CARLYLE

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 23, 2008, 02:21 AM | #

This talk on Carlyle was of course absolutely first-rate.  I learned so much from it, I came away feeling as if I’d just read a whole book on the subject.  Excellent presentation!  Amazing how this scholar packed so much into one speech, not to mention getting all of it across with such a vivid, riveting delivery.  (And all without notes!)

Posted by Guessedworker on July 23, 2008, 09:56 AM | #

The speaker is Jonathan Bowden.  He is, I think it’s fair to say, the leading intellectual spirit of the New Right in England.  His website contains sound files of earlier speeches and a collection of writings.  He is also a painter, author and film actor.

Posted by snax on July 23, 2008, 06:53 PM | #

I think it’s fair to say, the leading intellectual spirit of the New Right in England.

And he daren’t say nigger.

There are dozens of pro-nationalist bloggers of average intellect who can demonstrate that the greatest thinkers of the past held views supportive of our way of thinking. Bowden’s speech - and everything else I’ve seen of him - contributes nothing to the nationalist cause, even while it’s often interesting and impressive.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 23, 2008, 07:14 PM | #

snax,

The New Right might have relatively little to contribute.  To borrow from JWH, “western biopolitics” - racialist neo-Darwinism - offers something more vital, and mercifully non-teleological.

It would be a mischaracterisation of the English way of doing things, btw, to assume that JB failed to throw out the n-word for the reason you think.  A dislike of boorishness is more likely to have been decisive.

Posted by snax on July 23, 2008, 11:03 PM | #

Oh, I’m English GW, and I find JB a little boorish (this is about character not content).

On the nigger question, JB merely had to state the title of the book he mentioned; after all, he as Chairman permitted Lowell to talk about Jews in much more controversial terms and Blacks (and others) name the ‘nigger’ all the time.

At the least JB should insist we are deserving of equal respect with Jennifer Lopez.

---

I’ve been a little surprised myself to see how accepting the ‘somewhat sympathetic’ may be to my occasional, deliberate use of nigger. If challenged I either equate it to ‘chav’ or ‘White trash’ or for the more intelligent talk about Fred’s implied race-replacement aggressors.

The vast majority of we Whites think we’re buying into someting moral, ie. equally demanding when we accept “anti-racist” norms. Most of us welcome correction when it’s offered.

Bowden could do this more effectively, more directly, if he chose to do this at all.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 23, 2008, 11:54 PM | #

“Bowden could do this more effectively, more directly, if he chose to do this at all.” (—Snax)

But why not cut him a little slack, since he’s on our side?  Maybe he’s got enough on his plate already without asking for more headaches than he needs just at the moment by entering the “naming them” fray.  Each of us chooses his fights according to his strengths and weaknesses; the battlefronts he’s already engaged on; the broad overall strategy he personally feels most comfortable pursuing; the skirmishes he can see his able comrades have joined, relieving him of the necessity of rushing into them; and so on.  I don’t think he would have shrunken from saying “The Nigger of the Narcissus,” which someone brought up in the questions if memory serves.  Why he did with Carlyle’s essay is anyone’s guess but I can’t see that detracting from anything about the man.

“If challenged I either equate it to ‘chav’ or ‘White trash’ ”

... as Elvis Costello did,

But it’s no laughing party
When you’ve been on the murder mile.
Only takes one itchy trigger —
One more widow, one less white nigger

Posted by snax on July 24, 2008, 12:15 AM | #

But why not cut him a little slack, since he’s on our side?

You’re the most status-obsessed reasonable-White I’ve ever come across Fred. As long as they choose not to enter the debate here at MR you cut them that slack - any neophyte who does is treated to much more hostile, much less rational questioning than Wintermute levelled at you a few years ago. You’re inconsistent.

Maybe he’s got enough on his plate already without asking for more headaches than he needs just at the moment by entering the “naming them” fray.

He acknowledges what everyone with a brain knows - Wow!

That he encourages the “naming them” fray while personally and politically remaining distinct from them is a problem for me even if not for Soren or Lowell.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2008, 01:30 AM | #

“You’re the most status-obsessed reasonable-White I’ve ever come across Fred.” (—Snax)

Not so.  I’m no snob.  As with beauty, status is as status does.  No snob would say that.

“You’re inconsistent.”

Also not so:  I’m simple and consistent:  I attack advocates of forced race-replacement.  That’s it.  End of story.  There’s nothing else to me, nor am I here for any other reason whatsoever.  If forced race-replacement ended tomorrow I’d wish all the comrades here “Farewell and blessings on thy way where e’re thou goest” and depart.  If you want to get attacked by me, advocate forced race-replacement or claim to see nothing wrong with it; if you want to get praised, oppose it.  If Bowden advocated it I’d attack him.  If God did, I’d attack him.  If Satan opposed it I’d praise him.

Posted by snax on July 24, 2008, 02:12 AM | #

Not so.

Then leave people alone who tentatively post here. And leave to defend themselves those who are criticised here. Do not question their status. Simple.

If Bowden advocated it I’d attack him.

Where does he tell us how to oppose it?

Why do you defend him?

Why intervene at all?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2008, 03:06 AM | #

If by “status” you mean “whether or not he’s on our side” (I don’t see on what other grounds I called for cutting Bowden some slack) then yes I take that into account:  I don’t attack allies. 

I take no other “status” into account.  When I attack famous establishment intellectuals, artists, and writers, big university professors, presidents, prime ministers, life peers and hereditary barons, dukes, princes and kings, all of which I’ve attacked, does that give the impression I fawn over “status”?

“Then leave people alone who tentatively post here.”

What if I dislike what they say?

“And leave to defend themselves those who are criticised here. Do not question their status.”

Haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and don’t want to know.  Please DO NOT explain, you’ll bore the readership to death.

“Why intervene at all?”

“Intervene”?  Odd way to refer to my posting a comment — but then, you’re revealing yourself to be an odd duck (my early impression of you seems to have been right).  If your commentary is so sacrosanct no one is allowed to reply to it you’re at the wrong blog, would be my humble opinion.

I’m done with this incredibly boring exchange.  The last sleep-inducing word goes to you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2008, 12:04 AM | #

Who is Jonathan Bowden, this imposing concentration of (mercifully non-leftist) erudition? 

The following may help reveal him:  Troy Southgate’s interview:

http://www.rosenoire.org/interviews/jbowden.php