Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:42 | #

“An important but unregarded fact is the way the elites, who literally hate their own people”  (—from the log entry)

Uhhh ... they’re not quite ... (how to put this without getting the ADL, the SPLC, the ACLU, the AJC, LICRA, and Extended Phenotypes for the Kwamerikwan Way down on our necks?) ... they’re ... not quite “their own people” ...

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:32 | #

Fred:

how to put this without getting the ADL, the SPLC, the ACLU, the AJC, LICRA, and Extended Phenotypes

The original post was about Britain. You’re referring to American institutions, The British elite dates back centuries and is pretty much lily white, save for the Rothschilds and a few others. It has never cared that much for the historic people of the British Isles, except to the extent that they can be exploited. Not to mention that there are all sorts of populist groups who equate fighting the elite with left-wing politics. If you think these problems would not exist but for the Jews, you’re mistaken.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:52 | #

Isn’t there an IQ threshold for participation in this blog?  Whatever happened to that?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:58 | #

Never address me and I’ll never address you.  How’s that, Monitor?  Deal?  You see, I just don’t like being addressed by people who give me severe nausea and projectile vomiting, I’m just weird that way, it’s one of my quirks.  Just humor me, OK?  And if possible, go take a running leap.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:31 | #

Never address me and I’ll never address you.  How’s that, Monitor?

If you know that the One Jewish Cause theory cannot stand up to rational scrutiny, why do you promote it? Just so you know, the British ruling class has been doing bad things for centuries, with or without help from Jewish influence.

Posted by zorn on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:37 | #

no, the One Jewish Cause theory only exists in your deranged mind, monitor.  it’s a nice strawman that you lovingly constructed over the course of hundreds of comments on the deranged psychopath scimitar’s blog.  nice company you keep.

besides, jews, both ashkenazi and sephardic are middle eastern populations, closest relatives being the autochthonous syrians and lebanese.  this is reason enough to exclude them from european societies.

Posted by Catfish LeRoy on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:55 | #

“The British elite dates back centuries and is pretty much lily white, save for the Rothschilds and a few others.”

Well, not quite, Monitor. The representation of Jews in politics, business, and the media—their overall power-profile in Great Britain—is comparable to their power-profile in the United States.

Look at David Miliband, Margaret Hodge, and Lord Michael Levy for examples of current Jewish “high-flyers” who have a penchant for supporting Rightist politics in Israel and Leftist politics in Britain. (To say nothing of a veritable legion of Jewish-Tribalist second-stringers like Mellanie Phillips…)

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:27 | #

The only nations in the entire world in which the mere attempt at acknowledging majority EGI is pathologised, while immigrant EGI is constantly promoted (usually at White taxpayers expense), are White nations where Jews are very influential , and yes, these include Nordic countries with very few of the anti-White pests actually resident but where Jewish media ownership is the norm.

Posted by silver on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:20 | #

The original post was about Britain. You’re referring to American institutions, The British elite dates back centuries and is pretty much lily white, save for the Rothschilds and a few others. It has never cared that much for the historic people of the British Isles, except to the extent that they can be exploited. Not to mention that there are all sorts of populist groups who equate fighting the elite with left-wing politics. If you think these problems would not exist but for the Jews, you’re mistaken.

The elites, especially the media elites, are informed by a certain philosophy whose practical effects (if not its design) is anti-white.  Jews and communists (often one and the same) played leading roles in the creation of this philosophy/ies, yet, for all practical purposes, that matters little: wholly white mediacrats have swallowed it whole and would operate according to its principles without a jew in sight.

(If you’re stumped as to what Scrooby finds so objectionable about the post you wrote that he just punched three new holes in his wall, you’re not alone.)

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:51 | #

Wholly white mediacrats have swallowed it whole and would operate according to its principles without a jew in sight. 

Yes, yes. Stupid white people have many reasons to hate themselves: sex, greed, anger at Mom and Dad, atheism, government school educations, etc. If you read “Stuff White People Like,” you’ll see a surprisingly insightful look at the white New Class, even though the author does not connect the dots. White liberals wear their politics as fashion statements and can only repeat slogans.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:59 | #

‘Wholly White mediacrats” do what their bosses tell them. British Broadcasting Corporation Chairman - a Jew called Michael Lyons; BBC Deputy Chairman - an Indian-born babu called Chitra Bharuch.

And over at UK’s ITV the ovine “wholly White mediacrats” are herded by another Jew, Michael Grade.

Posted by snax on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:02 | #

Jews and communists (often one and the same) played leading roles in the creation of this philosophy/ies, yet, for all practical purposes, that matters little

Because we’re done for, right, we’ll never again have a chance to control our own countries? If this ain’t so, Jewish hostility toward our life is very important practically. And why the past tense? Jews are overwhelmingly hostile now.

wholly white mediacrats have swallowed it whole and would operate according to its principles without a jew in sight.

But we don’t get to test that claim.

Posted by snax on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:21 | #

In previous years the beat police responsible for the Notting Hill Carnival were told by the higher-ups not to make arrests when they witnessed minor crimes taking place, smoking pot, minor fisticuffs, knife carrying and such like, so as not to ‘incite the community’.

Why didn’t ANY of these beat bobbies refuse to tow the line? Heck, if I’d been there I’d have made a citizen’s arrest on the Chief for assisting crime, interefering with police officers doing their duty, perverting the course of justice, and ALL of it racially motivated to boot.

These coppers even meekly ignore it when Ian Blair is found to have discriminated against White officers, in trying to have them fired to set an example to other Whites. Frankly, I think these cowards are no better than the Black rioters. When it inevitably kicks off every so often, I tend to hope that as many as possible on both sides are soundly beaten the shit out of. I really have no stake in that fight.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:35 | #

‘Wholly White mediacrats” do what their bosses tell them.

Were the 19th Century Fabian Socialists and Anglo-Catholics who set the tone for today’s British mainstream just taking orders from Jewish Bolsheviks? What about Baron Reith, who designed British broadcasting? He was very Scottish and supposedly an anti-Semite.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:13 | #

For many Victorian and Edwardian Christian socialists the Jew-sponsored Bolshevik Revolution would have met with approval as the aims of that foetid, underdog-supporting, equality-in-degradation religion, Christianity, coincided with the mendacious Marxist rhetoric employed by the Jewish latter day descendants of the inventors of the Jesus nonsense as political camouflage for their true aim of ruining Russia or indeed any White country unfortunate (or stupid) enough to host such parasites.

Reith probably didnt care for Jews, especially the wartime infestation of the predators, and had he been able to foresee their present day accretion of both capital and political influence, I suspect he’d have liked them even less.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:26 | #

that foetid, underdog-supporting, equality-in-degradation religion

You are part of the very degeneracy you claim to oppose. You don’t just oppose the liberal, heretical form of Christianity. No, you hate the faith itself, which makes you the enemy of Christendom, not the friend.

the Jewish latter day descendants of the inventors of the Jesus nonsense

This sort of militant ignorance isn’t helping. Western Civilization minus Christianity is what we have now. Why would you want more of it?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:28 | #

Monitor,

We are not engaged in a war for culture.  I trust you understand that, and that your function here is not to agitate for culturism and against racial preservation.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:57 | #

I trust you understand that, and that your function here is not to agitate for culturism and against racial preservation.

I’m not arguing against racial preservation. I’m saying that without culture, you don’t preserve race. Iran is white. Cyprus is white. South Ossetia is white too. Do you want to live there?

Put another way: Unless you are willing to fight for civilization, you can’t have race (and vice versa).

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:09 | #

Iran is White? Are you mad? It is, a living testament to the disastrous (for Aryans) long (and indeed short) term effects of miscegenation. Take a look at the “whiteness” of the little Paki, Ahmadinejad who does the Muslim clergy’s bidding as President. Dont forget that the Iranian Muslims revere as a (non-divine) prophet that Jewish shyster with the virgin mother.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:17 | #

Jewish shyster with the virgin mother.

This sort of outburst is the sort of thing I would expect from the disreputable sections of the Talmud.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:19 | #

I’m saying that without culture, you don’t preserve race.

You are looking at the outside of the jar.  Appeals to culture are for the masses.  They do not constitute a meaningful strategy for those who “understand”.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:39 | #

As a guidebook for racial preservation the anti-outgroup, animus-laden Talmud is to be admired. Cyprus seems to be thought of as an undesirable destination when the reality is that it is a pleasant island that doesnt burden its citizens with onerous taxes to support the biological waste products of the Third World so often venerated by feeble-minded, one-worldist Christian dolts and saboteurs.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:46 | #

They do not constitute a meaningful strategy for those who “understand”.

I think I understand too well. So a hen is just an egg’s way of making another egg?

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:51 | #

As a guidebook for racial preservation the anti-outgroup, animus-laden Talmud is to be admired.

Aha! You don’t hate the Jews so much as envy them. Why not go to the nearest synagogue, convert, and get it over with? Snip, snip!

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:04 | #

The Christian precept of ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ is roughly analogous to my ‘abhor the Jewish presence in White lands but admire their survival strategy’ sentiment though not nearly as intelligent. I also admire the Japanese so I suppose by the puerile logic of the above mattoid I should seek to Nipponise my appearance.

Posted by Z on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:08 | #

[An American view of the immigrant invasion]

“How Many Americans?”

By Steven A. Camarota
Tuesday, September 2, 2008; Page A15

When the Census Bureau released its new population projections last month, most of the media focused on the country’s changing racial composition. But this was almost certainly not the most important finding. The projections show that the U.S. population will grow by 135 million in just 42 years—a 44 percent increase. Such growth would have profound implications for our environment and quality of life. Most of the increase would be a direct result of one federal policy—immigration. If we reduced the level of immigration, the projections would be much lower. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we want to be a much more densely settled country?

Native-born Americans have only about two children on average, which makes for a roughly stable population over time. But with an estimated 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country each year, and about 900,000 births to these immigrants each year, immigration directly and indirectly accounts for at least three-fourths of U.S. population growth.

An increase of 135 million people by 2050 is equivalent to the entire populations of Mexico and Canada moving here. Assuming the same ratio of population to infrastructure that exists today, the United States would need to build and pay for 36,000 schools. We would need to develop enough land to accommodate 52 million new housing units, along with places for the people who lived in them to shop and work. We would also have to construct enough roads to handle 106 million more vehicles.

Of course, our country can “fit” more people. But such a dramatic increase would affect many issues about which Americans are concerned, including the environment, traffic, congestion, sprawl and the loss of open spaces. Technology and planning could help manage this situation, but there is no way they could offset all of the impact of 135 million more people. This massive increase also would have implications for the size and scope of government; more densely settled societies almost always are more heavily regulated societies.

Another important finding in the census projections is that, even with record levels of immigration for the next four decades, the U.S. population will still grow significantly older. Immigration makes our society only slightly younger than it would otherwise be. (Consider that, on average, the overall fertility rate in the United States is about 2.1 children per woman. If immigrants are excluded from the data, it’s still about 2.0 children per woman. This compares with 1.4 children in Western Europe. Immigration makes for a much more densely settled country; it does not make for a much younger country.) As the Census Bureau stated in its 2000 projections, immigration is a “highly inefficient” means for addressing the problem of an aging society in the long run. The new projections show the same thing.

Some people think that immigration creates large economic benefits. But the economic research is pretty clear: While immigration does significantly increase economic activity in the receiving society, almost all of that increased activity go to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits. The gain to natives is tiny. When the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, examined this question, it concluded that the benefits for native-born Americans were equal to only about one- or two-tenths of 1 percent of their income. The two economists who did the work for the council described the effect as “minuscule.”

Moreover, this tiny economic benefit was entirely erased by the fiscal drain immigrant households imposed on taxpayers. Perhaps worst of all, the researchers found that to generate this small gain, immigration reduced the wages of the least educated and poorest American workers.

There is no question that immigrants benefit by coming here. But it is difficult to argue that immigration is a well-targeted way to lift up the world’s poor. Many immigrants to the United States were not poor in their home countries. More important, although immigration causes an enormous increase in the overall U.S. population, it still represents an infinitesimal fraction of the world’s low-income population. We can do more to help poor people in developing countries through trade policies and development assistance.

The United States may well decide to continue to allow the settlement of 1.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal) each year. But legal immigration is a federal program like any other and could be reduced below the 1 million currently allowed to enter annually. Greater resources could also be devoted to reducing illegal immigration. It’s important to understand that the new projections show us one possible future. We must decide as a country if this is the future we want.

The writer is director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090101714.html

—-

Note that The Washington Post closed the comments for this article. Coincidence?

Posted by silver on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:30 | #

‘Wholly White mediacrats” do what their bosses tell them. British Broadcasting Corporation Chairman - a Jew called Michael Lyons; BBC Deputy Chairman - an Indian-born babu called Chitra Bharuch.

And over at UK’s ITV the ovine “wholly White mediacrats” are herded by another Jew, Michael Grade.

Be that as it may, it is still overwhelmingly whites themselves doing the damage.  Aside from incentives from Jews, whites provide each other incentives for damaging their genetic interests.  No matter who was responsible for the initial “spark” (and it bothers that the gentile communist influence is downplayed or ignored), it is today’s whites you need to reach.  If they insist on doing their “masters’” bidding, at least let it be in full knowledge of the facts of nature they are contravening in doing so; I’m cautiously confident that repeated exposure to the shortcomings of their delusions will snap sufficient numbers of them out of it to start a snowball effect.

If this ain’t so, Jewish hostility toward our life is very important practically. And why the past tense? Jews are overwhelmingly hostile now.

I’d call it beholden to principle before I’d call it hostility.  Knock the supports out from under those principles and Jews can be as “hostile” as they like, the only thing they’d have left is money to pay off the corrupt.

Posted by Z on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:30 | #

Re: The Monitor

“The British elite dates back centuries and is pretty much lily white, save for the Rothschilds and a few others…”—“...the British ruling class has been doing bad things for centuries”

No, the British elite is not solely “lily white”—you are quite mistaken.  If you had done the research you would know that the British elite, British ruling class, and yes even the British ‘royalty’ have been MAJORLY infiltrated by Sephardic Jews in the past few centuries (learn especially how it was Cromwell who passed laws allowing Jews back in to the country in large numbers after they had been expelled in 1290); Ashkenazi Jews in more recent times have also joined the British upper-classes, intermarrying to some extent with the older Sephardic families.  Other ‘royal’ and elite business families in Europe show a similar pattern.

This is why ‘blood purity’ laws and requirements have historically been instituted in the areas of Europe where anti-Jewish sentiment was particularly strong, i.e. the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany, the laws regarding ‘limpieza de sangre’ in Spain/Portugal after the expulsions of the 1490s, and similar laws in some Eastern European countries across the centuries.  These weren’t bizarre, pie-in-the-sky laws or ideas: they legitimately sought to root out all Jewish blood in the elite and ruling classes and replace them with native peoples who had no Jewish ancestry, to purge the elite upper/ruling classes of alien/foreign Jewish presence and re-institute native rule.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:50 | #

Monitor: I think I understand too well. So a hen is just an egg’s way of making another egg?

I’m not at all sure that you do understand.  The hen and the egg are not equivalent.  One is primal, the other merely of consequence.  Life, not culture, dictates for those who truly “get it”.

Posted by Z on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:23 | #

Judging by his constant defense of Jews and Christianity, The Monitor is probably an ethnically Jewish convert to Catholicism or some variant thereof—or perhaps he is a a half Jew who was raised Catholic?

Christianity is just another form of Jewish cultural imperialism (it spread to the Western world from the Jewish slums of Rome) and must be dealt with in due time if Whites/Europeans are to survive long-term. 

Christianity is a gutter religion that glorifies weakness and pity and meekness, a slave religion if there ever was one; it was forced upon Europeans by a ruling Roman elite who had been heavily infiltrated by wandering Jews, ethnic Jews who had converted to Christianity and then sought to spread their Jew-religion all over Europe, using violence and forced conversions whenever necessary. 

The Jews back then might have thought that ‘civilizing’ the ‘wild and barbaric’ (and instinctually anti-Jewish) Whites/Europeans by using the softening, feminizing effects of weak/effeminate Christianity would make Europe safer for the Jews—and it seemed to work quite well, actually.  As Christianity (remember, a Jewish religion) spread across Europe and came to envelop it, Europe became virtual slaves to Jewish merchants and money-lenders, and the Dark Ages set in; additionally, the Roman Empire declined as the Jewish-rot consumed it, similar to what America is now experiencing.  Christianity reached its apex in the Dark Ages—what does that tell you about the religion and its effects?

Christianity belongs in the Near East where it originated (and other backwards places which are stupid enough to bow down to it, like Latin America and Africa) and should not be allowed to co-opt indigenous forms of Western/European spirituality any longer. 

I do like Jesus to some extent though (if he in fact existed) because if the writings contained within the New Testament are to be trusted as semi-accurate (doubtful) he was a major anti-Jewish activist during his lifetime—have any of you here noticed how antisemitic much if the material contained in the NT is?  However, this whole thing about him being the ‘Son of God’ is a complete and utter crock of shit and was probably added in to the NT by some obscure and overzealous/hyperbolic scribe well after Jesus’ death.

In summation: Christianity must be scrapped by Whites/Europeans, tossed in to the fire where it belongs—we must free ourselves from these Jewish (Near Eastern) theological ideas and reinstitute native European religious systems if necessary.  I heard recently that in the Ukraine some people (neo-pagans?) are scrapping Christianity and returning to native forms of pre-Christian religion(s), some kind of pre-Christian religious revivial of sorts.  This is good and should be strongly encouraged all across the Eurosphere.  And most importantly, strong measures should be taken in dealing with Jewish imperialism in all of its guises (religious, cultural, economic, media, etc) in White countries.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:00 | #

The IPPR, a Jewish-founded-and-run (founded and still tightly controlled by Euro-hating Jewish “Lord” Hollick and his Euro-hating Jewish cronies, many of them also, like him, created “lords,” life peers, by their lap-dog Blair during the ‘90s and now sporting very British-sounding lordly names) U.K. think tank dedicated to upholding the diaspora-Jewish ideal of vicious no-holds-barred Euro nation-destruction by any means available whether stealth or overt (women’s lib, homosexualism, moral corruption of children, government enforcement of societal conditions which make the creation of chavs inevitable, etc.) and extremely aggressive promoter of that major source of top-quality Jewish orgasms the world over, government-enforced race-replacement of all Euro peoples everywhere they dwell with non-whites (and, in the IPPR’s case, concentration on race-replacing the British peoples in the British Isles) aggressively attacks even the most modest efforts to do something about looming Jewish-driven forced race-replacement of every British man, woman, and child in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with Negroes and assorted carne mysteriosum (I use the Latin term just so people can’t accuse me of disrespect).  A bloodied, thoroughly beaten-down Euro race, the British one in this case, tries feebly with what little strength it has left in its barely-still-living body, to lift its head ever so slightly off the ground to which it has been viciously, mercilessly, treacherously kicked, clubbed, and pommeled by the Jews, and receives another death-dealing clubbing to the head from the Jews in the form of the IPPR (whose goy camouflage, by the way, fools no one with internet access and a pair of functioning eyes).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:02 | #

Jews do the same thing here, the U.S. version of Jill Rutter being Tamar Jacoby.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:11 | #

GW:
Life, not culture, dictates for those who truly “get it”.

Life must be worth living. That requires a civilization. Merely having a bunch of white people running around does not guarantee you anything of value. Do you get that? Otherwise, what is the point of racial preservation? Serious question.

Z:
The Monitor is probably an ethnically Jewish convert to Catholicism.

This OJC (One Jewish Cause) thing is a one trick pony. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a toady of the Jewish imperialism. Worse, I’m supposedly Catholic!

Christianity is a gutter religion that glorifies weakness and pity and meekness…

You say that Christianity is a big Jewish scam, then you say it is anti-Semitic. If you are going to make straw man arguments, at least try to make them consistent.

Christianity is just another form of Jewish cultural imperialism (it spread to the Western world from the Jewish slums of Rome)

No, the Jews rejected Christ. You do know this, right?

Europe became virtual slaves to Jewish merchants and money-lenders, and the Dark Ages set in

No, the Jews were background players for centuries. No, the Dark Ages set in because Germanic hordes decided to wreck the Roman Empire. When the barbarians finally realized what they destroyed, that ushered in the Renaissance, Reformation and modern times. See also below.

Unlike Christianity, OJC is based on weak, effeminate emotion without instruction or reason. It glorifies weakness and pity and meekness. It is a slave religion if there ever there was one.

Silver:
Knock the supports out from under those principles and Jews can be as “hostile” as they like, the only thing they’d have left is money to pay off the corrupt.

You’re describing how life actually worked between Masada and the Dreyfus Affair. The OJC crowd have no explanation for this. If anything, the Jews were MORE cohesive in the old days, but LESS successful.

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:16 | #

The IPPR… U.K. think tank…homosexualism

I think the British have enough issues with buggery, whether or not the IPPR does anything or not. <ahem> And if the whole problem is Jews plotting genocide, why is the gentile ruling class letting these people into their club?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:17 | #

Here‘s Mark Richardson on the particular news item I linked to above, except Mark doesn’t make the Jewish connection I make (he discounts its importance in general, one way in which I’ve evolved in a different direction the past two years).  Google “Jill Rutter” Jewish and see what comes up — she’s written a tome called “Jewish Migrations” among other details, appearing to cement the suspected ethnic link, if any cemeting is needed knowing the ethnic identity of those who founded and run the think tank she works for.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:31 | #

Fred,

Culture is an expression of a people’s being.  Morality is an expression of a people’s will to be, as it is moderated through the virtue of adaptiveness.  Culture and morality together do indeed enhance life if they are the products of that life.  Always, life itself ... the life of the people ... is the most basic and also the highest interest.

Now, culture as a protective of life is plainly very important.  But it offers handholds to political actors (like Auster) whose interests are inimical to that life.  Inimicality needs to be hidden, of course, and culture provides an excellent hiding place for it.

So a culturist like The Monitor immediately raises the suspicion that, if he can’t find his way to support the principle of life above all things, it’s because he doesn’t support it.  Or it might only be because he just hasn’t “got there” yet.

That’s what I am trying to find out.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:45 | #

I checked Jill Rutter’s IPPR page uesterday, when the story broke and she was quoted.  But I didn’t try the “+ Jewish” search parameter.  Good work.

Mark Richardson is moving backwards.  Did he manage to put together a Melbourne group interested in traditional Conservatism?  Perhaps that’s why he is still repeating the left-right mantras.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:19 | #

People like me would be toast, just as the Nazis went after right wingers who were Hitler-skeptics.

Posted by The Monitor on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 06:31 AM

This is where The Monitor tips his hand.  His motivation is similar to Auster’s.  Maybe he genuinely does care about saving his people, but he thinks that if culture isn’t the primary focus and genetics are it will mean his ass; because only Nazis are obsessed with “genetic purity.”

Posted by silver on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:29 | #

Yeah, they’re all “crazy” to worry about their own asses, cap.  But why don’t you ever explicitly state what you’d do with those who don’t match up?  I find you quite the enigma. On the one hand, you’re talking about reconquering “every square inch” of America, issuing warnings to the mestizoes to “watch out,” then, on the other hand, you have moral qualms about “national socialism.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:08 | #

Were the 19th Century Fabian Socialists and Anglo-Catholics who set the tone for today’s British mainstream just taking orders from Jewish Bolsheviks?

Disproportionately, and especially in leadership roles, (per MacDonald) they were Jewish.

Sidney James Webb, 1st Baron Passfield -Jewish

...the Fabian Society grew to become the preeminent academic society in the United Kingdom in the Edwardian era, typified by the members of its vanguard Coefficients club

The Coefficients

  * Leopold Stennett Amery, statesman and Conservative politician.
  * Richard Burdon Haldane, Liberal politician, lawyer, and philosopher.
  * Halford John Mackinder, geographer and geopolitician.
  * Leopold Maxse, editor, National Review
  * Alfred Milner, statesman and colonial administrator
  * Henry Newbolt, author and poet.
  * Carlyon Bellairs, naval commander and M.P.
  * James Louis Garvin, journalist and editor
  * William Pember Reeves, New Zealand statesman, historian and poet
  * Bertrand Russell, philosopher, and mathematician
  * Sir Clinton Edward Dawkins, businessman and civil servant.
  * Sir Edward Grey, Liberal politician
  * H. G. Wells, novelist

Amery, a Hungarian Jewish mother, Maxse,  Newbolt and Webb were all Jews.

The Webbs were prominent supporters of the Bolshevik revolution, touring the Ukraine in 1932 and returning to declare, despite Malcolm Muggeridge’s protestations, that no famine had occurred planned or otherwise.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:11 | #

“I find you quite the enigma.” - silver

Chip off the ‘ole block.

Yeah, they’re all “crazy” to worry about their own asses, cap.” - silver

Their fears are misplaced.  They should put their energies towards fighting massive third-world immigration and repatriating present third-world populations.  None of us will be safe in a third-world sewer.

“On the one hand, you’re talking about reconquering “every square inch” of America, issuing warnings to the mestizoes to “watch out,”...” - silver

Mestizoes are unwelcome interlopers who want to reconquer large portions of North America (“Go back to Europe!” - as if Europe is unaffected!), ethnically cleanse Whites by making their former neighborhoods unlivable, and commit heinous acts of violence against Whites.  They should be on notice.  They have a country, it’s called Mexico, they should go back there.

“...then, on the other hand, you have moral qualms about “national socialism.” ” - silver

My main objection to historical National Socialism is its Lebensraum land-grabbery.  If Germans want to trod the path of National Socialism in their country then that is their business.  Personally, it is not my cup of tea.  Give me 1950’s White America and I’ll be happy. 

I want the demographic balance that would have existed if the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act had not come into being.  White Americans never consented to said Act, therefore we are not bound to abide its fruits.

Black Americans (who are the descendants of slaves) and Amerindians have a moral right to a place on this contintent; but White Americans have a right to segregate themselves from them if they so wish.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:25 | #

“I think the British have enough issues with buggery, whether or not the IPPR does anything or not. <ahem> And if the whole problem is Jews plotting genocide, why is the gentile ruling class letting these people into their club?” - The Monitor

Don’t worry Jews, so long as The Monitor is on the job, you’re safe.  But watch out nancy boys, The Monitor has you scheduled for termination.

Posted by silver on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:54 | #

Cap, I hope you can appreciate how the manner in which you talk about “the problem” affects whether people will agree with you on its solution or even on its existence.

People can agree on the existence of a problem.  But if the solution to that problem is considered too “extreme,” people may decide that the problem doesn’t exist after all.

For example, suppose homosexuality is posited as a problem, and agreement is reached that it is a problem.  If the only apparent solution is to kill all homosexuals, human nature tends towards reintepreting the “problem” nature of homosexuality into something benign. 

Now substitute “race” for “homosexuality” and something less severe than extermination and gain some appreciation for how certain antis or ditherers see it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:15 | #

For example, suppose homosexuality is posited as a problem, and agreement is reached that it is a problem.  If the only apparent solution is to kill all homosexuals, human nature tends towards reinterpreting the “problem” nature of homosexuality into something benign.

Not always. For instance abortion, especially of the disabled.  Amniocentesis, the modern day solution. 

A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated

Posted by The Monitor on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:19 | #

CC:

Maybe he genuinely does care about saving his people, but he thinks that if culture isn’t the primary focus and genetics are it will mean his ass; because only Nazis are obsessed with “genetic purity.”

Both the racial and cultural elements are necessary for civilization. Until two generations ago, few if any right-wing thinkers thought otherwise. Go back a century and even the Left agreed.

Today, there are basically two groups on the Right. One says “culture is everything.” The other says “race is everything.” As long as the bifurcation exists, we have no serious Right. In face, those who obsess on race vs. culture often wind up being the enemy of Western civilization. The same dynamics fit the Jewish question.

He thinks that if culture isn’t the primary focus and genetics are it will mean his ass.

You’re following the fallacy that I secretly agree with my opponent, but am sacred to admit it. Nah.

Don’t worry Jews, so long as The Monitor is on the job, you’re safe.

You don’t get it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:30 | #

The Monitor: As long as the bifurcation exists, we have no serious Right.

This is self-evident today, though it was not seven or eight decades ago.  We can no longer resolve a crisis of the European spirit with appeals to the spiritual.  We cannot choose the superstitions of faith and the dreams of national glory over the advance of Western empiricism.  Icarus’ waxen wings were not as serviceable as the clew of string his father made for Theseus in the cave of the Minotaur, Mr Monitor.

But the problem of healing the divorce of race and culture reaches to the very heart of dualism itself, as I think you understood when you encountered my last tilt at this little problem: the empirical gap post.

We need a better model of Man ... one that provides for the presence of a catalyst, which might be Love (or EGI).  Whatever it might be, the change in state it brings about must be characterised by the movement from sleep to waking, from self-estrangement to self-consciousness.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:35 | #

In face, those who obsess on race vs. culture often wind up being the enemy of Western civilization.

A century ago, there was no “Western civilization”. Civilization was directly linked to the newly named “biological nation”.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth.

Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado

We earnestly and sincerely believe that the civilization which we call the British civilization is the standard by which we must measure our own civilization; we desire to assimilate those whom we bring to this country to that civilization, that standard of living, that regard for morality and law and the institutions of the country and to the ordered and regulated development of this country.

By R.B. Bennett
Leader of the Conservative Party 1927-38, Prime Minister of Canada 1930-1935

These folks believed in the extended phenotype of the Anglo-Saxon race.

Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers. The distinctive culture that emerged from the interaction between the genotype of the English people and their environment can be understood as what Richard Dawkins calls an extended phenotype. [31] Like the spider’s web or the beaver’s dam, the, extended phenotypes of Western civilization are part of a biocultural feedback loop linking our genes with our environment over countless generations.

Professor Andrew Fraser

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:59 | #

Yes, Desmond, culture emerges from our genetic endowment.  But it emerges in the noumenal universal.  It does not carry within itself any possibility of synthesis with the phenomenological universe.  You can defend its moral connectivities to adaptive living through faith, tradition and social and political conservatism, but once that defence collapses there’s nothing to stop it going all to hell.  And the defence cannot be put back together again.  Yesterday’s culture cannot be recovered and reactivated.

In any case, “race vs. culture” is not the most productive way to view the wider issue.  The teleological vs the ontological, or the Idealist vs. the empirical, or the palingenic vs. the volkish, or thought vs experience at least provide some intellectual traction on the problem of synthesis.

Posted by The Monitor on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:56 | #

GW:
We cannot choose the superstitions of faith and the dreams of national glory over the advance of Western empiricism.

The elite is full of people who believe in Western empiricism and still believe in the multi-culti credo. In fact, they see themselves, like you, as better than ordinary morals because they are free from “the superstitions of faith and the dreams of national glory” Worse, they reckon that any problems caused by racial conflict can be solved by social engineering and emerging technology.

So the world is full of empiricists who have done nothing to stop it “going all to hell,” as you say.

Further, you reduce everything about civilization into a tautological claim that our slice of the Indo-European gene pool is sacrosanct and deserves respect. This may be true, but it is a speculative and non-scientific. It is NOT part of “the advance of Western empiricism.”

In fact, if you’ve bet the farm on “the advance of Western empiricism,” you’re screwed anyway. All you can have is temporary speculations that could explode at any moment. You can make observation after observation, but you can never, ever have a stable conclusion.

For all your talk of empiricism, your core beliefs represent a leap of faith in the dark. You’ve hit the philosophical wall because you can never prove that the Anglo-Saxons _ought_ to survive. This requires a meta-narrative or at least some canopy of agreeable ethical standards, which you freely admit you do not have.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:09 | #

Ultimately, the true test of biological superiority is the ability to survive, either through higher technological prowess or greater fecundity. Aryans had, at least until the criminally insane Third world technology transfer exercise, demonstrated possession of the former requirement. However, ironically, we thoughtlessly employed it through modern medicine and half-witted Christian salvation peddlers to extend the lifespan and breeding prospects of our natural Third World enemies, thus ensuring that we cannot easily meet the conditions of the latter sine qua non.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:18 | #

The Monitor,

Are you trying to pull the “epistemological construct” on me?  Sorry, old man, but I’ve been there already.  There is an answer - as in so many other things, in embryro at least - to the fabulous detachment of objective reality.

The theory of construction is predicated wholly on the identification of consciousness with thought, and takes no account of the mechanicity of the former, with its characteristic of absence, and the endless associative functioning of the latter.  In other words, in as far as it goes the theory is correct for reasons to do with the evolution and functioning of two evolved human systems.  But how far does it actually go?

There are other systems, much older than thought, which are evolved for fitness gain and which provide knowledge of objective reality.  I’ve had some fun asking constructionists at the Guardian about the school fire scenario.  There is no answer in constructionism to it.  But we are creatures of vanity, and they won’t draw the necessary conclusion that the theory of an unknowable reality, like everything else, has its limits.  Indeed, those limits are precisely the utilitarian limits of ordinary consciousness in ally with associative thought.

The real sin of constructionism is not the theory but the theorists, who are so often nihilists.  They unfailingly wind up developing an overwheening ambition to close off all human connectivity to objective truth, whereas the reality, obviously, is that Man has sufficient connectivity to fulfill his function in Nature.

Anyway, to answer your statement about your supposedly empirical elites, a “belief” in the MultiCult is evidence of the enduring power of religion.  Liberalism generally, but most especially at the radical egalitarian end of the spectrum, is a secular and thoroughly Judeised version of universalist Christianity.  Like all men, European Man has the faith gene.  There are many among us - perhaps half - in whom its expression is strong.  There are some, perhaps a third, in whom it is, overall, rather weak.  There is a minority in whom it is absent or near-absent, and for these people it is simply impossible to feel the need to worship a deity.  They may, if sufficiently intelligent to ponder the matter, understand teleology and the life of the spirit from an evidential perspective.  But they can’t fall to their knees between the pews with feeling - though in other Puritan ages than this one they have, of course, put on a damned good show of doing so.

By the way, the possession or otherwise of an expressed gene does not signify superiority in any sense, and I shall pass over the personal insult you accorded me on that score.

As regards the ethical meta-narrative, something of this I do indeed possess, and have indicated as much in this thread: the empirical, sociobiological basis for European morality in the greater adaptiveness of certain life-choices over others.  Elsewhere on this blog you will find many references to ethnic genetic interest, to kinship, to the evolution of European beauty, and so on.  MR constitutes a quite vast resource from which an ethical narrative for the survival of European Man may emerge.  But, ethics are not “justification”, and survival requires no intellectual justification.  The very idea is preposterous and anti-Natural, because the justification is inherent in Nature’s purpose of transmission into the morrow through selection.  The “interest” in ethnic genetic interest is precisely a function of that purpose, and manifests itself in our hearts as love and “good”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:14 | #

An onlooker comments.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:27 | #

That particular onlooker’s log entry (linked in my comment above) links to another log entry here which closes with these thoughts (footnotes and emphasis added):

In my opinion, and consistent with the role of genetic information as part of the information content of reality, pursuit of genetic interests promotes these “Ergodic” processes, while hostility to genetic preservationism would seem to be the promotion of biological entropy.

One can think of an author — who shall go nameless[¹] — who promotes mixing of human genomes across the widest distances of distinctiveness.  One can think of a blog — which shall also go nameless[²] — which not only has, in the past, supported genetic mixing, but which has consistently attacked the pursuit of genetic interests.

Based upon the philosophy here, those entities can be considered to be objectively — even “scientifically” — evil.

______

1.  Alon Ziv

2.  GnXp.com

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:12 | #

JWH: It is strange that an objectively fundamental fact as genetic distinctiveness is thought by some to require more “justification” than the secondary products of that distinctiveness.

The naturalistic fallacy, like the moralistic fallacy, is a bit of an intellectual conceit, really.  Human behaviours have evolved regardless, and our post-facto ascription of good and evil to them is only another way of discriminating between the adaptive and maladaptive.  We are evolved to discriminate in this way (the name we give it is “free will”), though we do not always - or, these days, even often - identify the adaptive.  Of course, if living matter never identified the adaptive there would be only nothingness.

Nonetheless, the Conceitist’s argument is supposed to go that the fact of the existence of adaptive and maladaptive behaviours does not itself prove the case for discrimination.  Facts <> morals; empiricism <> idealism.  Strangely, the issue suddenly ceases to be so dualistic and difficult when the maladaptive choice involves physical harm - for example, getting knifed by a black mugger rather than handing over your leather - and the decision is taken, so far as I know, quite without reference to philosophy.

At bottom, survival/continuity is not really a moral value or a matter of choice, either at the individual or group level.  The opposite of “on” is “off”, not the, in this case impossibly post-facto, “bad”.  Quite why there should be any difficulty higher up the behaviourial chain with extrapolating for “good” choices that tend away from “off” rather than “bad” ones that tend towards it, I don’t know.  But there we are.  That’s where thinking gets you!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:00 | #

Check out the names of the two rabidly pro-race-replacement labor union officials cited in this log entry:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/09/10/hispanic-w-post-wrong-to-publish-cis-article-splc-invoked/ . 

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to their ethnicity?

What about the owners of those foaming-at-the-mouth pro-race-replacement mouthpieces, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, mentioned in the article?  Their ethnicities?  Anyone know?

Or how about the SPLC, also mentioned in the article?  What’s the ethnicity of the guy who runs that race-replacement advocacy outfit? 

Anyone?

About this man with the Mexican name, Mr. Hector Sanchez, who is mentioned in the article as a director of something called the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement — does anyone here think the Mexican peons who cross the border to work in this country set these Hispanic-advocacy organizations up and run them by themselves?  Using their own money, their own expertise, their own legal talent?  Does anyone think a certain ethnicity isn’t largely doing it for them in its own ethnonational interest, using them as nothing but political pawns, political weapons, bludgeons, frontmen, and camouflage? 

What might that ethnicity be, that may be doing that, setting these Mexicans up in this way as thorns in the side of the Euros in this country? 

Let’s say an organization called the Labor Council for German American Advancement were set up.  Which ethnicity would shriek loudest in protest, go into absolute hysterics, and attempt most aggressively to destroy it? 

Might the two ethnicities be the same? 

If so, why would it be the same ethnicity doing both, advancing Mexicans and thwarting the advancement of Germans? 

Or is all talk of ethnicity just nebulous nonsense and a waste of time when one could instead be doing something useful, such as fighting against Post-Modern Liberalism and James Burnham’s Managerialism — both being far more concrete than vague ethnicity — and really making progress that way? 

OK, maybe that makes sense, but isn’t it funny how ethnicity keeps showing up all over the place in all this? 

Oh right, but it’s still not a factor, it’s showing up all over the place purely by coincidence.  That’s it:  purely by coincidence.  Let’s ignore it and restrict ourselves to the concrete, curable stuff like post-modern liberalism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:49 | #

So, when Ulster Prods and Catholics, Cypriot Greeks and Turks, Moslem Bosnians and Orthodox Serbs, Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews try to weaken each other as they mutually jockey for position it’s ethnic, but when U.S. Jews try non-stop 24/7/365 to weaken U.S. Euros as they jockey for position, it’s not ethnic but “Post-Modern Liberalism and James Burnham’s Managerialism”? 

OK, got it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:57 | #

No, Fred, that’s Jewish nationalism in diaspore.  The problem with the theory of the Single Jewish Cause is that Jews were in the European stetls in the 19th Century when self-estrangement and hyper-individualism were already rampant.  The Single Jewish Cause is bad history.

Posted by The Monitor on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:09 | #

GW:
I’ve had some fun asking constructionists at the Guardian about the school fire scenario

Link?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:27 | #

...but once that defence collapses there’s nothing to stop it going all to hell.  And the defence cannot be put back together again.

Ant Parasite Turns Host Into Ripe Red Berry, Biologists Discover

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2008) — A newly discovered parasite so dramatically transforms its host, an ant, that the ant comes to resemble a juicy red berry, ripe for picking, according to a report accepted for publication in The American Naturalist. This is the first example of fruit mimicry caused by a parasite, the co-authors say.

Presumably, the dramatic change in appearance and behavior tricks birds into eating infected ants - parasites and all - so that the bird can spread the parasite in its feces. The fruit-eating birds’ droppings, which are mostly seeds and insect parts, are gathered by other ants who then feed and unwittingly infect their young.

This bizarre lifecycle of a parasitic nematode, or roundworm, plays out in the high canopy of tropical forests ranging from Central America to the lowland Amazon, according to Robert Dudley, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It’s just crazy that something as dumb as a nematode can manipulate its host’s exterior morphology and behavior in ways sufficient to convince a clever bird to facilitate transmission of the nematode,” Dudley said.

How different is the outcome for the ant if the parasite is removed? If the beaver stops trying to spin the spider’s web, how different the outcome for the beaver?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:28 | #

Monitor,

Check our this review of Dr. Frank Salter’s book “On Genetic Interests” at: http://www.amren.com/store/on_genetic_interests_rev.html

GW goes head-to-head with the Guardianistas at (in order of most recent):

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_conversation_with_a_fellow_nationalist_so_he_says/

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_further_conversation_with_my_pal_lester/

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_conversation_with_an_intellectual_at_the_guardian/

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:05 | #

Thanks, cc.  I don’t think the school fire scenario is set out with much gusto in those discussions, so I will set it out for The Monitor here.

First, the background.  Let us suppose that you are a liberal academic, or whatever, who reads the Guardian, teaches sociology and has a lot of personal investment in the siamese-twin theories of the social construct and self-authoriality.  You are thoroughly convinced that it is impossible to know “the thing that is”, and therefore you hold non-judgementalism as a moral absolute, lest you fall into the sin of limiting another human being through any unconscious fears and prejudices about him, her or it.  The very worst unconscious assumptions, of course, are those which ascribe the attributes of a group, as you might perceive them, to a given individual.

Naturally, your political opponents on the unreconstructed, bigot-ridden ground of “the right” understand none of these philosophical subtleties.  You do not waste your time arguing with them.  They will die out anyway, and a new world of perfect freedom and justice will be built because you are teaching their young that they can free themselves and the recipients of their haphazard assumptions if they will only look critically at the constructs of their reality, and author new, freedom-giving, non-judgemental alternatives.  Etc.  Etc.

The glitch in this standard version of the radical liberal race-bible is two-fold: the social construct is likely to connect to deeply human and very solid meanings, and self-authoriality simply isn’t genuine at all.  It is not possible to self-author anti-Natural outcomes, any more than it is possible for a man to fly (a parallel to this being the well-known problem of the impossibility of conscious evil).  Radical liberal assertions are only a short-term pretence conducted in the service of much personal and intellectual vanity.

And so we come to the school fire, which is a small test for liberal self-delusion.

If our sociologist friend is right that he can deconstruct an interpretation or meaning, and author an alternative by an act of will ... and, remember, this is an all or nothing belief, for if it is only possible to author, say, 50% or 5% of interpretations and meanings, the whole edifice crumbles ... freedom is freedom, after all ... then it follows that he, our sociologist, can deconstruct and re-author literally any ... ANY ... interpretation and meaning.

So here we go.

He is just about to go into the lecture hall one day when one of the admin staff dashes up to tell him a fire has broken out at the local primary school just across the road from the university.  His own child is enrolled there. 

The terrible new reality of fear that presses in upon him has already swept away the meassured world he thought he lived in.  He charges round to the school and finds flames and chaos.  The building has not been fully evacuated and his child is not among those brought out.  The fire-fighters are already in there, picking their way through falling debris to penetrate the building.  The smoke clears enough for him to see the form of a fire-fighter emerge with a bundle of rags in his arms.

Does he discriminate against other missing children - some of them doubtless very talented and even under-privileged - and hope and pray with every fibre of his being that this will be his child brought to safety, and not another?  Or can he triumphantly author a reality in which his own kinship pressages the same meaning as non-kinship, and the saving of some other life can be enough for him.  Or has all that nonsense passed completely out of his mind ... so much vanity for gullible fools and too-smart-by-half-alecs?

In the end, does life author meanings of unbreakable power and beauty, and are these not “the thing that is” between father and child?

I am yet to see an opponent survive this scenario to maintain his fat-headed assertions.  But if you think you can cut it, Monitor, just say the word.

Posted by wjg on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:24 | #

“No, Fred, that’s Jewish nationalism in diaspore.  The problem with the theory of the Single Jewish Cause is that Jews were in the European stetls in the 19th Century when self-estrangement and hyper-individualism were already rampant.  The Single Jewish Cause is bad history.”

GW,

Saying that Fred and others - like me - who strongly emphasize the Jewish element in our plight as a “single cause” is not accurate.  What is accurate (and I’ll just speak for myself here) is its central and primary role in our plight.  I’ll boil it down to two assertions:

1)  The Jewish contribution to every known element of Aryan Man’s crisis has been essential such that these either would not have reached fruition or the degree to which they occurred would have been much less toxic, and
2)  Unless a positive resolution to Judah’s malignant relationship with us occurs we will not enjoy any sort of lasting victory or any at all

There are other things we must deal with but they are minor in comparison.  Resolve our spiritual syphilis and most of the other maladies will either disappear or be greatly reduced in intensity.  Do not resolve this disease and all the other work is in vain.

Yes liberalism is a problem.  But take away the kosher zeitgeist and how much easier will it be to tame?  Liberalism is like fire.  Sure we can put one blaze out but not all of them as new ones keep popping up.  We must FIRST deal with the arsonist and then his work.

Will this then be the end of all our problems?  Of course not.  But we can face them not as a syphilitic but as a weak but whole body-spirit force.

Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:29 | #

“Iraqi men?  This is a form of guerilla warfare carried out against our children.”

For the record, the “Iraqis” here are Kurds, not Arabs.

Posted by wjg on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:45 | #

GW,

Geez.  Did you have to use fire right before I posted and saw yours?

I’ll have to come up with another simile now

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:56 | #

I’m sure that wgj is correct and that our hamartia is the baneful presence of Jews. Absent their perpetually malign influence and we could deal with our faults, which, serious though they are, are far from being intractable. Undoubtedly, Othello without Iago would have met a happier fate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:59 | #

WJG,

Here’s the problem.  Can Jewish power be surgically removed from the Western corpus while the accomodating, global ideology of liberalism remains unchallenged?

Now, I don’t think I have to argue that it can’t, because all the evidence todate points to that.  It’s incumbent upon you and Fred and Friedrich, Alex, David Duke, the Stormfronters and all the rest to prove that naming the Jew will finally have the desired effect.  You need to show that you will be doing something different from what has been tried in the past, I think.  But what?  What can you possibly do or say that will make things turn out different to the way they always have in the past?

I said to you on another thread that there isn’t much separating us.  We both want the same.  Our disagreement is over what will work.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:05 | #

Yes liberalism is a problem.

It’s not liberalism it’s the tyranny of the Leviathan.

The sovereign has twelve principal rights:

  1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
  2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
  3. the selection of sovereign is (in theory) by majority vote; the minority have agreed to abide by this.
  4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects, and cannot be accused of injustice.
  5. following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
  6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
  7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
  8. to be judge in all cases.
  9. to make war and peace as he sees fit; and to command the army.
  10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
  11. to reward with riches and honour; or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
  12. to establish laws of honour and a scale of worth.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:14 | #

Can Jewish power be surgically removed from the Western corpus while the accomodating, global ideology of liberalism remains unchallenged?

Just because the ant can’t free itself of the nematode, does not mean that the nematode is not the cause of its morphological and behavioral change. It is difficult, no doubt, as long as the “sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse;” however, it still does not mean there is not cause and effect.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:18 | #

Desmond, the nematode was in the stetl when Leviathan stirred.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:28 | #

Desmond, the nematode was in the stetl when Leviathan stirred.

So were the pogroms.

Posted by The Monitor on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:34 | #

wjg:
“The Jewish contribution to every known element of Aryan Man’s crisis has been essential such that these either would not have reached fruition or the degree to which they occurred would have been much less toxic.”

This is precisely what I mean by Single Jewish Cause. We would not be in this mess, but for the ongoing ethnic strategy of the Jews. Another fallacy is the Big Anti-Christian Lie, which is repeated ad nauseum.

GW:
I come from a far different philosophical tradition than you guessed. Sense perception gives us a generally reliable understanding of our world. Assuming we have sufficient raw intelligence, we can make decisions based on sense perceptions. How that extends to ethics gets more complicated. You and I would agree that the Anglo extended family must survive. How we get to this conclusion is a different, as does what constitutes survival.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:36 | #

The pogroms of the 1880s caused a worldwide outcry and, along with harsh laws, propelled mass Jewish emigration. Two million Jews fled the Russian Empire between 1880 and 1914, many going to the United Kingdom and United States.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:42 | #

Oddly enough, Cromwell’s Navigation Act and the publishing of Thomas Hobbes’s opus were both in the year 1651.  But Hobbe’s “cause and effect” was the rigour of three civil wars. It seems to me that you would struggle to put a date on the Jewish cause much earlier than the publishing of the first edition of Das Kapital in 1867.  In reality, I think this is too early, and the real date for triumphalist nematodes everywhere in England was 1945.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:43 | #

Jewish Autonomous Oblast

According to Joseph Stalin’s national policy, each of the national groups that formed the Soviet Union would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy in a socialist framework. In that sense, it was also a response to two supposed threats to the Soviet state: Judaism, which ran counter to official state policy of atheism; and Zionism, the creation of the modern State of Israel, which countered Soviet views of nationalism. The idea was to create a new “Soviet Zion”, where a proletarian Jewish culture could be developed. Yiddish, rather than Hebrew, would be the national language, and a new socialist literature and arts would replace religion as the primary expression of culture.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:48 | #

In reality, I think this is too early, and the real date for triumphalist nematodes everywhere in England was 1945.

Webb’s Fabian Society and Leopold Stennett Amery’s support for the Balfour declaration pre-date it. However, I bow to your superior knowledge of modern English history.

Your humble servant, sir.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:04 | #

I agree of course with wjg and Al.  As wjg said, I don’t see it as solely the Jews (a trivial clarification, since these things are always pulled off through alliances, never singlehandedly).  I see the Jews as the ringleaders.  Are there exceptions?  Absolutely:  one in ninety billion. 

A few years ago I didn’t see what the Jews were doing.  I do now.  I used to think “the liberals were doing it.”  Turns out seventy percent of “the liberals doing it for liberal reasons” is JNs doing it for JN reasons.

Look at this video: 

http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4012 ,

The only thing that interests me in this video is “Who made it?”  What is the biology of the man behind the curtain, the man at the controls, the bacterium at the core of the abscess?  When his biology is trying so hard to exterminate my biology I’m going to concern myself with “po-mo liberalism” and “managerialism”?

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:05 | #

“You and I would agree that the Anglo extended family must survive. How we get to this conclusion is a different, as does what constitutes survival.” - The Monitor

To my mind “survival” entails all of the European peoples getting through this bottle-neck genetically intact; that is priority number one.  Assuming that, we can set more ambitious goals, like cultural renaissance and restoration of a satisfactory demographic balance to all our traditional nations.  If we are sufficiently galvanized we need give up nothing and stand to gain much.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:30 | #

Jews seem to have aroused the ire of host societies on numerous occasions as this sympathetic Christian website points out:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:43 | #

The bottleneck will result in genetic losses, by definition (definition of “bottleneck”).  There have been losses already.  There will be more, unfortunately, and there’s not a thing we can do about that at the moment:  it’s a done deal because our élites of the old WASP hegemony backed down before the Jewish-led tidal wave forty and fifty and sixty years ago (the same exact ethnic tidal wave that put Russia through the meat grinder).  But the unmiscegenated remnant — and there will of course be an unmiscegenated remnant, a large one — will be able to reconstitute the race very close to the original, and in fact better in some ways.  So the hold-outs who strive to resist the Jewish siren song calling on all Euros to miscegenate in the service of JN (like Ulysses’ men plugging their ears with beeswax as they rowed) will in the end be richly rewarded.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:53 | #

The main aim of the Jew is to get Euros miscegenated, with Negroes preferably but any non-white will serve, for Jewish purposes.  As CC says, the main aim right now of Euros is to not miscegenate come hell or high water, just don’t do it, while we’re all waiting to see how we’re going to get this mess sorted out.  DO NOT MISCEGENATE.  There’s lots of stuff you can’t do right at the moment to help our side, but that you can:  don’t miscegenate.

Posted by The Monitor on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:47 | #

Fred:
The main aim of the Jew is to get Euros miscegenated,

If this is the case, they certainly seem to be drinking more of their medicine than we are.

“Since 1985, 52% of Jews who married have done so outside the faith. “
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/intermarriage-statistics.htm

Also, many Whites have thought that miscegenation would help them maintain their power by bringing non-whites closer to them. That’s how we got Latin America. In addition, some intellectual suggest intermarrying with the Moors rather than fighting them on the battlefield.

it’s a done deal because our élites of the old WASP hegemony backed down before the Jewish-led tidal wave forty and fifty and sixty years ago

That they backed down, yes, that is well documented. But where was this tidal wave? If anything the WASPs supported Jewish interests because they thought it would help them maintain their dominance over non-WASP whites in the South.

Desmond:
Webb’s Fabian Society and Leopold Stennett Amery’s support for the Balfour declaration pre-date it.

If you think the Fabians were a Jewish-led movement, you’re being absurd.  These were the prototypical self-hating white liberals.

Chaos:
To my mind “survival” entails all of the European peoples getting through this bottle-neck genetically intact.

This is where you tip your hand and admit that culture is defining the genetic concern, rather than vice versa. European is a subset of Aryan. It just means that your ancestors were Roman Catholic before 1492. You don’t care what Persians or Aryan Indians living in the West do, even though they are barely distinguishable from Europeans. Nor do I think you worry about lily white ruling castes in Latin America.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:02 | #

Hey don’t look at me, I warned everyone about the guy.

Posted by wjg on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:21 | #

“Here’s the problem.  Can Jewish power be surgically removed from the Western corpus while the accomodating, global ideology of liberalism remains unchallenged?”

As you have said before we are talking about chickens and eggs here though there is dispute about which is which.  But that aside I think the answer is No for now.  Jewry has intertwined itself to the very core of what is still believed to be The West to a degree such that extraction would probably kill the patient.  This is sadly moot anyway because “it” has taken over the “brain” of western man and would (and does) use this brawn to kill the true antibodies that strive to expel it.  At least that is how it appears now with only faint glimmers of potential change.  As many young people as I see it is clear that Euro Man is nowhere near the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning to quote your cigar-chomping drunk.  Our fall has much farther to go.
Still expulsion of this entity is absolutely necessary from whatever we - the remnant of Aryan Man - decide to resurrect or build because if it doesn’t happen history will repeat itself and Nature/God will with finality judge us unfit to survive as a people.  We will slowly whither into mass-man; the bipedal labor units in the New World Order.  One thing to consider is that the expulsion does not have to be from the nominal “West” as I think you are describing it.  Is not an option to let the body that the malignant parasite occupies die?  It expects us to charge headlong into its breastworks with few men and little arms as Aryan Man is wont to do.  Daring and brave but often doomed to failure.

Let us fight the equivalent of a long and persistent guerilla war.  The more we withdraw from it, denying it as best we can our wealth and creativity, the more it will degenerate.  It needs us.  We do not need it.  If we can do this in as passive a way as possible - at least initially - it will be less able to reply effectively.  Solutions such as micro-communities with maximum barter, development of cohesion even within the belly of the beast, legally “cheating” by getting on the dole (without becoming indolent) and helping to bankrupt ZOG all are needed and then some.  Yes this is hard by our spoiled, modern day standards.  Most (me included) would rather type on keyboards or go to the voting booth and think can undo generations of myopia by our leaders in not effectively curing this malady.  We must pay greatly for their failure.

If Jewry could realistically be removed from the established order as the Germans did in 1933 we should pursue that approach but it is clear that train has left the station and ain’t coming back for along time, if ever.  We can play along with the current Order and hope our children move up the chain so that they can either be traitors to their dwindling brethren or marry into the Tribe and one day have our descendants be sweet talking, vile, physically degenerate hypocrites, lording over all the brown goy at their feet.  Or we can fight them as Aryans, never surrendering and using all the endowments Nature/God has blessed us with as warriors and pioneers.

How we refound ourselves as a folk - vertically integrated from ditch digger to president - is a question with many possible solutions depending on the particular Aryan group and their opportunities and resolve.  Still I see no way around this rebuilding as things now stand.  Things may change and fast back to allowing reform from within and if so I think we’d be fools not to consider that route but the prize Judah has snatched after 2 millennia of methodical work is doubtful to slip from its grasp.  Only if what they hold rots from within can it be freed.  Their “stewardship” makes the rot inevitable.  The question that I can’t avoid is will we rot with it?  Serving it?  Trying to fix it?

The challenge before us from the “positive”/going towards perspective is reforming as a people from self to family to community.  We must be set apart somehow so that we know who we are and who is not us.  We must inculcate in our folk the sheer precariousness of life - of our life - as specially endowed and unique people.  We must rekindle the “meanness” needed to look after our own in opposition to others spawned from our benevolence and labor.  We must shed the effeminate and suicidal “niceness” that subordinates the strong to the weak.

Forums like this are critical for informing the few awakened and awakening folk we have.  Let us at least speak with one voice of the malignancy afflicting us so that our resurrection is possible; as slow and improbable as it may be.

“Naming the Jew” is a starting point; an essential point and you have proven very fair in trying to give this appropriate weight.

“What can you possibly do or say that will make things turn out different to the way they always have in the past?”

That’s a very good question.  This exercise may ultimately prove unsuccessful but it must be tried.  One thing we must ensure is that IF we get to a point where Aryan Man somewhere has retaken control of his destiny that he never again forgets the Genocide and debasement we faced from this entity.  Never forget how it repaid our kindness with demonic treachery.  This should at least strengthen us greatly from future infection.  Again it looks like we can’t beat the Jew at what he has swindled from us.  So be it.  What we created once we can create again - even better - as long as we separate and reclaim ourselves.  We must develop a multi-generational vision for greatness just as the enemy did for rapine.  This looks like a long war with an uncertain outcome if we persist.  A short one - with defeat - if we don’t.

“I said to you on another thread that there isn’t much separating us.  We both want the same.  Our disagreement is over what will work. “

I agree completely.  Many here are struggling to understand and then act accordingly.  May that we achieve both.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:50 | #

“You don’t care what Persians or Aryan Indians living in the West…” - The Monitor

My concern for them goes as far as my desire to see them repatriated.

“Nor do I think you worry about lily white ruling castes in Latin America.” - The Monitor

Oh, but I do.  I would like to see them carve out all-White nations in Latin America.

“European is a subset of Aryan.” - The Monitor

Yup.  A genetically distinct subset.  We share much genetically in common with Chimps and Negroes, its that little difference that make all the difference.

“This is where you tip your hand and admit that culture is defining the genetic concern…” - The Monitor

Never claimed that culture is unimportant.  Christianity once was a uniting force for European Caucasians; maybe it can be again.  But Europeans are a distinct people, with distinctions among that people of course.

Take a look at the “Pretty picture of Europe” thread to see how closely European Caucasians cluster together.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/pretty_picture_of_europe/

“This is, I believe, the first demonstration with “high resolution” autosomal genetic analysis that a coherent European grouping can be distinguished from not only Central/South Asians but from Middle Easterners/North Africans as well.

The structure figure is quite interested and demonstrates that European populations tend to form a coherent genetic grouping, distinguishable from non-European Caucasians.” - JWH, Western Biopolitics

Read it and weap, Monitor.

http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/03/green-folk.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:02 | #

“One thing we must ensure is that IF we get to a point where Aryan Man somewhere has retaken control of his destiny that he never again forget the Genocide and debasement we faced from this entity.  Never forget how it repaid our kindness with demonic treachery.”  (—wjg)

Well said!  Amen to that!

“What we created once we can create again - even better”

Absolutely correct, and let no one ever forget this, or lose heart from mistakenly thinking the opposite!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:24 | #

On one side you have your miasma theories of what’s wrong, including Kalb/Auster/Mark-Richardson/(and me three years ago) po-mo liberalism, and Burnham/Gottfried/Sam-Francis managerialism.

On the other side you have your Louis Pasteur germ theories — you know, the stuff you see on a microscope slide. 

Peer for a moment into this microscope:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/09/11/who-rules-america/

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:06 | #

WJG,

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Jewry has intertwined itself to the very core of what is still believed to be The West to a degree such that extraction would probably kill the patient.

There is a clichéed understanding in Britain that in all things America leads, Europe follows.  Certainly, I have assumed that Europe needs white America to save itself, so the truly fundamental, vivifying, work of saving the ancient homelands - an obligation of essence - can proceed.  But I find myself wondering more and more whether this is really the wrong way around ... whether, in fact, white America, even a self-conscious white America, cannot save itself because “the accomodating, global ideology of liberalism” is all there is behind the semitic wizard’s curtain, and there’s no salvatory power in it.  Quite the reverse.  But Europe undeniably has blood and land and a long, long history, all of them in profound opposition to the liberal death cult.  This might be the one of the reasons why combative nationalist political parties exist all over Europe, but not in the New World.

Perhaps the beginning must be made in the old world, for white America to follow if it can.

If Jewry could realistically be removed from the established order as the Germans did in 1933 we should pursue that approach but it is clear that train has left the station and ain’t coming back for along time, if ever.

I met a man today and talked for a few hours about “that approach”, among many other things.  He insisted that NS was not a single movement, but was very diverse.  Thinking of the “empirical gap” thread, in which I sought to reduce palingenicism to “manageable” 21st Century proportions by shearing off the land-lust, the mad, self-glorying dreams and intra-European racial aggression, I was surprised to be told quite forcibly that my perspective was too Anglo-centric.  In the complex and troubled ethnography of central Europe these extremes were not nearly as offensive as I might suppose.

Since I respect the person who said this, and anyway he was talking historically, I did not pursue the point.  I may not agree, of course.  But I noted it.

We must inculcate in our folk the sheer precariousness of life - of our life - as specially endowed and unique people.

I am strongly of the opinion that fear and loathing will not do it.  American WN has already offered fear and loathing.  The “specially endowed and unique” bit is good, though - if empirically and historically proven.  On another thread 2R has mentioned “making a new people”.  This, it seems to me, cannot be an “old continent” way forward.  But it might well be meaningful to white America and Canada, notwithstanding the problems of north/south about which we hear so much at MR.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:53 | #

Fjordman is getting closer,

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3506 ,

but still mostly skirts the issue by refusing to use the word “race,” for which he insists on substituting the word “culture.”  Which, at bottom, makes no sense.  It turns his article into nonsense.  But that’s only for the most part — he does dip his toe in the water with terms such as “European stock,” or “origins” or “white,” or “native Europeans,” or “demographically overwhelmed,” or “indigenous peoples.”  So something’s brewing inside his head; some synapses are firing.  But his brain isn’t running on all cylinders yet.  Will it ever?

Who knows?

But in this piece he’s close.  He’s damned close.  He’s nearly there.  It’s a very good piece.

However, “a miss is a good as a mile” in this business.

Fjordman, can you hear me, comrade? 

If you can hear me, Fjordman, listen to this:  you must write a piece in which you use the terms “race” and “race-replacement.”  No, until you do, you will not be home. 

The minute you do, you will be home.  You will have come home.  You will have arrived safely home in the arms, the loving arms, of your people.

But this article was good.  It was good.  It was good.  You did a good job.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:59 | #

One hopes Fjordman’s savage mugging by Little Green Charles Johnson Turds has opened his eyelids just a tiny bit.  Opened them to what the sides really are in all this.  No, the sides aren’t the Moslems on one side and, on the other, Charles Johnson the Green Turd and Baron Imbecility.  Those aren’t the sides.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:04 | #

Freddy Thielemans:  enforced-race-replacement arrogance beyond description.  This pig is definitely in David Blunkett’s <strike>league</strike> sty.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:08 | #

We all found out recently that Insane McCanine had an adopted child from the Indian Subcontinent which, apart from being on the Jewish payroll (or, likely, the reason he’s on the Jewish payroll in the first place — if the Hebrew tribe is good at anything it’s spotting a real or potential Euro race-traitor a mile away), likely sheds light on his genocide infatuation.  But check this out:  (are you ready for more or should I just skip it?  You sure you can take it?  OK, here goes) — Heinous McAnus has been in bed with the complete Mexicanization of the U.S. and total race-replacement of whites in this country for nearly thirty years:  he’s been sucking La Raza, Jewish, and Ford Foundation cock since his days as a fresheman congressman. 

I realize you’re projectile-vomiting right now, but once you’ve recovered and think you can stand dealing with it, check it out:

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_091208.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:03 | #

It looks as if race isn’t the only thing that’s a social construct — genes must be too, if this is anything to go by:

”scientists recently announced in the journal Nature that they can trace [a random person’s] European ancestry to within 192 miles by analyzing tiny inherited markers in [his] DNA.  That means someday we’ll need look no further than our own genes to locate our motherlands.”

http://johnhawks.net/node/1648

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:59 | #

“That means someday we’ll need look no further than our own genes to locate our motherlands.”  (—quoted in my comment above)

“Someday”? 

Uhhhh .... how ‘bout right now, pal?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:10 | #

From the But Spain Was One of the Good Guys During WW II — Why Is Hitler’s Revenge Happening There Too?  Why Them??? department:

Hitler’s revenge is in such a frenzy of getting even for WW II now, it’s even striking Spain (which has done nothing to deserve it, having been on the side of the angels since Franco’s victory in the Civil War):  the Jews and communists are negroizing Spain at the rate of roughly one million new Negroes and mulattoes imported each and every year and rammed down Spaniards’ throats.  It’s either Hitler’s revenge or a misunderstanding by well-intentioned Spaniards of the nordicists’ claim that Spaniards already have too much Negro blood — these good Spaniards think the nordicists are saying Spaniards have too little Negro blood (when you translate from Nordic to Spanish, “too much” can get mistranslated into “too little,” it’s just a linguistic quirk people have to watch out for), so are trying to remedy the situation.  Someone needs to tell the Spaniards the nordicist reproach is they have too much of it, not too little.  Any good Spanish speakers around here volunteer to try to get the message through over there?

Anyway, here’s the article, titled “Hitler’s Revenge or Just an Error in Translation?  You Decide”:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3527

Posted by Bill on Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:31 | #

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/29/do2904.xml

Back aways, I remember talking about this chap and his blog, Inspector Gadget of Rural Town police.

I remarked at the time. (I was popping in at his blog occasionally) and I think I said here was another policeman who was railing against bureaucracy (like PC Copperfield) but neither could join the dots to the bigger picture.

Well here he is, (Inspector Gadget) with his promised book, blowing his police whistle on the rotten state of Britain’s police force.

He still is unable, reluctant or scared to link his experience to the bigger picture. Inspector Gadget is obviously an intelligent man, so if he doesn’t get it what hope is there?

Am I still misjudging the man? perhaps he does see the bigger picture but is keeping it under wraps for some reason, like protecting his pension - who could blame him?

Posted by Brixton 1908 on Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:48 | #