The BNP, the EHRC, and revealing a historical moment

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 29, 2010, 02:07 AM | #

Is it possible for someone normal to understand the sort of man John Wadham is?  Yes and no.  (A basic understanding of the physics of black holes helps.) Here is some recent Kalb, discussing not John Wadham in particular, but Wadham’s type:

[L]iberal government is much like other government.  It is run not by the many but by the few.  […T]heir guiding principle is less the will of the people than staying in power and putting into effect their own view of what makes sense.  And what they think makes sense is determined not by the people but by their particular understandings and interests individually and collectively.

[…] No government can make men and preferences equal, since some must always lose in the event of conflict, and we often choose things other than satisfaction of desire:  God, country, and family; justice and righteousness; leadership, comradeship, adventure, and struggle.  To the extent we prefer such things to getting our own way simply as such, hedonism makes no sense.  By “giving us what we want” it gives us what we really don’t much care about.

To deal with such problems without blatant use of force, liberal government must control our thoughts and make us powerless so resistance becomes unthinkable.  We can have what we want, as long as what we want suits the regime, and do what we want, as long as it poses no threat.  That is supposed to be perfect freedom, but who believes it?  The freedom to want what pleases our rulers leaves out everything the best have always cared most about.  And the distinctions and authorities from which the regime frees us — family, prejudice, particular culture and people, religion — are simply those that once enabled us to live and act independently of the formal institutions that constitute the regime.

[ http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2835 ]

Tolerance originally meant putting up with people who transgress norms.  It was a practical virtue, required because the world is not perfect and attempts to force perfection are generally destructive.  Now it means celebrating such people, because they champion freedom from norms now viewed as illegitimate.  Failure to celebrate them would even be an act of oppression […].

The resulting form of society weakens human connections and so isolates people and puts them at the mercy of large impersonal structures.  Under such circumstances it is natural for them to want security against abuse, and to look to government to provide it.  The guarantee of equal treatment seems to do the job.  Any other standard seems unreliable, because it would be at odds with the nature of a society that denies all substantive principles of social cohesion.

The connection between political outlook and personal connectedness indicates the strength of such influences.  The political divisions in American society are mostly a matter of differences in outlook between the married and unmarried, churchgoers and the secular, professionals and non-professionals, and big-city (“Blue State”) people and their somewhat more countrified cousins.  In each case those who view themselves primarily as part of a universal rational order are on the left, those who define their lives by reference to particular connections on the right.

Although inclusiveness thus assuages worries brought on by the nature of present-day life, it makes the underlying problem worse.  By abolishing the relevance of traditional components of identity, it increases the impersonality of institutions, the pervasiveness and inhumanity of bureaucracy, and the isolation of individuals and their total dependence on state and market.  The stability of inclusiveness, like that of modern social organization generally, is that it feeds on the problems it creates.  It is like a black hole that we have fallen into and cannot escape.  Unlike black holes in astronomy, though, it is one that outside thought cannot enter rather than one from which information inside cannot escape.

[ http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2838 ]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 29, 2010, 02:18 AM | #

It is existential, and well enough put by a commenter to the BNP’s website named Rijker:

“This is no longer your country.
You cannot have a culture of your own.
You can not represent yourselves in Parliament.
You are to be persecuted until you no longer exist.”

(—from the log entry)

I agree, that’s excellently well put by Rijker.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 29, 2010, 04:33 AM | #

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

Imagine that. 

In addition, as Rousseau remarked, “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” One problem with that is the lemmings apparently love their chains yet also bristle under the weight.  Even if the muds go will the security cameras follow?  I friggin’ doubt it.  Similarly, being forced to Kraut-march down the street may rankle, but if at the same time the chests of those marching don’t swell with pride then I’ve got a billion dollars I will forthwith transfer to your bank account - and I don’t have a billion dollars.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 29, 2010, 05:00 AM | #

A very good example, Brigadier John Durnford-Slater, a man who would have resisted military service in lieu of becoming an Argentinian horse breeder but for maternal pressure.  And once in the military, wanted to quit due to a lack of ‘action’ and responsibility sent his way.  But once the war came, he was tasked with and was largely responsible for the creation of the Commandos, the proto-special forces, men whom he personally led into battle, whose often brutal conduct contra the Geneva Convention led Hitler to issue the infamous Commando Order.  One wonders what mischief he would have gotten up to on the Eastern Front were he fighting for the Krauts.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 29, 2010, 03:04 PM | #

Let me ask JamesUK since he’s got everything down pat with his geopolitics theories that explain all we see of importance going on around us:  JamesUK, what makes John Wadham tick?  Wadham is not directly doing geopolitics obviously, yet he’s stubbornly, methodically interfering in one of the most important, potentially revolutionary developments in British politics in century or more, the threat posed to the present globalist establishment by the rise of the BNP.  He’s not a merely bought-and-paid-for toady who believes in nothing, the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.  He’s not that sort of trash.  No, he’s clearly a true believer, a fanatic in his own eerily quiet, determined, never-give-up way.  How do you read this man, JamesUK?  What’s he up to?  What’s on his mind?  What exactly are his goals, as you see the world through your geopolitics lens?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 29, 2010, 04:12 PM | #

(JamesUK won’t have an answer of course, because Wadham’s not “doing geopolitics” and is therefore off JamesUK’s radar screen — the same as race is off his radar screen.)

Posted by Bill on January 31, 2010, 12:18 PM | #

I’ve not taken much interest in the Chilcot Enquiry which has dominated our screens and airwaves of late.

The same old faces talking to the same old faces about why Britain went to war with Iraq.

I suppose there is some purpose behind it all, but I doubt very much whether the ordinary people of Britain have genuinely been considered in all of this by our elites.

It goes without saying the whole thing is a total waste of time.  This type of show trial would not have been out of place in the old Soviet system.

Another such enquiry was held not long ago among the Bankers, about the cause of the recent economic meltdown - which none saw coming.

That enquiry was also toothless and irrelevant, bankers prostrating themselves with remorse, throwing themselves on the politicians for forgiveness.  Not a pretty spectacle and equally useless in outcome.

Blair is the latest in the dock, I didn’t see any of it, but the Guardian gives a credible account of what Blair is all about.  His consummate style reduced the panel to even greater irrelevance.

Blair is a thoroughly modern postmodern politician, he, like the rest, do what they do because it’s the right thing to do.

Blair and newLabour were chosen to usher on to the British people the New World order, they were to be the pioneers, the pathfinders to a Brave New World.  Looking back, it is easy to see Blair’s agenda was not in the best interest of the people who had hoisted him to power.

No, from the very beginning, Blair embarked on the agenda he had been briefed to carry out, namely to destroy Britain and its people for enrolment into the NWO.

How do I know this?  Because I am living it.

Will the Chilcot enquiry get to the bottom of why Blair went to war in Iraq, will they enlighten the nation as to what the Iraq war is all about?  (LOL)

Why did Blair strut the world stage with his old mate, sleeves rolled up, jackets nonchalantly slung over their shoulders.  The Magnificent Two, gunning for Saddam.

How did they get away with it?

Posted by Dan Dare on January 31, 2010, 06:19 PM | #

Will the Chilcot enquiry get to the bottom of why Blair went to war in Iraq, will they enlighten the nation as to what the Iraq war is all about?  (LOL)

Rumblings about the composition of the Chilcot committee still continue. The two Jews remain uncomfortably in the spotlight, ironically being kept there by the bleatings of fellow tribalists like David Cesarani, who had this piece in Friday’s CiF section:

Britain’s affair with antisemitism

Together with the Afro-Asian asylum-seeker ‘Baroness’ Ushar Prashar they form the majority of members on the inquiry committee. Is it any real surprise that Blair & Co. are having such an easy ride?

Posted by ic1male on January 31, 2010, 08:51 PM | #

The BNP will win two parliamentary seats imo, some people say three. Time is so short however as the ruling elite are still flooding area’s with 3rd world immigrants.  In my city (Birmingham) whites are officially a minority and we have 0% chance of gaining a parliamentary seat. It will be a massive boost to get some MP’s however, and as is happening in Holland, immigrants do leave when the far right get very strong. http://northfieldpatriot.blogspot.com/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 03, 2010, 11:45 PM | #

God bless Ian Sutton with the Barnsley BNP!  See his work here:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1097203&postcount=1 .

God bless you, Ian!  And God bless the BNP!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 06, 2010, 12:11 AM | #

From the “Good Stuff” department:

I’m not usually a huge fan of Pat Condell but his new video on the medieval heresy trial of Geert Wilders is satisfying to watch (hat tip Lawrence Auster):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZUZ9CPZII&feature=player_embedded .

Right afterward I stumbled across this next one showing Mark Steyn, another guy I’m generally not the world’s biggest fan of, doing a really satisfying monologue on multiculturalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEGJb5W5ks&feature=related .

Posted by Al Ross on February 06, 2010, 01:44 AM | #

Thanks, Fred. Both videos are well worth viewing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2010, 08:40 PM | #

There’s a good new column by Professor Tom Sunic in which, among other valuable services, he exposes the depravity of today’s West European/North American Catholic Church in regard to the race-replacement crisis and notes the superior record of the East European Catholics.  (The Russian Orthodox also have a superior record.) He includes brief disussion of the tactic some “Conservatives” adopt, smuggling WN-type communication past anti-WN Jewish media guards by camouflaging it exclusively as anti-Moslemism, a tactic he sees having little chance of getting to the real point:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-RaceReligionIV.html .

In a related piece, also well worth reading, Professor MacDonald comments on Prof. Sunic’s entry:

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=749 .