welsh and the rest have no love for the English, so why should we bother, why don’t we go it alone?

Being British has become a millstone around England’s neck and needs to be cast off.

I can’t see the BNP wanting any part of that.

Posted by Armor on October 19, 2009, 12:28 PM | #

A few posts above, Fred gave a link to an article about JF Copé, who was the spokesman of the former French governement, and is now president of Sarkozy’s political group in the French Parliament. The link refers to an interview published two days ago in Le Monde. More quotes from Copé, from that interview (my translation) :
--
(...) the first challenge (...) is the question of French identity.The nation is silently cracking because there is no discourse about identity. That theme (...) must be deeply renewed and reworked.
--
We’ve made the collective mistake of not explaining what it means to be French today. We’ve been afraid. We’ve refused to accept the sociological evolution of our population, with regard to its make-up, its origins, its religious practices, its ways of life.
--
We must put a positive light on the fact that we have become such a diverse population, it must be experienced as an opportunity. Let’s stop trying to make our children believe that all our ancestors were Gauls.

Posted by Armor on October 19, 2009, 12:36 PM | #

FBraun: “Decades of liberalism has sapped the energies and self-defence mechanism of an entire dying and raped people. They’re gently acquiesce to go into that long night of oblivion. I don’t see the trend reversing itself.”

Wandrin: “The invasion of the Falklands Islands was perceived as dispossession and the British people instantly reacted in the same way their ancestors would have.”

It shows that what we lack is direction. Instead of conquering the Malvinas and bringing the trade unions into line, Margaret Thatcher should have destroyed the BBC and reversed the race replacement policy. She would have had a lot of support.

If there was an army where Europeans could enlist, they would not fear losing their lives in the fight for their people.

Apart from direction, leaders, and stated objectives, the other thing we lack is free speech in the media. If we have no voice, we can not mobilize.

Posted by cryptojude #56 on October 19, 2009, 01:05 PM | #

Good comments from FB. Careful buddy—a few here have already imagined you’re a defeatist crypto-bot that’s replaced the real Friedrich Braun!

Posted by jamesUK on October 19, 2009, 05:04 PM | #

@Dan Dare

If you want to link to a specific time in a YouTube video just add the time at the end of the YouTube URL.

Youtube now allows you to link to a specific time of its videos using the t hash parameter. So, if you want the video to start at the 1min, 45sec mark then add #t=3m30s to the URL

1948 segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJy-bMOj3A#t=3m30s

http://www.labnol.org/internet/linking-to-a-specific-time-of-youtube-videos/5101/

Posted by Bill on October 19, 2009, 05:04 PM | #

Armor October 19, 2009, 12:36 PM

It shows that what we lack is direction. Instead of conquering the Malvinas and bringing the trade unions into line, Margaret Thatcher should have destroyed the BBC and reversed the race replacement policy. She would have had a lot of support

It also shows that from the end of World War II the long march through the institutions had wrought its destructive path without hinder.  This march was universal throughout white civilisation, and not one government anywhere sought to interfere or counter its progress.

This movement was insidious communism of the Frankfurt crowd, and since 9/11 they have come out of the woodwork and are now in our face.  The gloves are off.

Thatcher and Reagan were the only people who could have made a difference - they did nothing, in fact they laid the groundwork (neo-liberal economics) to facilitate what we are experiencing now.

Dare I ask?  Was this all a conspiracy?

Posted by Dan Dare on October 19, 2009, 05:35 PM | #

In Thatcher’s case she was merely following the bi-partisan approach to race and immigration that had been in effect since the early 1960s. The famous ‘swamping’ remarks from the run-up to the 1979 election were swiftly followed by the admittance of 10,000 Vietnamese boat-people, one of the first administrative decisions of the new Thatcher government.

Reagan, of course, signed the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act which had the effect of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 06:05 PM | #

Nick’s got too much baggage, Wonderin is right; the media has sufficient ammunition to continue creating hoops for the BNP to jump through for ever.

Just to clarify i would never say Griffin has too much baggage. If anything i’d say it was a good thing because it gives him more freedom to tailor policies and still remain credible to the membership. The media would create hoops for anyone and the last (and most critical) set would be the same for anyone. Griffin may have a few extra ones at the beginning of the chain but any BNP speaker would have the final hoops to jump through which were designed to make them “respectable” and therefore harmless.

My concern is related more to the strategy. If the strategy is to appease the mass media to the point where they’ll give the BNP a fair shout then that’s never going to happen. Jumping through hoops for that reason is a mistake in my view.

However if the strategy is simply to temporarily jump through enough hoops to get on a major and well-hyped platform like Question Time and then say things the enemy can’t allow to be said thus leading to being banned again then that would be excellent tactics imo.

The ideal situation for a party like the BNP is where an empty chair in a political debate program hurts the enemy by being an elephant in the room but having them on the program is even worse. Win-win.

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 06:41 PM | #

Thatcher and Reagan, whatever their good points, are examples of how the Conservative parties will always give way to the demand for cheap labour of their big business paymasters.

Apart from direction, leaders, and stated objectives, the other thing we lack is free speech in the media. If we have no voice, we can not mobilize.

The mass media being entirely in the hands of the enemy does make everything more difficult but Le Pen, Griffin and other’s from earlier times have shown how it’s possible to mobilize without mass media.

Posted by jamesUK on October 19, 2009, 07:51 PM | #

Just noticed the mistake forgot to change time example when changing time code add on to URL from the original source.

Youtube now allows you to link to a specific time of its videos using the t hash parameter. So, if you want the video to start at the 3min, 30sec mark then add #t=3m30s to the URL

When is the BNP holding its national conference?

Why was there no New Right conference this year and if there was why was it not recorded and uploaded on YouTube?

The bad image problem the BNP has is not Nick Griffin but that its supporters are working class, a pre modern WW1 era mentality, low IQ, fascists. 

Posted by John on October 19, 2009, 07:53 PM | #

Thatcher and Reagan were the only people who could have made a difference - they did nothing, in fact they laid the groundwork (neo-liberal economics) to facilitate what we are experiencing now.

Reagan didn’t merely do nothing. He gave 2,7 million illegals amnesty, who were then eligible to sponsor their family members for citizenship.

Posted by Lurker on October 19, 2009, 08:25 PM | #

cryptojude #56:

Good comments from FB. Careful buddy—a few here have already imagined you’re a defeatist crypto-bot that’s replaced the real Friedrich Braun!

Says someone in their first ever comment in five years of MR.

FB does seem to have changed his tune.

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 08:44 PM | #

Some examples of how i think Griffin’s baggage could actually be an advantage:

1) They ask him about holocaust denial and he responds by very briefly jumping through the hoop and then segues onto the deliberate cover-up of the Bolshevik holocaust by the Reds and makes the point that disputing any facts about the Nazi holocaust can uniquely get you put in jail like a modern day blasphemy law.

2) They ask him about his earlier times in Far Right politics and he jumps through the hoop very briefly but then counters on the Communist past of the leaders of the Labour party and how those accusing him of holocaust denial are all themselves quilty of actively trying to suppress knowledge of the Bolshevik holocaust.

They’ll want to try and get him on these issues because of his past but he can turn the questions right round and use them as counter weapons.

The same could be done with all the questions Boulton asked - prepare counters to each question that briefly defend against the attack and then segue into a longer counter-attack so much more time is spent on the counter-attack than on being defensive.

(This only applies if you believe as i do that the mass media is the prime citadel of the enemy, will never give nationalists a level playing field, and can only be used to our advantage against their will by putting them into an impossible dilemna where an empty chair hurts them and a non-empty chair hurts them.)

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 08:59 PM | #

The bad image problem the BNP has is not Nick Griffin but that its supporters are working class, a pre modern WW1 era mentality, low IQ, fascists.

Parties like the BNP need to organise peacefully, reasonably and democratically on a platform that is peaceful, reasonable and democratic but with policies that work to promote the survival of the blood nations of the British Isles even if that aim is not explicitly stated. This is a platform the enemy cannot allow. If the media attacks don’t work then the enemy will move to violence. Parties like the BNP then have to take that violence for as long as neccessary for the public to recognize who started it. Once it’s safely perceived that the Reds started it and are trying to prevent peaceful, reasonable and democratic political activity through violence you can do what you like.

At that point having the working classes on side will turn out to be very handy

Posted by dan dare on October 19, 2009, 09:14 PM | #

Bill - I do not detect any animosity shown by the politcal establishment against the Scottish, Irish or Welsh national politics.  Why is that?

I’d suggest that it’s principally because nationalist politics, as practised by the SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru, poses no threat to the multicultural status quo. Each of these parties is in favour of continuing mass immigration and is hyper-liberal in its attitude towards ethnic minorities and other grievance-mongering victim groups.

Their anti-Englishness is another characteristic which appeals to the political elites, who consider English nationalism as the principal threat to both the multicultural project and the objective of political fusion within the EU suprastate.

Posted by Bill on October 19, 2009, 10:29 PM | #

Wandrin October 19, 2009, 08:44 PM

On reflection I feel I might have been too hasty on Griffin.  What I didn’t take into account was the logistics of the interview.  Him being in the grounds of his farm somewhere in Wales being interviewed from a studio (somewhere?) Conducting such an interview must have been challenging for both parties.

Having said that, the whole panoply of National Socialism, Waffen SS, Holocaust etc to me is a costly distraction.  A ten minute interview in which most is devoted (by the media man) to showing Griffin in the worst possible light is a no brainer.  Same goes for feminism and sinking immigrant’s boats or any other idiotic nonsense he has come out with.

There’s little point in him going on television if all the media concentrates on is his chequered past.

I agree NG and any other BNP hierarchy, should not go into battle without a list of counter measures for the usual suspect liberal vitriol.

I heard one BNP guy? coming away from the court hearings the other day when he was asked by the BBC man the usual ‘is the BNP a racist party’?  The BNP chap calmly replied ‘if you explain to me what a racist party is, then I might be able to tell you’.  The scene instantly switched elsewhere.  That’s the way to do it!

Wandrin October 19, 2009, 08:59 PM | #

The bad image problem the BNP has is not Nick Griffin but that its supporters are working class, a pre modern WW1 era mentality, low IQ, fascists.

No longer true, the sheer numbers now surrounding the BNP belie this view.  Even the media comment that the people they see now do not conform to the knuckle dragging stereotype.

True, most supporters are of traditional working class and are not the most sartorial and sophisticated, but overtime this will further change as the midddle class climb aboard.

The question of proxy establishment violence on the BNP is an interesting one, how they, (elites) handle it will be interesting to see unfold.  Maybe suspend the ‘democratic’ process and form emergency government?  Call in the EU rapid response swat teams - who knows?  We’re in uncharted territoty from now on.

dan dare October 19, 2009, 09:14 PM | #

Bill - I do not detect any animosity shown by the politcal establishment against the Scottish, Irish or Welsh national politics.  Why is that?

In addition to your reasoning, I thought this was down to (Scots, Welsh, Irish) being historical victims of oppression from England.  Highland clearance - potato famine etc. Always beating them at football (LOL.)

Actually, I’ve always got on well with our Island brothers.  Talk about divide and conquer - Bastards.

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 10:31 PM | #

What i’m trying to get at here is summed up nicely in the “Who Are We” section of:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2005/06/18/61805-bobs-weekly-wol-articles/

Posted by Wandrin on October 19, 2009, 11:33 PM | #

Bill

On reflection I feel I might have been too hasty on Griffin.

I should explain. I come from a lot of years on the (union-type) left and only started to wake up a few years ago. At that time organisations like the NF repelled because they were politically too far away from where i was whereas the BNP was just close enough to someone who’d just woken up to keep me looking at various blogs etc while my views changed to where they are now. So without a Griffin someone like me would have been stuck. That’s why i would never criticize him on what he’s achieved so far.

Ignoring that for a moment then practically speaking i agree with you that his baggage is a problem as it gives the media such a lot of free ammunition. However given that he got the party where it is then it seems to me the only honest solution is to try and work towards turning the weakness into a strength.

I think the way to do that is to recognise that the enemy won’t be able to stop themselves making the same attacks over and over because of his baggage and so he could craft the perfect counter points, memorise them and then practise them over and over with filmed role-playing - so instead of interviewer attack followed by Griffin defense followed by interviewer attack and a Griffin defense ad infinitum, he turns it into interviewer attack followed by a (brief) Griffin defense rapidly followed by a (longer) counter-attack on a related subject. Repeat ad infinitum.

Example for the Ghurka question: We agree that of all the 4-5 million immigrants let into the country over the last 12 years the Ghurkas would easily be the most deserving but the Labour government has let in 4-5 million immigrants over the past 12 years and something needs to be done about the terrible housing problems in working class communities that they’ve caused as a result. It’s all very well for people in the media to treat this as a simple moral issue but in the real world houses don’t just appear out of nowhere.

Even the media comment that the people they see now do not conform to the knuckle dragging stereotype.

Yes, my only point was that the trouble with UAF will escalate if the media attacks don’t work and if / when that happens having some people around who aren’t scared of a few bruises will come in handy. I’m all in favour of having a few knuckle-draggers around personally as long as they’re visually more straight edge e.g Doc Marten shoes instead of boots, full length jeans, rugby or football shirts etc. I wasn’t that far from a knuckle-dragger myself when i was younger - so for me it’s only the media using the visual cliche against us that is the problem. Others may differ of course.

Posted by Bill on October 20, 2009, 07:18 AM | #

Times Online 20.10.2009

I wonder if this weeks edition of the BBC’s waning political flagship programme Question Time, will become a defining moment in the present hot culture war for the soul of Britain?

Murdoch’s Times is running a leading piece in to-day’s edition Generals join forces to resist ‘hijacking’ by BNP This comes hot on the heels of Murdoch’s Sun newspaper being given instructions to switch support from Brown to Cameron.

Is there any connection between these two events?

In today’s Times article, I notice in the comment threads candid pro BNP comments are being published which at one time would never have seen the light of day - why the change of heart?

Similar sentiments could be expressed about the Mail and the Telegraph, what’s going on here?

It seems to me, the more discussion there is in the public sphere the more diluted becomes the liberal zeitgeist.

Race, tolerance, diversity, enrichment and the whole plethora of doublespeak is losing its venom, it is becoming what we have known from the start - the emperor has no clothes.

Note I did not include political correctness in the above - does this still hold sway?

I cannot give any plausible reason or pattern as to the strategy being used by the media online - can you?

Posted by Bill on October 20, 2009, 07:36 AM | #

Missing link for above @ 7.18 am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6881808.ece

Sorry had problem.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 20, 2009, 09:39 AM | #

I’m an American, and know what little I do of contemporary Brit politics only from perusing this site, the occasional articles of relevance in American Renaissance, and, infrequently, The Spectator (the latter is supposed to be somewhat ‘conservative’, but I regard it as very moderate - even leftist). 

Many of these detailed tactical discussions respecting the BNP admittedly go over my head, but what I fail to understand is their necessity; to wit, given that ending all new non-white immigration, along with deporting illegal immigrants (assuming that deportation is the legislated penalty, as it is here in the US - albeit under-enforced), is both the sine qua non of any agenda for the preservation and ultimate renewal of traditional Britain, as well as easily understandable, and widely popular, at least amongst those on the Right (here is a real question: how many Tories favor continued mass immigration? From the few I’ve met over here, I’d imagine immigrationists must be a small minority of the conservative electorate.), wouldn’t it make sense for the BNP to advertise itself, at least at the national level of Mr. Griffin, as essentially a single-issue, anti-new-immigration party, and leave it there?

No immigrant possesses a moral right to British residency or citizenship. That proposition is easily defensible, and, one suspects, merely obvious to many Brits.

Beyond that, the BNP could simply list all of the demerits of continued immigration (overcrowding, crime, potential terrorism, sharia, disproportionate consumption of public benefits, jobs and housing competition, cultural and racial tensions, etc), and point out that only the BNP wants to stop immigration. Given your economy’s difficult circumstances, continuing immigration is certainly not a policy which many Brits would list as important to them, even if they are brainwashed regarding, or indifferent to, its cultural and sociological effects. 

In other words, why all the discussion about working vs middle class, shock tactics vs ‘mainstreaming’, whether the party should be open to non-whites, how the BNP should approach women or labor or history or all secondary and tertiary policy issues?

The BNP is NOT going to be the government for a very long time, if ever. Its historical role, at least for the foreseeable future, is to build up enough of a bloc vote to force the weak-willed Tories to end non-white immigration. To do this, it and its allies must convince enough of the public that immigration is a direct threat to the survival of Britain (easy), as well as hugely deleterious to the quality of life enjoyed by most of your people (again, fairly easy - we have the facts on our side).  And THAT IS ALL!

The Tories must be made to fear the electoral consequences of ignoring or procrastinating on immigration.
If the BNP started making serious gains, and if those gains were clearly understood to be based on popular disgust with immigration (as would be the case if the BNP made that their sole major plank), then I believe the Tories would move to reduce or terminate the immigration status quo. Even if done for crass politics and not patriotism, the result is all that matters.

Once immigration is ended, then the BNP can both advertise a larger political agenda, as well as ‘up the ante’, by broaching repatriation, the racial cleansing of Britain presumably constituting the ultimate goal of the BNP (or at least, of all true British patriots). What must be understood now is that politics often moves in the proverbial ‘pendulum’ fashion, and that the most important battle is to get the pendulum swinging in your direction in the first place. One starts this process not by shaving one’s head, denying the Holocaust, or otherwise alienating the “lumpen-indoctrinariat”, but rather, by staking your claim to what is least objectionable, and then getting that accomplished. Once that happens, as the saying goes, “nothing succeeds like success”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 20, 2009, 01:15 PM | #

”The Tories must be made to fear the electoral consequences of ignoring or procrastinating on immigration.  If the BNP started making serious gains, and if those gains were clearly understood to be based on popular disgust with immigration (as would be the case if the BNP made that their sole major plank), then I believe the Tories would move to reduce or terminate the immigration status quo.” (—Leon Haller)

Absolutely never happen.  The Tories depend on huge influxes of Jewish money, and the Jews will never approve any curtailment of immigration, especially of non-white immigration which Jews view as a godsend.  And no, they won’t approve a curtailment of immigration even to win elections:  the main reason they’re involved in politics in the first place, the main reason they want to win elections at all, isn’t to the serve the people, help the country, whatever — they HATE the people, they HATE the country — it’s precisely to get things like excessive incompatible immigration going so they can DESTROY the country and people they HATE.  If the Tories switched to opposing that, the Jews would simply shower their money on some other party that supported it and the Tories would have a harder time finding funding.  If you promise the Jews what they want, namely your annihilation and the annihilation of all you hold dear (or held dear before the Jews flashed all that gold and silver in front of your face) they’ll fund you, otherwise not a cent, obviously.  They’re like any other behind-the-scenes moneyman funding politics.  You don’t give them what they want, they’ll take elsewhere their money and their favorable journalistic and mass-media hype that would have gone for you.  And if no party will give them what they want they’ll fund violent revolutionaries, exactly as they did in 1917.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 20, 2009, 01:31 PM | #

“If you promise the Jews what they want, namely your annihilation and the annihilation of all you hold dear (or held dear before the Jews flashed all that gold and silver in front of your face) they’ll fund you” (—my comment above)

Sierra Club President Carl Pope held conservation dear until the Jews flashed a hundred million dollars in his face. 

Let’s just say he quickly came around to their way of seeing things.  (Took him about a microsecond, according to reports.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 20, 2009, 01:39 PM | #

And of course it’s not just Jewish cash you get for “seeing things their way,” it’s armies of extremely talented and energetic Jewish footsoldiers working for your election campaign at every level and surrounding you personally.  In the last French presidential election Nicolas Sarcoma and Dégueulène Royal were both surrounded by armies of Jews, the strategy of Sarco’s Jewish generals being to conceal support for race-replacement until after the election, and of Dégo’s being to declare it openly during the campaign.  The former’s Jews had the winning strategy, it turned out (surprise, surprise, who would’ve guessed!).

Posted by Wandrin on October 20, 2009, 04:51 PM | #

I wonder if this weeks edition of the BBC’s waning political flagship programme Question Time, will become a defining moment in the present hot culture war for the soul of Britain?

Yes.

I cannot give any plausible reason or pattern as to the strategy being used by the media online - can you?

The media want to destroy the BNP but there’s a vast amount of people who privately agree with what the BNP says over immigration and the imposed religion of PC. These people’s brain-washing and fear of being denounced as a heretic prevents them acting on what they believe so they vent online instead. My guess is every time the online newspapers have any piece related to immigration, PC and the BNP their comments get deluged with a repressed primal scream of rage.

If there were only a few rage commenters the papers could just censor them but if there’s hundreds what do they do? If they censored hundreds then that’s hundreds of their readers who might lose trust in the paper.

So they stick with their constant drip-drip attack on the BNP hoping it will eventually work and the rage comments will eventually start to dry up.

Posted by Wandrin on October 20, 2009, 05:56 PM | #

Leon Haller

In other words, why all the discussion about working vs middle class, shock tactics vs ‘mainstreaming’, whether the party should be open to non-whites, how the BNP should approach women or labor or history or all secondary and tertiary policy issues

It’s to do with a couple of things.

One is the BNP has come out of the far-right milieu which seems to be at least as ideologically purist as the far left. I agree with your analysis about what should be the prime focus of BNP policy and maybe that is the direction Griffin is moving but they have long-term and very useful hardcore members who believe in stuff. I believe in stuff but i’m prepared to stealth everything except the most critical bits for tactical advantage. Other people are the same but have different ideas about what the most critical bits are. Some people understandably don’t trust anything unless it’s honestly out in the open. The latter kind of people are extremely good to have on your side in a fight so Griffin has to try and keep as many on board as possible.

The second revolves around the power of the mass media to act as the inquisition of the PC religion. The more “respectable” someone is the more susceptible they are to getting the Sauron’s Eye of the mass media pointed directly at them as an individual. The working class traditional Labour Party voters are on the front-line of the genocide and have very little to lose whereas the more middle class traditional Conservative voters won’t be getting fed to the beast for a number of years. The mass media’s Eye of Sauron has a greater effect higher up the social scale you go because those people have more to lose. However there is a downside to this in terms of presentation especially in a very class-conscious place like the UK.

So there’s a debate over whether tactics or ideology should rule - plus there’s tactical reasons for not being too cavalier with ideology.

Secondly there’s a debate over, if tactics are to rule, what those tactics should be.

My view is tactics should rule publically, with ideology discussed in deniable private venues, and the tactics should be blatant populism apart from the one core policy of zero immigration (apart from a right of return). Then if /when in power seize the mass media and switch off the brain-washing. If the ability of the mass media to demoralize the British nations is switched off then the voters will revert to their natural instinctive tribal state.

Posted by Wandrin on October 20, 2009, 06:12 PM | #

Leon

The Tories must be made to fear the electoral consequences of ignoring or procrastinating on immigration.

This is another of those tactical consdierations. The BNP currently get the majority of their support in traditional Labour Party areas. This may change at some point but as long as they are ahead in the polls it pays the Conservatives to keep quiet about immigration as that pushes those previously Labour voters towards the BNP (or possibly Ukip) and helps undermine the Labour Party.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 20, 2009, 07:07 PM | #

Re the ‘Generals slagging off the BNP’ theme, I thought the BNP’s retort that they should all be ‘Nuremberged’ for complicity in war crimes was masterly.

It can’t be any coincidence either that BBC Panorama’s shock! horror! expose about racism on a council estate in Bristol, apparently months in the making, should be aired in the same week that the BNP appears on ‘Question Time’.

Undercover - Hate on the Doorstep

The complete programme is now up on Youtube

Posted by Bearded Funster on October 20, 2009, 07:43 PM | #

Leon Haller,
The Tories have got the next election ‘in the bag’.They will almost certainly win a massive majority, which due to the perversities of the British political system (and the likelihood of Scottish independence - which happens to be the only real factor stopping permanent Tory rule), they are likely to hold on to power for at least a decade - possibly longer if Labour’s wipe-out is truly disastrous.
On the Scottish issue, it’s worth noting that shorn of Scotland, England has returned a Tory majority consistently for at least 40 years, with no sign of this trend ever reversing.
Now, the Tories can well afford to keep their powder dry on the immigration issue - they simply don’t feel the need to ‘play dirty’ and jeopardize ‘liberal opinion’ by making a few ‘anti’ noises.It’s as plain and simple as that.
However, Labour’s shittiness on immigration (it exploded during its tenure of office), is THE cause of its political demise (which possibly might prove fatal).A whole generation of Labour wannabe MPs will have careers wrecked.The core vote of Labour, the maginalized working-class have been totally demoralized and defeated not only by the immigration onslaught (of which they face the brunt), but by that stupid cunt Tony Blair’s fascination and fetish for ‘neo-liberal’ economics which economically has devasted and deracinated the remnants of the British proletariat.Hence we have the chavs, the culture of welfare dependancy and the general fact that this section of the british population (ironically whom Labour was formed to fight for), has so given up the ghost that it is gradually dying out due to a birth-rate collapse - but the wogs breed like flies.A Salterian tragedy is in the making.By the way, the council house people these days very rarely even bother to vote, instinctively knowing that the game is a load of crap and not worth the candle.
Herein lies a great well-spring of anger.Somehow the BNP has to try to connect with and mobilize this bloc, on a power-bloc or ‘cluster’ basis precisely amongst those Whites most terrorized by immigration and those seeing their ‘precious council houses’ swiped before their eyes and given to a pack of wogs straight from the jungles of Congo (yes, it happens often, really).
The trouble is those types rarely vote and are demoralized and degrade to the point of ineducability.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 20, 2009, 08:44 PM | #

A few words of wisdom from Peter Brimelow on practical politics as it relates to immigration — this dates from January:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfb7oEUJsI&feature=related

More Brimelow, dating from November (the gentleman introducing him is Professor Paul Gottfried):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr3ao0bKGE4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbqYdtjzto&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8b1GoaEdQU&feature=related

Here’s someone who gets it almost totally wrong, James Pinkerton, caught on film in the act of trying to have it both ways, “preserving the nation” and advocating “Citizenism” both at the same time (ain’t gonna work that way, Mr. Pinkerton):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijbHaqD7bg&feature=related

You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Pinkerton.  Steve Sailer is brilliant and I for one love the guy, but no one is perfect and on “citizenism” he’s … well …. Can we just say he has really sound views on Affordable Family Formation, “The Sailer Strategy” for the GOP, and lesbians-and-softball and leave it at that? …………….

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 20, 2009, 11:07 PM | #

In this January speech on the eve of Obama’s inauguration (below, parts 1 and 2) Ed Rubenstein makes a touching plea to the incoming administration for a restoration of sanity in immigration policy (fat chance of that happening):  he deviates from the usual enumeration of absolute disasters wrought by excessive incompatible immigration and speaks of something new which many will have wondered about but few seen discussed, the link between immigration and deteriorating national infrastructure.  If, like me, you’ve suspected excessive incompatible immigration and deteriorating infrastructure were linked in a cause-and-effect relationship you were on target.  Next time you hear about bridges collapsing, levees failing on the Mississippi, roads and highways crumbling, water supplies being drained dry, etc., you’ll know why it’s all suddenly happening: 

part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeFeGRUS4M0&feature=related

part 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFtUTZHFMdk&NR=1

(Here’s Ed Rubenstein’s Vdare.com articles archive:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/index.htm ).

Posted by Anarcho Anglo on October 20, 2009, 11:18 PM | #

jamesUK on October 19, 2009, 07:51 PM | #

Why was there no New Right conference this year and if there was why was it not recorded and uploaded on YouTube?

There has been four New Right meetings this year - so far. Some of the talks have been uploaded. If others don’t appear on youtube it’s due to some of the cold-feeted speakers not wanting to be recorded, or filmed, or, others desiring that I edit out the naughty bits, which is time consuming.

If one is so desiring to hear these talks, then I suggest that one attends - and brings some recording equipment - which would be nice.

A full interview with Troy Southgate and Jonathan Bowden is coming soon. Watch this space…

http://www.youtube.com/user/NewRightLondon

Posted by Guessedworker on October 20, 2009, 11:57 PM | #

AA,

Will the main speaker at the next meeting consent to be filmed?  If so, that will be one for which I dearly want you to send me the link as soon as you possibly can.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 01:43 AM | #

I have changed my tuned only insofar as I view liberalism as the principle problem. I have also met in my professional life Jews who feel about many issues precisely the way I do. It has been a revelation for me to speak to Jewish individuals (wealthy and politically connected, not lone wolves) with whom I find a great deal of common ground - they despise liberal Jews and view them as an existential problem. I’ve spent hours talking with them about Islam and Muslim migrants as a clear and present demographic danger. Jews, even liberal ones, aren’t trying to impose Shari’a and aren’t a threat to my ethnic genetic interests. Finally, it dawned on me to just what extent I really despise religion, and Islam in particular. I absolutely loath these fucking throwbacks and their hateful little book. And frankly, Jews are smart and sophisticated, my type of people. I can have a normal conversation with them and they’re bright, well-read, and quick on their feet. They know where I’m coming from and they’re sympathetic. To this day, Michael Levin’s book on race is the best racialist book I’ve read in my life - and I’ve read quite a few. If every Jew shared Levin’s philosophy we would have racialism (in the form of racial separation), eugenics, hierarchy, and patriarchy. I would see no objections in making Michael Levin head of the Race Office in charge of promoting racial hygiene. 

Good interview with Wilders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYx63Pfz5U&feature=video_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75phpwSDtEE&feature=related

By the way, in my city posters have appeared on street lights, etc. advertising photo shoots for “racially pure models” (all parents of the same ethnic background, it helpfully clarifies) who want to participate in an art show. I don’t have to tell you that I was stunned and took a double take when I saw this ad for “racially pure models”. Thus far, the said posters haven’t been defaced in any way. On the contrary, the strips with phone numbers accompanying them are taken in great numbers. Every time I pass by one of them I’m left in a state of shock that this type of language in my multiculti shithole is allowed to stand.

Posted by Lurker on October 21, 2009, 02:40 AM | #

Fair enough FB.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 03:54 AM | #

“posters have appeared on street lights, etc. advertising photo shoots for ‘racially pure models’ ” (—FB)

How do you know they mean racially pure white?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 04:03 AM | #

”I’ve spent hours talking with [Jews] about Islam and Muslim migrants as a clear and present demographic danger.” (—FB)

So the fact that all prominent public Jews without exception in Europe and North America and all Jewish organizations without exception in Europe and North America very strongly support — fanatically support — the Islamization of the Eurosphere and the demographic replacement of Euro-race peoples with non-European Moslem peoples simply means that the numbers of Jews who think as you do on this issue is vanishingly small and the individuals totally powerless?  Most people already knew that.  It doesn’t alter the Jewish Question. 

”Jews, even liberal ones, aren’t trying to impose Shari’a and aren’t a threat to my ethnic genetic interests.” (—FB)

Jews favor, and work hard to impose, wholesale population transfers of non-white Moslem peoples and other non-white peoples on the Eurosphere.  This threatens white ethnic genetic interests. 

Once the Moslems are here, they build mosques, keep their customs, and lobby the government to set up Sharia law.  In all of this, Jews are their allies.  All organized Jews love it — all of it.  There are no exceptions. 

Some Jews don’t love it, such as Lawrence Auster and Steven Steinlight.  These unorganized and penniless Jews have less than zero influence on the Jewish pro-race-replacement world, a world which is absolutely enormous and powerful in the extreme.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 04:05 AM | #

How do you know they mean racially pure white?

I don’t and it doesn’t matter. The mere talk of racial purity is stunning.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 04:09 AM | #

Not if it’s racially pure Negro.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 04:34 AM | #

Are you stupid or something? When did you last hear a public ad discussing racial purity?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 05:00 AM | #

The posters you bring up signify zip.

Posted by Wandrin on October 21, 2009, 05:13 AM | #

I have also met in my professional life Jews who feel about many issues precisely the way I do. It has been a revelation for me to speak to Jewish individuals (wealthy and politically connected, not lone wolves) with whom I find a great deal of common ground - they despise liberal Jews and view them as an existential problem.

I’ll ditto Lurker and say fair enough also, although i think that bit in bold is important.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2009, 05:28 AM | #

I have changed my tuned only insofar as I view liberalism as the principle problem.

Liberalism is not the problem because the problem is not liberalism. Liberalism is discriminatory and the freedom to discriminate under liberalism was protected. It is the perversion of liberalism that is problematic. It is the use of a coercive state to develop a “Protective Shield” to deny “the rights of the discriminator: traditional rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including refusing to hire them or to serve them [or allow them to immigrate]”.

And that perversity finds its origin in self-interest, capital and organised Jewry.

Posted by Bill on October 21, 2009, 11:08 AM | #

The doublespeak of the media knows no bounds, and their readers never catch on.

Again in the Mail, we see this.

Parents seek £1m for hammer attack on white son at ‘race bullies’ school

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221759/Hammer-attack-victim-seeks-1m-damages-politically-correct-school-closed-eyes-racial-tensions-Henry-Webster-Asian-Invasion-Swindon-Ridgeway-Foundation.html#comments#ixzz0UZ7bmUkP

The number of occasions the Mail, like the Pied Piper, toots its whistle and invites it’s stung readers to dance behind and follow the tune to the latest Hornet’s nest - is legion.  Only to find that when the baying mob are about to beat their quarry to pulp, the Pied Piper (Littlejohn-whoever) turns on the mob and calls them barbarian knuckle dragging racists.

Shamefaced, the mob shuffle off home - never mind, tomorrow - they’ll be back.

As Bruce Forsyth used to bumble, ‘Good game’ - ‘Good game.’

You couldn’t make it up!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 11:29 AM | #

“The bad image problem the BNP has is not Nick Griffin but that its supporters are working class, a pre modern WW1 era mentality, low IQ, fascists.” (—JamesUK)

JamesUK, kindly take your know-nothing geopolitics, find the highest cliff you can, and go take a running leap.  You have not the slightest inkling of an idea what’s going on.  You are essentially brain dead.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 11:31 AM | #

And take your pro-race-replacement Scottish National Party with you.

Long live England!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 11:39 AM | #

1) Your utterly moronic approach of dwelling exclusively on geopolitics is not going to solve a single one of the problems we face.

2) The BNP has many friends here.  Do not think you are going to come here, trash BNP supporters as you just did with your ignorant, filthy lies about them sent straight from back-stabbing Scotland, and still be welcome.

Posted by Anarcho Anglo on October 21, 2009, 12:09 PM | #

AA,

Will the main speaker at the next meeting consent to be filmed?  If so, that will be one for which I dearly want you to send me the link as soon as you possibly can.

Bowden will be the main speaker at the next NR meeting. Or are you referring to the chap who’ll be talking about Wagner?
Either way, they’ll all be filmed and upload in due course.

Best,
AA

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 12:16 PM | #

The posters you bring up signify zip.

What do you want them to signify? You should do something else besides spamming blogs.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 12:19 PM | #

Braun has recently met the first Jews of his entire life and suddenly he’s a Jewish expert.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 12:23 PM | #

Do you share your anti-Semitic mania with your sisters who are married to Jews and your Jewish grandparents, weirdo? I bet you don’t.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 12:24 PM | #

DJ, there’s more to liberalism than “choice.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 12:28 PM | #

It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 12:33 PM | #

Wait till Braun meets his first Negroes, we’ll start hearing race-replacement advocacy.

With Germans like this around it’s not hard to understand how the Third Reich made the disastrous mistakes it did.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 12:35 PM | #

Braun hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about regarding Jews, non-whites, or Germans and it’s now crystal-clear he never did.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 12:36 PM | #

Just make sure you never move back to Germany, Friedrich, they’re trying hard to recover from the hole they’re in, they don’t need defective Germans like you populating the place.

Posted by jamesUK on October 21, 2009, 03:59 PM | #

@Fred Scrooby

JamesUK, kindly take your know-nothing geopolitics, find the highest cliff you can, and go take a running leap.  You have not the slightest inkling of an idea what’s going on.  You are essentially brain dead.

1) Your utterly moronic approach of dwelling exclusively on geopolitics is not going to solve a single one of the problems we face.

2) The BNP has many friends here.  Do not think you are going to come here, trash BNP supporters as you just did with your ignorant, filthy lies about them sent straight from back-stabbing Scotland, and still be welcome.

Of course geo-politics has everything to do with the collective society we are in.
If you’re not happy with the situation in Britain why don’t you immigrate to another European country like France, Germany or Spain?
The situation in these countries should be completely different by you’re logic.  Of course it is not

And it is hard to have independent sovereign states when historically British seeking to create a global monitory empire has worked to eliminate potential independent rivals like Russia and Germany and after WW2 US, Britain and Israeli are working to create global government system. 

Western societies especially the US, Australia and Canada are the most docile brainwashed societies in the world who do not seem to have any concept of self awareness and group interest apart when the it is lead by the mass media even when facts like Jews control the media and banking, there role in world events like Communism, etc people will avoid the obvious and create false construct like Neocons are just “right wingers” and the fact they advocate a pro-Israel policy and most senior Neocon personalities are Jewish has nothing to do with Jewish ethnicity.

The same with the media the “Corporate” media. 

Fred is this you at a BNP rally?

INSERT BRAIN HERE!

Posted by Dasein on October 21, 2009, 04:10 PM | #

FB, do your Jewish friends know about the Civic Platform?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 04:46 PM | #

Dasein, do you think it possible for people to change their views? Shouldn’t you be telling us for the billionth time how Jews run the BRD and oppress poor innocent little Germans? In your scheme, the goyim are like children or sheep totally at the mercy of Jews’ wishes. It was the Jews who forced Merkel to abase herself at Westerplatte in front of arrogant polacks (the only western leader to have made that particular Hajj), right Dasein? Talk to me about it. Don’t you find your pathetic whining humiliating?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 04:56 PM | #

How about answering my question, Scrooby? Does your Jewish family know that you like to play a drooling anti-Semite in cyberspace? Do you share your thoughts about Jews with them? I thought you like to complain that Jews don’t answer questions. I doubt you have the courage to express your views in person to anyone, never mind your Jewish family. You’re a mental case, Scrooby.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 21, 2009, 05:28 PM | #

Scrooby, aren’t you ashamed to be a man in his mid 40’s and act like a babbling teenage skinhead? A repetitive avalanche of recycled anti-Semitism you gleaned from others, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Without a glipse or originality. Are you proud of yourself, Scrooby?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 05:46 PM | #

“How about answering my question, Scrooby? Does your Jewish family know that you like to play a drooling anti-Semite in cyberspace?” (—FB)

I’m not an anti-Semite.

In the rest of Braun’s comment to me, and in the one he addresses above to Dasein, he reveals himself to be a genuine nitwit, with not the slightest comprehension of any of the criticism of Jewish influence that’s been leveled.  The world now sees Braun has no idea, none whatsoever, what people are talking about when they make those criticisms.  And his new method of calling commenters to account based on what he imagines they either discuss or avoid discussing in their private lives with relatives is not just moronic but bizarre.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 05:51 PM | #

I had no idea I made the guy’s skin crawl, by the way, until he began these bizarre Jewish-based attacks half-a-year ago.  I was a commenter at his site, at his request I translated a couple of articles for it, and I had no idea there was other than a normal relationship between us.  These attacks came suddenly out of the blue some months ago for no reason I am aware of.  I’m certainly glad his bizarre loathing is out in the open now.  That’ll be my last comment on that subject.  Fire away, Friedrich.  Take your best shot.  You’re an imbecile.

Posted by Dasein on October 21, 2009, 06:52 PM | #

Dasein, do you think it possible for people to change their views?

Sure.  You didn’t answer my question, though.  I was curious to know what they would have to say about it.  And if you’re going to challenge Fred about discussing his views with his family, please tell us you’re man enough to be open with your Jewish friends about your background.

Shouldn’t you be telling us for the billionth time how Jews run the BRD and oppress poor innocent little Germans? In your scheme, the goyim are like children or sheep totally at the mercy of Jews’ wishes. It was the Jews who forced Merkel to abase herself at Westerplatte in front of arrogant polacks (the only western leader to have made that particular Hajj), right Dasein? Talk to me about it. Don’t you find your pathetic whining humiliating?

Telling lies to make yourself feel better?  No surprise.  People who swing from one extreme to the other are often not stable or trustworthy.

Pathetic whining?  Well, I don’t think unmolested posters on a street pole say anything about a stunning improvement in racial attitudes, especially in Canada, of all places.  LOL.  That’s pathetic.  As is drooling over Max Blumenthal.

Posted by Q on October 21, 2009, 07:08 PM | #

Changing one’s views is one thing.. to deny reality (Jewish Supremacism in this case) for the purpose of soothing your conscious is another. The former is the sign of an active mind.. the later is symptomatic of a delusional liberal.

Posted by Wandrin on October 21, 2009, 07:10 PM | #

I have changed my tuned only insofar as I view liberalism as the principle problem.

I try and call it left-liberalism instead of liberalism as left-liberalism is disguised and diluted cultural marxism and nothing to do with classical liberalism but i often forget to make the distinction because of the common usage. Also, as cultural marxism was invented by jews as a vehicle for their tribal warfare against the White nations and they adopted the word “liberalism” as a further layer of disguise then it is fair to say “liberalism” is an existential problem in terms of common usage if not historically.

If i was in a situation where i had to work with jews who were anti “liberalism” i could quite easily join in with them and talk about it being the big problem. The difference would be whenever i said the word “liberalism” what i’d mean by it would be stealth genocidal jewish tribal warfare against the White tribes. I can see how doing that would be harder for someone less stealth-minded than me though.

they despise liberal Jews and view them as an existential problem

My prediction is you’ll find they’re in favour of mass non-white immigration with the exception of muslims. They want mass non-white immigration as a tool for eradicating White children from the planet forever and view only the muslim component as an existential problem for jews.

My second prediction is they’re wrong about this as the leaders of all the other groups will have watched jews for decades using the Democrat Party as a weapon to stab White Americans in the back. As soon as they no longer need jewish help they’ll turn on them as proactive self-defense. I think we shall see some kind of active, tacitly politically supported, hispanic anti-jewish activity in California within a few years revolving around hispanics seizing control of the Democratic Party from the jews.

Don’t you find your pathetic whining humiliating?

Children believe in Santa Claus because the adults tell them it’s true. The majority of people in my country believe the murder of a black teenager called Stephen Lawrence is symbolic of a general pattern of violent white racism when the true situation is the exact opposite. They believe the exact opposite of the truth because the enemy censors almost all of the anti-white violence, magnifies every scrap of anti-black violence and (most critically) constantly smears white police as racist therefore undermining their testimony if they ever state the true situation.

It’s easy to manipulate people if you control the flow of information.

It’s like Plato and his cave. The priest tells the people that outside their cave are swarms of man-eating monsters so the people sit happily in their cave letting the priest rule them.

jews aren’t that smart - their success is all built on jewish ultra-racism. They view everyone else as the enemy and therefore view themselves as operating behind enemy lines. This view leads them to operate as a tight-knit group within a host tribe whose members are acting as individuals or small groups of friends and family. So although they’re a minority in each nation, in each individual battle for control of a critical point e.g a news editor’s job, they gang up as jews and massively outnumber their target. They operate a kind of political version of Blitzkrieg. It only works so successfully because their opponents aren’t competing as a group because they’re less racist than the jews - that’s all it is.

JamesUK

The bad image problem the BNP has is not Nick Griffin but that its supporters are working class, a pre modern WW1 era mentality, low IQ, fascists.

The mass media decides who has an image problem and who doesn’t. If they want to harm a party they point their cameras at things that look bad and away from things that look good. If they want to help a party they point their cameras at things that look good and away from things that look bad.

There is no way for a nationalist party to have a good media image no matter what they do (unless they’re a false front). The aim shouldn’t be to try and get a good image but to work angles that shows the media are blatantly biased. Once that is achieved every time the media presents a bad image it actually has the opposite effect because it reminds people that the left-liberal media is part of the enemy.

Posted by Wandrin on October 21, 2009, 07:21 PM | #

As a general point i find ad hominem stuff wastes everyone’s time unless by making someone angry it gets them to reveal something they are trying to hide.

A second general point is if someone works with a bunch of individuals who they find reasonable as individuals then it makes it harder for them to be hostile to the group those individuals belong to. That’s just human nature. It’s why the enemy likes to individualize and personalize the immigration debate.

I would suggest the latter is the case with FB.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2009, 08:34 PM | #

the word “liberalism” as a further layer of disguise then it is fair to say “liberalism” is an existential problem in terms of common usage if not historically.

It is a good point, however, in order to complete the disguise the distortion of the historical record must also be accomplished. For instance Locke’s “Toleration” did not necessarily extend to atheists, Catholics, libertines or sodomites. Vis-a-vis the Jews Locke was definitely a “Restorationist” and conversionist; Christian prophecy demanding the Jews be returned to Palestine and that their stay in England, he viewed, as essentially short-term. His soft stances on polygamy and divorce probably found their origin in a survivalist instinct mandated by the licentious nature of Charles II and the Crown court.

Thus not only is the common usage perverse but so is the historical record. Therefore the existential problem is not historical liberalism but the perversion of historical liberalism in order to serve an ethnic interest.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2009, 08:39 PM | #

Even the great Martin Luther had an epiphany, regarding the Jews, even though it was the opposite of Herr Braun’s.

Posted by Wandrin on October 21, 2009, 09:45 PM | #

Thus not only is the common usage perverse but so is the historical record. Therefore the existential problem is not historical liberalism but the perversion of historical liberalism in order to serve an ethnic interest.

Yes. I was having one of my attempted diplomatic moments.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 21, 2009, 11:03 PM | #

Prozium is also a convert to the suicide not murder crowd (Kaufmann vs. MacDonald) blaming Yankee liberalism for the demise. It was also an exodus from the VNN promised land, was it not? In fact, if memory serves, he celebrated Herr Braun’s volte-face and defence of this position at VNN.

Posted by jamesUK on October 21, 2009, 11:47 PM | #

The mass media decides who has an image problem and who doesn’t. If they want to harm a party they point their cameras at things that look bad and away from things that look good. If they want to help a party they point their cameras at things that look good and away from things that look bad.

There is no way for a nationalist party to have a good media image no matter what they do (unless they’re a false front). The aim shouldn’t be to try and get a good image but to work angles that shows the media are blatantly biased. Once that is achieved every time the media presents a bad image it actually has the opposite effect because it reminds people that the left-liberal media is part of the enemy.

True but because of the media representation and the fact that the BNP pulls its core voting from working class areas more of its vocal supporters will attract the thugish stereotypes of people looking for that sort of thing even media plants like Frank Collins (Cohen) in the US.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 21, 2009, 11:54 PM | #

Prozium is also a convert to the suicide not murder crowd

Not a recent one though, he was a staunch advocate even while proprietor of the Phora several cyber-aeons ago. As I recall the number of Eric Kaufman citations deployed during that period was only exceeded by those of Corelli Barnett.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 21, 2009, 11:55 PM | #

Prozium claims to see the Jews as more of a factor than he used to.  How much of a factor he sees them as being is hard to “quantify” — I’d say he sees the Jewish role about the same way you do, Desmond.  The other day when you said race-replacement was coming from 1) self-interest (self-interest/class-interest on the part of non-specific élites including of course non-Jewish ones of the Bush-Gates-Buffett-Kennedy-Clinton-McInsane-JayRockefeller, etc. stripe), 2) capital, and 3) organized Jewry you about summed it up for all of us, I’d say.  Exactly what weight to assign each one can be discussed.  No one is literally a “single Jewish cause” guy, not even Alex Linder — that doesn’t exist, obviously.  Everyone thinks it’s a combination of factors.  I myself rank women’s suffrage as a bigger factor than organized Jewry, for example (as I’ve been saying here since, I believe, 2004).  Organized Jewry in my view ranks up there among the top three causes, let’s say.  I think most will agree that, clearly, the radical Jewish exculpators, thinkers like James Kalb, Lawrence Auster, and Prof. Gottfried (and the New & Very Much Improved Mark-II German-Canadian in this thread) have it radically wrong.

Posted by Q on October 22, 2009, 12:10 AM | #

I myself rank women’s suffrage as a bigger factor than organized Jewry, for example (as I’ve been saying here since, I believe, 2004).

Interesting. This is a radical change in your general direction there, Fred.

Posted by Armor on October 22, 2009, 01:50 AM | #

I can’t believe that our replacement is good for capital. How are capitalist investors faring in California? Have they not been hit by the state’s budget crisis? Is it not true that the crisis was induced by immigration?

If evil capitalists are not ashamed to bribe the government so it will keep the borders open, should we believe that they are also financing the mass media propaganda? Why not?
Do evil capitalists bribe “leftist” and Jewish organizations so they will harass and intimidate white nationalists? Why not?

It would make more sense and would be less destructive to lobby for lower business taxes than for letting in more Mexicans. If government is unable to resist the capitalist demand for Mexicans, how come they are able to resist the demand for repealing the environment protection acts, for example?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 22, 2009, 01:55 AM | #

Sure.  You didn’t answer my question, though.  I was curious to know what they would have to say about it.  And if you’re going to challenge Fred about discussing his views with his family, please tell us you’re man enough to be open with your Jewish friends about your background.

Are you Scrooby’s lawyer? Scrooby can speak for himself. Unlike Scrooby, I have changed my views. I don’t see how it would be pertinent to tell somebody how I felt or what I thought at one point if I no longer feel or think the same way. I’ve adopted a variety of views during my life spam. Should I always present to everyone a detailed socio-political autobiography? Nobody sane does it.

Telling lies to make yourself feel better?  No surprise.  People who swing from one extreme to the other are often not stable or trustworthy.

You haven’t pointed out my “lies”, hence I cannot reply to your vacuous accusation. Knowing that the problem resides within us without deflecting it to a third party doesn’t make me “feel better”, on the contrary. I must assume responsibility for my situation. I change my views when I come across additional evidence that contradicts my earlier positions, and I willingly admit the errors of my previous thinking. You call me unstable, etc. One could more credibly describe it as a sign of maturity and thoughtfulness. Again, all you do is call me names without substantive criticism.

Pathetic whining?  Well, I don’t think unmolested posters on a street pole say anything about a stunning improvement in racial attitudes, especially in Canada, of all places.  LOL.  That’s pathetic.  As is drooling over Max Blumenthal.

This is a straw man. I never said that it was an “improvement in racial attitudes”; I raised it as a curiosity and nothing more. I’m pretty sure that most would find a public ad asking for racially pure models equally stunning. Canada isn’t any worst off than any other major western country, so that’s neither here nor there.

Now, go blame Jews for the Germans’ cowardice and self-flagelation. You’re an expert at it. I know the current BRD creatures well and they don’t need Jews to roll around in ethnomasochism like pigs in their own feces. On the contrary, they relish it! I have come to understand that the problem is liberalism and its intellectual presuppositions. I look at all those anti-White institutions, organisms, boards, rules, statutes, etc. the entire nomenclature and it was overwhelmingly White liberals who we their progenitors. Why did we let this happen to us? Why aren’t we dismantling this oppressive anti-White structure? Whites are still in the overwhelming majority in most western countries, and they still possess the financial and political clout to bring about all the changes that they want. The Jews aren’t holding a gun to our collective temple. If the Jews completely disappeared tomorrow from our societies we would be in the exact same situation as today. To change things around, we must undermine the entire prevailing Zeitgeist reigning in the West. I think that this focus on the Jews is a lazy copout, a variation of “the Devil made me do it!” excuse. It infantilize Whites and makes Jews into God-like creatures: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient… This portrayal breeds both apathy,j defeatism, and irresponsibility. I think that this type of scapegoating does us a lot of psychological and moral harm.

Posted by Wandrin on October 22, 2009, 05:40 AM | #

JamesUK

True but because of the media representation and the fact that the BNP pulls its core voting from working class areas more of its vocal supporters will attract the thugish stereotypes of people looking for that sort of thing even media plants like Frank Collins (Cohen) in the US.

That’s true but what i’m saying is there are negative class stereotypes across the board that could be used if neccessary. Ukip for example are portrayed as being like the “Major” character in Fawlty Towers. The Conservatives are currently trying to fight off the “Tory Toff” attack. During Margaret Thatcher’s time they were fighting off their media portrayal as “Alan B’stard” type characters.

The mass media is completely dominated by the enemy. Obviously a nationalist party should try and avoid making it easy to be caricatured but they shouldn’t spend any time trying to think of ways they’ll get a fair deal from the broadcasters. It will never happen through anything the nationalist party could do. The media will find some way of giving a nationalist party a bad image.

The only way a party like the BNP could get friendly media coverage (apart from winning power) is if something popped up that the media was even more hostile to e.g some radical muslim party that openly called for attacks on jews - in that case the BNP would suddenly get all sorts of positive media attention in the same way Ukip gets some good media near election time to try and draw off some BNP voters.

Fred Scrooby

No one is literally a “single Jewish cause” guy

I’m close to that in the sense that i think they are the most critical element in a coalition of enemies, in particular because of their dominance of mass media. I think the big business wing of the enemy would still be a serious challenge even if it contained no jews at all but the left-liberal wing would be massively weaker and easily defeatable without jews and jewish control of mass media. So i’d quite happily focus solely on jews, if it was practical, simply for “Schwerpunkt” reasons.

However one aspect of their dominance is how you can’t successfully attack jews openly without losing the argument with the vast majority of any watching audience because their holocult brain washing gets triggered. So the attack has to be more oblique anyway and with me eventually all boils down to attacking left-liberals and big business as two separate wings of a hostile unholy alliance.

Armor

I can’t believe that our replacement is good for capital. How are capitalist investors faring in California? Have they not been hit by the state’s budget crisis? Is it not true that the crisis was induced by immigration?

It’s not in the long-term but capital makes short term decisions. Say you have two factories near the mexican border making the same thing. One factory replaces its workers with cheaper mexicans while the other doesn’t. The first factory can drop its prices and still make more profit so its share price rises. The second factory loses market share and money and its share price falls. Eventually the owners of the first factory buy out the owners of the second, sack the workers and replace them with cheaper mexicans.

Eventually all those cheap workers get to vote and they elect a Chavez type who nationalizes everything and leaves the capitalists to cry in their beer but that’s in the long-term. In the short term they make more money.

If government is unable to resist the capitalist demand for Mexicans, how come they are able to resist the demand for repealing the environment protection acts, for example?

There is no consensus over the environmentalist stuff, the liberal-left wants it and big business doesn’t so there’s a conflict. There’s a consensus over immigration because both sides want it but for different reasons.

FB

To change things around, we must undermine the entire prevailing Zeitgeist reigning in the West.

Agree but to undermine it you first need a clear idea of where and what you think the foundation is. I’d say the foundation is White guilt (and uniquely White guilt) over slavery, colonialism and the holocult, all wrapped up in a new anti-racist religion whose cathedrals are holocaust museums.

The foundation stone is the holocult. Now it might not have needed to be the holocult - maybe it could have been hundreds of films about White imperialists doing bad stuff in Africa or somewhere, but it is. The whole structure of imposed White guilt has to be brought down and that includes somehow bringing down the holocult.

If a person didn’t want to get involved in the holocult aspect for personal reasons then there’s plenty of other aspects of the religion of White guilt that need undermining.

Posted by Thunder on October 22, 2009, 05:58 AM | #

As I see it anyone who plays down jewish involvement in the destruction of white ethnic genetic interests is not a trustworthy ally.

Posted by Dasein on October 22, 2009, 07:49 AM | #

Just pointing out your hypocrisy, FB.  Maybe there’s more to your philo-Semitism than you realize.

You haven’t pointed out my “lies”

Here you go:

Shouldn’t you be telling us for the billionth time how Jews run the BRD and oppress poor innocent little Germans? In your scheme, the goyim are like children or sheep totally at the mercy of Jews’ wishes.

Let’s see you build up a case to support that.  You’ve chosen the wrong target.

Now, go blame Jews for the Germans’ cowardice and self-flagelation. You’re an expert at it. I know the current BRD creatures well and they don’t need Jews to roll around in ethnomasochism like pigs in their own feces. On the contrary, they relish it! I have come to understand that the problem is liberalism and its intellectual presuppositions. I look at all those anti-White institutions, organisms, boards, rules, statutes, etc. the entire nomenclature and it was overwhelmingly White liberals who we their progenitors. Why did we let this happen to us? Why aren’t we dismantling this oppressive anti-White structure? Whites are still in the overwhelming majority in most western countries, and they still possess the financial and political clout to bring about all the changes that they want. The Jews aren’t holding a gun to our collective temple.

The progenitors of anti-racism were largely Jewish.  If you’re not familiar with the history of this, read MacDonald’s chapter on Boas. 

Now that the system (media, academia, lobbies) is in place for race-replacement, it takes less effort to keep it running.  Who built this?  Capitalists, Jews, liberal do-gooders, to name the most important players.  There are different factions which have an interest in keeping it running.  Where one group is non-existent or weak, another will pick up the slack.

If the Jews completely disappeared tomorrow from our societies we would be in the exact same situation as today.

Then why do you propose we make an alliance with them?  Why not completely exclude them?

No group is going to resist a return to normal thinking on race more than organized Jewry.  Think about that when you’re recommending Whites make common cause with them.  Wilders may succeed in expatriating some large number of muslims.  But he won’t do much, if anything, about Africans or any muslim who says they love democracy, Jews, and the West.

To change things around, we must undermine the entire prevailing Zeitgeist reigning in the West. I think that this focus on the Jews is a lazy copout, a variation of “the Devil made me do it!” excuse. It infantilize Whites and makes Jews into God-like creatures: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient… This portrayal breeds both apathy,j defeatism, and irresponsibility. I think that this type of scapegoating does us a lot of psychological and moral harm.

At least we agree on something.

You’re like some guy who grew his hair down to his ass, let it get all knotted and scraggly, looked at himself in the mirror one day and said ‘fuck, this looks like shit; better shave my head’.  Now you think everyone should shave his head and you get upset by the sight of hair.  Next year you’ll be in love with all things Polish.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 22, 2009, 12:34 PM | #

Thunder, the Jewish involvement has been exaggerated in WN circles - it’s a convenient way of passing off responsibility on an external factor. Let’s be factual. Whites should accept responsibility for their situation.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 22, 2009, 12:41 PM | #

The progenitors of anti-racism were largely Jewish.

This is false. As Prozium has pointed it out, in the U.S. the first abolitionists and desegregationists were White liberals. The anti-miscegenations statutes weren’t repealed by Boas Jews but by White gentile liberals. I could go on.  Southern Jews likes the old system.

Posted by Dasein on October 22, 2009, 12:54 PM | #

This is false. As Prozium has pointed it out, in the U.S. the first abolitionists and desegregationists were White liberals. The anti-miscegenations statutes weren’t repealed by Boas Jews but by White gentile liberals. I could go on.  Southern Jews likes the old system.

Fine, I should have said modern anti-racism; the discrediting of race as a legitimate form of classification, and downplaying/denying its significance.  Intellectualizing anti-racism in academia and popularizing it via mass media.  This is largely of Jewish origin.

Posted by Frank on October 22, 2009, 01:29 PM | #

Big media, majority of donors to both political parties, most powerful lobby in the US, leaders of the Civil Rights movement, Frankfurt School, Boas, the bankers sitting on the Federal Reserve board, many in the porn industry, etc. - all Jewish.

Whites are to blame for falling weak to pleasures and security, but we must remain vigilant against those who would do us harm, even if working with them. It’s clearly impossible for whites to continue living with Jews within the same society. Perhaps they could win some part of the US while we secure another part.

Jews are clearly more dangerous than Muslims.

Posted by Dasein on October 22, 2009, 01:58 PM | #

I’ve challenged some evangelical friends on their anti-racism.  Interestingly, their first defense is not scriptural, but based on faulty interpretations of Lewontin’s results.  “I’m likely to be more closely related to someone from Africa than I am to another White person” is one example.  If no one else will do this, AmRen or the Pioneer Fund should contract a polling agency to find out how widespread scientific misconceptions about race are (does such a study already exist?).  I think the results would be quite shocking.  We can laugh about the Australian Aborigines not understanding sexual reproduction, but at some point in the future people are going to look back and laugh about the nonsense that the Western public believed.

Posted by Dasein on October 22, 2009, 02:07 PM | #

Here’s a report from the Pew Center that shatters myths on race

http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/delving/chapter6.pdf

Perhaps the biggest myth of all was
exploded by reporters at KRON-TV and the
San Francisco Chronicle in their 1998 series
“About Race.” Both reported that race itself is
largely a misconception, quoting a number of
scientists who say that there is no genetic
basis for race and that it is a social and cultural
construct that has very little to do with the
actual genetic make-up of a human being.
This concern was not exactly “news” since
it’s information that scientists had long agreed
on. Yet the Chronicle story got picked up
across the country and the KRON story drew a
huge response from viewers.
“I don’t know why it wasn’t known,” said
Craig Franklin, who produced the KRON story.
“I don’t know why it still isn’t part of our
national understanding and dialogue.”

Posted by Guessedworker on October 22, 2009, 02:08 PM | #

Friedrich,

In Britain up to the 1930s, in Germany in the years up to 1918, and in the Old South there was a general assumption among Jews that it was “good” to be fellow-travellers of a powerful and confident European host.  That did not imply that the interests of Jews and Europeans were really coterminous, merely that the latter were executable from the Jewish millenarian perspective.

Jewish ethno-strategies and methods change.  Jews and Jewish millenarianism do not change.

As regards the liberalism question, I am an amateur psychologist, I suppose.  What interests me is the formative factors in the construction of the boundedness within Time of all our behaviours, feelings and thoughts.  It is within this sense that the liberal nature of our age IS also of us and in us.  We are not independent of it.  So you are right - we cannot be other than we are simply by the medium of destroying Jewish power.  For that a much more profound and universal kind of change is necessary.

Posted by Armor on October 22, 2009, 03:22 PM | #

Say you have two factories near the mexican border making the same thing. One factory replaces its workers with cheaper mexicans while the other doesn’t. (— Wandrin)

It gives the first factory an unfair advantage. You would expect the latter factory to complain and ask government to stop immigration.

If both factories are prevented to hire non-whites, the workers will have to be better paid, and production will be sold at a slightly higher price. The result is that consumers may find it cheaper to buy from foreign countries, and the share price of both factories will go down. The factories may even have to close. Good riddance! If we have a choice between cheap-labor factories using immigrants, or no low-wage factory at all, I choose the latter solution. The investors will then have to put their money in something else: in factories that do not rely on cheap immigrant labor but on Western technology. It will be a much better solution than importing the third-world population to the West. Most businesses do not rely on cheap labor and they would benefit from ending immigration. They would be less heavily taxed, since a huge part of taxes, both on business and individuals, goes to finance the race replacement and repair the damage caused by third-worlders.

If we would rather not let the low-wage factories close down, we should encourage the owners to invest in automation. If the aim is to give work to our own people, then priority should be to expel the immigrants, not to welcome them. Instead of asking for more immigration from the third-world, the factory owners should ask the government to impose tariffs on some products that are usually imported from China. It would benefit both the capital owners and unskilled white workers. It would cost some money to the rest of society, but not as much as being race-replaced and having our society completely destroyed.

capital makes short term decisions

Anyway, there are more than enough unskilled immigrants around. Cheap-labor factories do not need any more of them. I can understand why factories hire non-whites, but not why they would pressure the government to bring more of them. Are they afraid there may be a shortage in the future? I think the non-white percentage of the population is already increasing with no intervention from the cheap-labor industries, and it will keep increasing until there is a reaction from the Whites.

Posted by Bill on October 22, 2009, 05:02 PM | #

In the last few days I have detected, especially in regard to the BNP’s battle of the Generals, that there are signs of decisive cracks appearing in the political tectonic plates.

If Nick Griffin can repeat the sort of politically incorrect in your face rhetoric again tonight, then things are never going to be same again.

The liberal media politically correct mindset has shown it cannot cope with plain speaking, they are lost, their compass is shot through, they have no precedent for this.  Once Griffin has fly swatted the racist barbs the liberal luvvies are paralysed.

I’ve just finished watching this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight It is typical of the pathetic state of the liberal ammunition locker - they are ripe for a thrashing.

There’s whole lot riding on Nick Griffin’s ability to demonstrate to the viewing millions that the whole liberal politically correct, multicultural Emperor, is stark naked.

I wish him success.

Posted by Armor on October 22, 2009, 05:08 PM | #

“I wish him success.”

I wouldn’t like to be in his place tonight !

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 22, 2009, 05:52 PM | #

As Prozium has pointed it out, in the U.S. the first abolitionists and desegregationists were White liberals.

Yes, but as Fred as pointed out, to Prozium, it was 1) an issue of numbers, a nominal black population in the North; 2) the abolitionists were also restorationists (Wilberforce and Lincoln embraced repatriation and 3) de jure and de facto are not necessarily equivalent vis-a-vis miscegenation.

3. (US Nov ‘42) Are there any on the list [Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Negroes] that you would not consider marrying? Asked of a national cross-section of high school students. (for)

Protestants Catholics
Negroes 91.6% Negroes 92.8%
Chinese 71.9 Chinese 75.5
Jews 51.6 Jews 58.8
Catholics 19.9 Protestants 25.2
Swedes 7.7 Swedes 9.3
Irish 4.7 Irish 2.8
Protestants 1.8* Catholics 1.0
Makes no difference 1.3 Makes no difference 1.0
Don’t know 1.6 Don’t know 1.4
________ _______
252.1%** 267.8%**
Jews Negroes
Negroes 95.0% Jews 57.8%
Chinese 80.0 Chinese 54.1
Catholics 28.8 Swedes 45.0
Protestants 27.5 Irish 42.2
Swedes 9.3 Catholics 29.4
Irish 23.8 Protestants 22.0*
Jews 1.3 Negroes 1.8
Makes no difference.  1.3 Makes no difference 13.8
Don’t know 3.8 Don’t know 12.8
________ _______
270.8%** 278.9%**
* There is no accounting for the small maverick groups that declare
they would not marry their own kind. But interviewers report that a
number of respondents were, oddly, confused as to the meaning of
“Protestant” some of them thinking they were protesters and “trouble-
makers,” others thinking they were some such sect as the Holy Rollers. 
** Percentages add to considerably more than 100 because many re-
spondents gave more than one answer. 

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 22, 2009, 05:58 PM | #

We are not independent of it.

True, however, it is not the millstone that weighs us down, that is the perversion of us and it is of Jewish origin.

Posted by Dasein on October 22, 2009, 05:59 PM | #

This Pew Center report is absolutely hilarious. 

Craig Franklin took his friend, Chris Johnson, to lunch one day in 1997, searching for insight into race issues. Franklin, a television producer for KRON-TV in San Francisco, had just been assigned a five-part series on race and, as a white male, he figured he needed advice. It was an auspicious beginning. Johnson, an African-American artist and photographer, supplied a revelation that rocked Franklin’s view of race. That revelation, in turn, shattered the preconceptions of thousands of viewers in the Bay Area when it aired as the basis for part one of Franklin’s series.
“He said, ‘Let me give you a quiz,’ ” Franklin recalled recently. The quiz goes something like this: “You have four men — one tall, one short and two of similar height, one white and one black. Which two are more genetically different: the tall and short men of the same race or the men of similar height but different skin colors?”
If you aren’t familiar with the KRON series, you’ll probably react the way Franklin did. It was obviously a trick question and the answer Johnson was looking for was that the tall and short men are more genetically different than the black and white men. Perhaps, like Franklin, you don’t really believe it.
It’s true — and its implications are even greater than they may first appear.

...

Franklin’s efforts to get the definitive scientific answer to the quiz led him to the further discovery that, in terms of genetic biology, race, itself, is a misconception.
That became one of the focal points of the KRON series and one of the major impacts on viewers.
“That is the one thing people carried away from that series and still remember and it changes people,” said Franklin. “I don’t think anything we’ve done has the impact that one piece of information has. It changes the paradigm.”
Franklin went back to his office after his lunch with Johnson, intent on proving Johnson
wrong about his genetics quiz. He phoned biologists at local universities, some of whom were working on the human genome project.
To his shock, they confirmed what Johnson had said. Of the 30,000 genes that make up a human being, six control skin color and every human being has the same six genes.
“I kept looking for loopholes,” said Franklin, “but everyone we went to confirmed that there’s no scientific basis for defining humans by racial categories.”
To illustrate this discovery, Franklin decided to use Johnson’s example. Through a KRON intern who was a student at the University of San Francisco, Franklin found four men who fit the description in the quiz. He shot video of them in the studio and, in the edited piece, asked viewers to pick out the two who were the most genetically different.
He invited Dr. Sylvia Spengler of the University of California, Berkeley, to explain the answer.
“The genetic basis of race … isn’t,” said Spengler. “Race is something we do to each other. It has nothingto do with what DNA does to us.”
In truth, this fact should not have been that dramatic a revelation. It was a conclusion that has been accepted by geneticists, biologists and other scientists for decades. Franklin, in fact, found a World War II-era Army pamphlet about getting along with fellow soldiers that refers to the fact that just six genes control skin color. And yet, in 1998, it was news.

Posted by Dasein on October 22, 2009, 06:14 PM | #

Williams said she found the discussions fascinating. Far from relieving white viewers of guilt,
as some black critics had feared, the programs seemed to create an impetus for white participants
to offer their own apologies. “It was amazing to see,” Williams said. “In a two-hour period,
people’s perspectives changed on a very important part of their history.”
At one showing, Williams said, a white woman stood up and spoke to her directly. “She said,
‘On behalf of white Americans, I apologize. Please forgive me for what happened to you,’ ”
Williams recalled. “I said, ‘Thank you. I accept.’ And afterward we hugged.”

Posted by Matra on October 22, 2009, 06:43 PM | #

Some of today’s headlines from the conservative British press

Richard Littlejohn - Britain’s paragon of political incorrectness - Why I wouldn’t go on Question Time with the unsavoury Nick Griffin

To Littlejohn the great danger is that the BNP will look reasonable when the rest of the panel gang up on him.

There are two opinion pieces in the Telegraph one co-written by long time Labour restrictionist Frank Field today that both say mass immigration is to blame for the rise of the BNP.

The other by Mary Riddell is titled Killing off the cancerous spread of the BNP is within our grasp:
Only a shake-up of immigration and employment policies can stem the rise of the far Right

So now the Tory cheerleaders are interested in restricting immigration. If the BNP (and to some extent Ukip) had not received so many votes in the European elections would any Tories be talking about the issue? I think we know the answer.

In slimeball Rupert Murdoch’s The Times the lead article states: There is a tension within the BNP between those — like Mr Griffin — who crave respectability and want to broaden the party’s appeal and the hard core, who wish to be ideologically pure. One of the best chances to destroy the party lies in increasing this tension and hoping that it ultimately splits the fascist movement, as it did in the 1980s. The BNP leader will have a dilemma tonight. He will see this as a golden opportunity to enter the mainstream, but will also be acutely aware that his activists and internal rivals will be watching. The panel and Mr Dimbleby will need to exploit this predicament deftly.

As many MR posters have stated in the past there is little doubt the conservatives of the West as much the enemy as the Marxists.

Incidentally, yesterday the Telegraph speculated that Holocaust survivors and non-white victims of white ‘racist’ violence could be brought in to the studio to confront Griffin. I’ve seen nothing in the press about that today.

Posted by Wandrin on October 23, 2009, 01:08 AM | #

As Prozium has pointed it out, in the U.S. the first abolitionists and desegregationists were White liberals. The anti-miscegenations statutes weren’t repealed by Boas Jews but by White gentile liberals. I could go on.

There’s always been the Jimmy Carter type who craves a feeling of moral superiority over everyone else. I’ve read similar sentiments in classical works from Ancient Rome. It’s a kind of moral status climbing. Similarly there’s always other divisions in society over class, gender, homosexuality etc - jews don’t invent these divisions.

Southern Jews likes the old system.

jews operate for jewish tribal interests. Their prime interest is to survive and the second is to gain power and wealth for jews. (There’s nothing unusual about this apart from they compete internally inside other tribe’s terriotory instead of competing across a border.) When there are only a few of them in a region and survival comes first then they attach themselves to a powerful local elite and suck up to them.

The relatively small number of jews in England before the big migrations from the turn of the 20th century didn’t rock the boat either. They quietly climbed up the greasy pole in areas like banking becomung as ultra-respectable and ultra-english as possible seeking security through wealth and conformity to the local elite. The equivalent in the South would be to become ultra-southern.

When they have greater numbers not only can they start their attempt to replace the host elite but also they have a greater need to reduce hostile feelings towards the jews as they try and take over. I think the way they do that is to try and weaken the sense of “us” among the host population and the best way to do that is to flow like water to whatever cracks and divisions that were already there in the host society and then work to make those cracks worse.

jews don’t invent the cracks, they exploit them.

Also, their tactics can change over time.

Initially when the big wave of jewish migration hit the UK they were on the bottom and so the new jews focused on class divisions and original marxism. Later, as they became more middle class their tactics gradually switched to cultural marxism and divisions over identity politics. More recently now they have become part of the elites and want to keep others down, they seem to me to be starting to shift towards libertarianism and radical individualism mixed with globalization in an attempt to atomize potential competitor groups away from collective action.

In the UK at least, what is described as “liberalism” is a coalition of single issues glued together by political correctness and anti-racism (anti-white). In my time in that world jews were the critical factor. I didn’t actually notice they were jews until Israel built their wall and i suddenly realised all these open borders people were the opposite when it came to Israel, but once i had noticed and looked back it was very obvious.

The Jimmy Carters are nothing on their own. They exist and will always be a nuisance because they have a psychological need to feel morally superior and that automatically puts them at odds with the main view of their tribe and time, but they’re useless without that jewish glue precisely because it is about vanity with them, not power. Similarly with unions or militant homosexuals or environmentalists or whatever other groups make up the “liberal” coalition, their primary motivation generally isn’t power itself, it takes an outside group who need a coalition to gain power to come and glue all these disparate groups together.

If jews disappeared tomorrow then the system would carry on briefly because of momentum but i’d give it maybe a month before big cracks started to appear and six months before the whole thing toppled over.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 01:18 AM | #

At one showing, Williams said, a white woman stood up and spoke to her directly.  “She said, ‘On behalf of white Americans, I apologize.  Please forgive me for what happened to you,’ ” (—quoted by Dasein)

Luckily, what didn’t happen to her, namely seven hundred thousand to two million years’ worth of evolution, had nothing to do with whites.

Posted by Wandrin on October 23, 2009, 01:18 AM | #

Armor

Anyway, there are more than enough unskilled immigrants around.

Are wage levels in Europe or the USA the same as China and India?

That’s the end state for fully globalized capitalism. They’ll keep going until they reach that point unless they’re politically restrained.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 01:26 AM | #

”There are two opinion pieces in the Telegraph [...] today that both say mass immigration is to blame for the rise of the BNP. (—Matra)

Which makes as much sense as saying “pneumonia is to blame for the discovery of penicillin.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 01:39 AM | #

Wandrin, 1:08 AM, posts yet another superb comment.  How much sheer truth does this guy have in him?  It looks limitless — it’s been a non-stop stream recently, but how much longer can he go on like this?  I’m worried about this guy:  don’t want him to burn himself out or anything, it may look easy but it takes high brain power to do what he does.  Pace yourself, Wandrin, too many masterpieces in a row can risk burning a guy out!

Posted by Frank on October 23, 2009, 04:55 AM | #

As many MR posters have stated in the past there is little doubt the conservatives of the West as much the enemy as the Marxists.

By a certain definition of conservative, sure. But true nationalists are conserving their people.

It sounds like transhumanists are a material threat as well.

Posted by Wandrin on October 23, 2009, 06:37 AM | #

Fred
Thanks. I’ll quit in a bit as thinking about this stuff too much makes me too angry to be any good at talking to mainstream people, so hopefully no burnout.

Posted by Thunder on October 23, 2009, 10:08 PM | #

Friedrich Braun,
I was not ignoring your reply I have just been busy.  I agree with some of what you say about the traitors among us but it appears to me you are letting jews off the hook too easily.  Even those who have been ‘onside’ rarely say anything about their co-ethnics behaviour.  Michael Levin is a rare jew.  The traitors we can deal with but getting around the charges of anti-semitism and halocaust denial etc is the real challenge.  Anyhow many here have expressed how I feel about your epiphany much better than I ever could.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 23, 2009, 10:31 PM | #

“I’ll quit in a bit” (—Wandrin)

Please don’t!  Your stuff is positively brilliant.  Some of the best out there.

Posted by Dasein on October 24, 2009, 10:54 AM | #

In Britain up to the 1930s, in Germany in the years up to 1918, and in the Old South there was a general assumption among Jews that it was “good” to be fellow-travellers of a powerful and confident European host.  That did not imply that the interests of Jews and Europeans were really coterminous, merely that the latter were executable from the Jewish millenarian perspective.—GW

Henryk Broder (along with Ralph Giordano and Michael Friedman, one of Germany’s best-known Jewish media members) wrote an interesting article in the Tageszeitung this week.  He’s going to challenge Kramer for the presidency of the Zentralrat.  He’s much smarter and savvier than Kramer or Knobloch, and recognizes the damage they are doing to Jewish interests (I’ll perhaps translate the full article later on the Sarrazin thread).  Among other things, he wants to decriminalize Holocaust skepticism.  A smart move, as I don’t think there’s much chance of it actually happening.  This paragraph, towards the end, was interesting:

Ich bin überzeugt, dass es keine partikularen jüdischen Interessen gibt. Ob jemand koscher isst oder halal oder doch lieber Kassler, ist Privatsache. Ebenso wann und zu welchem Gott er betet. Religionsfreiheit beinhaltet auch das Recht, areligiös und antireligiös zu sein und sich über den eigenen und seiner Nachbarn Gott lustig machen zu können, ohne deswegen bedroht zu werden. Freiheit, Demokratie, Rechtsstaat sind die Werte, die offensiv verteidigt werden müssen.

I’m convinced that there are no specifically Jewish interests.  Whether someone eats kosher, halal, or smoked pork is a personal matter.  Likewise when or to which God one prays.  Religious freedom includes the right to be areligious or anti-religious and to be able to make jokes about your neighbour’s God, without having to be threatened.  Freedom, democracy, constitutional government (rule of law), are values that must be aggressively defended.

The logical conclusion would be that there is, thus, no need for a Zentralrat.  Maybe it’s a concession that Germany is as close to ‘Jewmany’ as it can get, without provoking a backlash.  Now that the Holocaust has been elevated to a national religion and Jews are sacred cows, it’s best to maintain the status quo.  Focusing on anti-Jewish muslims, who threaten these values, is more important that further antagonizing the German people.  Opposition to race-replacement will never be forthcoming though, whereas anti-racism will don the mantle of freedom and democracy.  The Zentralrat would remain an enemy to German ethnic interests, just a less obvious one.