Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:44 | #

Excellent mind, excellent speaker.

What was the basis of the rift between him and Nick Griffin? 

(How could this fine scholar be anything but a HUGE asset to the BNP?)

Posted by BGD on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:54 | #

Just watched the first video and it seemed embarrassing / toe curling to me..

Posted by BGD on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:00 | #

OK, just took another one of them at random and is a bit more interesting, but. A voice like a shop steward.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:34 | #

“embarrassing / toe curling to me.. [...] A voice like a shop steward.”

“Embarrassing”??  “Toe-curling”?? 

“Shop steward”?? 

Right BGD, his accent is way more important than Britain, the Euro race or the White West (way more important than what he says, in other words).  Yea, you’ve really got it down, mate; you zero right in on the important stuff.

Do you think Americans even notice what damn accent he has?  Get real.  Get some synapses firing, man!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:40 | #

How does Prince Charles’ accent compared to his, and how do their brains compare? 

Right, GW should have posted a talk by Prince Charles instead — much posher accent!  Take Bowden down, GW, it’s embarrassing the snobs.  Curling their toes! 

Get Prince Charles up there.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:58 | #

“What was the basis of the rift between him and Nick Griffin?”  (—my comment)

It’s coming back to me; no need to answer — he supported the challenge to Griffin for the party leadership, anger was stirred, words got exchanged, and that was it, he resigned. 

You do find yourself wondering, though, what was really going on underneath the surface.

Posted by BGD on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:35 | #

True Fred <hangs head>Yes, perhaps my synapses were a little clouded, posted at 1 a.m. in the morning here after some pre birthday festivities…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:55 | #

Well, Happy Birthday then, BGD!

Posted by BGD on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:06 | #

Thanks Fred

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:50 | #

Every white person on this planet who can understand English needs to listen to Jonathan Bowden at this time of demographic crisis for whites. 

In addition to the present log entry’s selection of videos, why not watch the following?  You won’t be disappointed!  This man is a God-send.  (The fourth one is audio only, for some reason — I got no picture.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F572M9l1E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFnq_s1oS0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI3jYXU5a68&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZWr0heFwrI&feature=related

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:37 | #

What was the basis of the rift between him and Nick Griffin?

This anti-fascist thread has a pretty balanced take.

Posted by Englander on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:27 | #

He is a very good speaker, but those who commented about his voice do have a point. His voice, and his whole demeanour, will be very off-putting to many people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:58 | #

Right, his voice and his demeanor are more off-putting than the U.K. being turned into a nation of non-European peoples.  That makes so much sense.  Why didn’t I see that before!

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:39 | #

The question: if Nick Griffin is indeed an ‘MI5 asset’ or ‘in their pay’ or ‘sanctioned by them’ or is so personally flawed as to, in effect, be running the BNP for his own aggrandizement and power-lust and if Bowden is really the best man to mount a political opposition to the dispossession of native Brits then why does he not do so?

Further, if he has not already attempted to lead, if indeed he is the best man, does not that fact alone definitively establish that he is not the best man for the job?  Or, perhaps, the best man would wait for the optimal blend of the most critical moment and the most opportune moment?  Is that not now?  If not, why not? If not now, when?

What ever the case may be: at the critical moment men go to the front and cowards slink to the rear.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:32 | #

I believe the link for #5 is a dupe of #3. The proper #5 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS04U4Pe9W8  - a particular fiery segment.

This is an informative and inspiring speech. Thanks for sharing it GW. Bowden’s voice didn’t bother me. In fact I found his affectations useful. Through them his sarcasm and ridicule came through crystal clear.

Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:43 | #

The question: if Nick Griffin is indeed an ‘MI5 asset’ or ‘in their pay’ or ‘sanctioned by them’ or is so personally flawed as to, in effect, be running the BNP for his own aggrandizement and power-lust and if Bowden is really the best man to mount a political opposition to the dispossession of native Brits then why does he not do so?

Bowden indirectly addressed this in his speech; intellectuals do not make good politicians.  The intellectual creates ideas, and the politician translates these ideas into political power (by motivating people into action - something few intellectuals have the capacity to do).  We need both - serving in their respective spheres.

Posted by Riley The Wiley on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:45 | #

Very interesting.

A nitpick: Two of the segments - numbers five, and I believe three - are duplicates.

Riley

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:40 | #

OK, I’ve corrected that.  Obviously had too many screens open when I was putting together all the parts.  Sorry about that.

Posted by A.H. on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:05 | #

Hi, as a Scotswoman, I loved this.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:19 | #

Good, so you’ll be voting BNP from now on, A.H., at all levels and exclusively?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:24 | #

(Yes, Bowden’s no longer in it, but it’s the best you’ve got, AH — and though he resigned, Bowden still endorses it, doesn’t he?  It’s GOT to be the party he votes for.)

Actually, I agree with CC’s letter above:  if Bowden’s made of the right stuff he ought to get back in and fight this time:  let him not cave when Griffin (whom I like) or Griffin’s men come at him, but fight back.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:48 | #

Yeah, Bowden’s voice is a little grating, but the guy is an Orator.  Once you get used to his voice it kinda grows on you, it gives his esoterica a common touch.  I think he has the right stuff, if so, what he needs is a kick in the pants.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:56 | #

For me, Jonathan Bowden (as seen in the Frankfurt School talk or, even better, the one with YouTube title “Tameside, March 2008” linked in an earlier comment of mine in this thread) is a dream come true:  he couldn’t be improved upon, that I can see.  I’m talking about his message; I couldn’t care less about “his accent or demeanor.”  In terms of the saving which our race needs at this particular juncture he’s like Jesus Christ suddenly returned and walking among us.  The man says everything right, and everything that needs to be said.  No, I as a Yank don’t hear anything wrong with his speaking style or see aught wrong with his demeanor, whatsoever.  He’s rather brash and exuberant, which is perfectly fine with me, and why shouldn’t he be?  The man’s brilliant.  As for whether or not his particular sort of brash exuberance might make him a less-than-ideal vote-getter in Britain, again, speaking as a Yank I have no idea BUT I can say this:  if it did, it would be like the Ukrainians in 1932, on the eve of the Holodomor, saying about a hypothetical politician who might prevent genocide by going up against Lazar Kaganovich, “We don’t like his demeanor or his speaking style, he’s too brash, too exuberant, so we’re not going to support him.”  Give that some thought.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:03 | #

The point is we’re rapidly coming to the point of being beyond the luxuries of “speaking styles” and “demeanor.”  “Qu’à cela ne tienne,” as Cardinal Richelieu once said to someone who’d voiced an objection to an arbitrary decision of his:  “Don’t let that be an obstacle.”

Posted by Nigel on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:41 | #

First, I’d like to thank my white brothers and sisters for their intelligent comments.  (What is race but extended family?)

Second,  I’d just like to say thanks for the videos.

——————
Nigel’s Signature:

The white patriot’s Coat of Arms:  gens alba conservanda est (the white race must be preserved)

——

T.S. Eliot:  “White Trash” is a white person who fornicates with a non-white.

——

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S DECLARATION OF WAR ON EUROPEAN AMERICANS.  Obama has supported:

(A) Reparations. Redistributing money from European Americans to blacks, mestizos, and Asians.

(B) Criminalizing white parents who refuse to let their children practice miscegenation.

(C) Using “hate crime” laws to silence any criticism from European Americans.

(D) Using Third World immigration to overwhelm European American majorities.

(E) Maintaining anti-white affirmative action programs

(F) Creating a mandatory “America Serves” community-service program to indoctrinate and deracinate young European Americans
——

From evolutionary philosophy email list:  “Children of mixed, white-black, marriages identify 99% of the time as black and detest European Americans (whites).  Why?  They almost always look black (eye color, hair texture, nose shape, skin color, etc.).  Obama wrote:  “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s white race.”“

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:44 | #

Looks as if we’re to get something called “International Tolerance Day” shoved down our throats next:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/11/15/brimelow-on-international-tolerance-day-whats-that/

Will that day be celebrated in Israel, I wonder?  Will Jewish women over there now have the legal right to marry non-Jewish men?  Will Chinese and Filipino temporary workers in Israel now be able legally to have sex with Jewish women while they’re there?  (At present that’s illegal there.)  Will all restrictions both written and unwritten to non-Jews’ gaining political and social influence in Israel be lifted?  Will Israel implement open borders with the non-white Thirld World?  In other words, how will “International Tolerance Day” affect Israeli society, and will the effect be lasting?

Posted by Bo Sears on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:50 | #

Nigel lists above at 5:41 PM this item:

“(F) Creating a mandatory “America Serves” community-service program to indoctrinate and deracinate young European Americans”

=====

Here is a good, if older, summary of college campus indoctrination programs:

#http://www.reason.com/news/show/27632.html

Presumably the programs at the Obama Re-education Camps for non-college students will be even more brutal.

Posted by Bo Sears on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:53 | #

That didn’t go so well. Correct link is:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27632.html

Posted by Johnny B on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:47 | #

To be quite honest, I think too many people take marxism way too seriously. All it really amounts to is a huge flim-flam job that gets ‘useful idiots’ working towards installing a central-goverment police-state. And being as all people can either be corrupted or killed, having all power concentrated at the top means it will always be much easier for the corrupters to take over than with localized government.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:35 | #

The bastards ruling us know all about population transfers and their purposes, know all about use of military force in carrying them out, and know all about suppression of popular objections to them, and all feigning of ignorance or innocence on their part in regard to such topics, all governmental denying of the blindingly obvious, all pretending by government not to see that what’s happening is indeed happening (namely, the race is being changed deliberately), is the most brazen bullshit:

http://www.barnesreview.org/html/nov2008lead_120.html

Now, after reading that, is there a single solitary soul naïve enough to actually believe the current massive influx of incompatible immigration with the concomitant methodical suppression by government of publicly-expressed objections has not been, and is not being as we speak, carefully planned behind the scenes with the goal in mind specifically of race-replacement?  No other interpretation is possible. 

Would filth like Roy Hattersley, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Red Ken Livingston be in on such a thing?  What do you think?  Of course, don’t be naïve!  They’re bought (Blair), or they’re snobs trying to utterly dissociate themselves from the white working class (Hattersley), or they’re communists (Livingston), or you name it, if it’s filthy, they’re it, veritable pigs wallowing in it. 

Race-replacement, by the way, is what happens when a significant proportion of a population gets replaced.  To qualify as race-replacement it is not necessary for a population transfer program to effect a hundred-percent race-change:  fifty percent will do, thiry percent will do, twenty percent will do for it to qualify as race-replacement.  In those cases we say the population has been thirty percent race-replaced, or twenty-percent race-replaced, or whatever the case may be. 

Of course, having gained a thirty-percent foothold let’s say, on the nation’s territory, the forces arrayed to fight for completing the job of replacement (the Jews naturally, and their usual allies in this sort of business including the non-whites themselves) will take a breather to let things calm down and the people get used to the new situation as if that’s where the starting point always was, then will resume their methodical drive for one hundred percent eradication of whites.

This stuff is all basic.  It’s an absolute given of how the other side works. 

This is why “partial” race-replacement MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO STAND (be the pretext that it’s “politically irreversible,” or that reversing it “would be too inhumane, cause too much hardship,” or whatever the pretext), but must be undone and the status quo ante restored in its entirety.  (It it’s so irreversible why did they sneak it in under the radar instead of first having a clearly—worded, no-PC-no-bullshit public referendum preceded by a year or two of completely free and open public debate?  Wouldn’t that have been the honest course prior to making a change this drastic that’s supposedly irreversible, meaning once completed you can’t go back?  Why were they so dishonest in the way they sprang it on everyone if it’s so irreversible???)

Any other outcome — any permitting of partial race-replacement to stand — assures the ultimate success of the other side’s Fabian ratchet-and-pawl, one-way-only, two-steps-forward-one-step-back, strategy of getting whites way more than fifty-percent eliminated in the end, totally eliminated even, if they can manage it.  Any other outcome assures that, guarantees it, and therefore what they’ve done must be rolled back completely, not allowed to stand!

And then of course we must go on the counterattack to finally once and for all ferret these forces out of their lurking places and break them for good whatever the cost, otherwise they’ll simply start all over again and we’ll be perpetually playing defense, a guaranteed ultimate loser.  We cannot let them keep attacking our very existence in this way but must at some point go on offense against them, put them on the defensive for once, carry this war that we didn’t want but they started, right into their strongholds and hiding places.  Ferret them out and destroy them or the knife will be at your throat all over again, it’s only a matter of time.  And again.  And again.  And again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:37 | #

(Hat tip for the link in my above comment goes to TheCivicPlatform.com.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:50 | #

I’m not recommending violence there, but firm legal civic measures for carrying their own war to them for a change, right into their lurking places literally and figuratively.  There are ways.  Rules will have to be changed, lessons learned, attitudes stiffened, naïveté shed finally.  But it can be done, certainly.  Just do it.  DON’T remain perpetually “on defense” before these nation-and-race destroyers.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:37 | #

They’re bought (Blair), or they’re snobs trying to utterly dissociate themselves from the white working class (Hattersley), or they’re communists (Livingston), or you name it

You can add stupidity to your list of explanations. I think people can be smart and stupid at the same time. You can also add conformism. Western leaders do not lead at all ; they follow the lead of the media, of left-wing organizations, and other groups. The behavior of normal people and low level politicians is even more disappointing, since they are not under heavy pressure like top politicians ; most of them are anti-immigration, and I think they could get away with saying the truth and denouncing the policy of race-replacement by crazy traitors. A first step would be to use phrases like “population replacement”, which accuratetly describes what is going on. We need a few courageous people to lead the way, and a few non-aligned news-media to report on it.

Posted by roundtop on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:06 | #

Notice how the working-class   accent almost disappears when he is discussing Heidegger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwwxKL4Cylw&feature=related

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:20 | #

“Notice how the working-class accent almost disappears when he is discussing Heidegger”  (—Roundtop)

Maybe Michael Caine should’ve brushed up on his Heidegger some more.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:36 | #

A first step would be to use phrases like “population replacement”, which accuratetly describes what is going on

Its clever the way that ‘Global Warming’ has recently been morphed into the essentially meaningless ‘Climate Change’. So if one term can be substitued in popular usage, why not another?

Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:34 | #

FWIW

Born Maurice Micklewhite, Caine grew up in the heavily Jewish London East End, where his cockney father was a fish market porter and his mother a cleaning woman.

Caine: chosen because of Cohen?

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:08 | #

BGD - we’ve been here before.

Where I added this:

I dont think Michael Caine is Jewish though.

I suppose his actual name sounds kind of Jewish but Im pretty sure the Micklewhite name is of Yorkshire origin.

In fact Ive just been having a look around and found this:

http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.c/qx/Micklewhite-coat-arms.htm

Or here for another example of the name:

http://www.nathanielspens.com/pafg02.htm#98

Ann Micklewhite [Parents] was born in 1821. She died on 27 Oct 1885. She married John Baynes on 14 Mar 1841 in St. Margaret, York, York, England.

Another link:

http://www.familyhistoryonline.net/name/WRY/mcmerriman.shtml

So not Jewish, but he knows who pays his wages.

before

Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:26 | #

Say it isn’t so Lurker! OK I withdraw that supposition. Had a quick look on Google too and all winds blow in the direction you suggest.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:50 | #

Its not guaranteed but as you say, the wind seems to be blowing that way.

Posted by Heathenblood on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:05 | #

The Jonathan Bowden speech was really amazing to me but I couldn’t understand everything he said as British people don’t speek very good English. Is there a transcription of this speech or does anyone plan on transcribing it?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54 | #

There is no transciption.  Bowden does not speak from notes.  He just extemporises.  And no one seems to have undertaken the task of copying down the entire speech from the videos.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:27 | #

I find Bowden’s delivery far too machine gun pace, his trailing words tread on the heels of the delivered word, consequently I don’t have time to absorb the full impact of what he is telling me.  I wouldn’t like to ask him directions if I were lost.

GW.  Your a southerner, Bowden’s accent has more than touch of estuary about it, do you know where he comes from?

Looked up Wikipedia - just says Kent.

Posted by a Finn on Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:06 | #

Short introduction to cultural marxism, notice the bibliography in the last part:

http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/index.aspx

Posted by BB Wolfe on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:20 | #

New Right’s latest guest speaker, David Irving, may give a certain flavour to an occasion, but I increasingly wonder what the point is of this merchant and his endless bring-and-buy sale. I wasn’t at the last New Right meeting, but I hope he didn’t serve them the same brand of two-faced, mealy-mouthed tripe that he recently provided Channel 4 viewers and Rex Bloomstein with in the documentary ‘An Independent Mind’. Irving’s now doing what his detractor Alexander Baron claimed he would do — upon reaching his very peak of notoriety (during his incarceration and subsequent release) he has publicly recanted on various opinions he privately held about certain details concerning the Third Reich and The Jews. Why choose such a public forum as a high-profile documentary for such a climb-down? If the man doesn’t ‘fess up in his autobiography, the ‘Enemies of Free Speech’ can have him. Or maybe Baron was right after all — maybe They’ve had him all along?

Posted by Armor on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:26 | #

To be quite honest, I think too many people take marxism way too seriously. All it really amounts to is a huge flim-flam job that gets ‘useful idiots’ working towards installing a central-goverment police-state. And being as all people can either be corrupted or killed, having all power concentrated at the top means it will always be much easier for the corrupters to take over than with localized government. (—Johnny B)

In France and Britain, political centralism has certainly facilitated Jewish influence. (In the USA, the centralization is something more recent). In France, there really was a cult of the state. Instead of an American system where several parties are battling each other and finally settling for a compromise, the official theory in France was that “The State” (whatever that means) knows what is best. The philosophical mafia (a very small Parisian clique) acting as the spirit of “The State” can be replaced by a new team, the new “philosophy” can become a philosophy of race replacement, and the cult goes on, as if nothing had happened, and the lemmings take it in stride.