The Griffin Speaks

Posted by skeptical on May 27, 2009, 04:00 PM | #

Wow!  Mr. Griffin handled himself rather well in the face of some brutal questioning.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 27, 2009, 04:25 PM | #

I advise everyone to watch this brilliant video as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX9-w8V_ihc

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 05:27 PM | #

In future, EX-TORY, it’ll be considered “hate” to show a video like that and, mark this well, it will be prosecuted as a “hate crime” to the fullest extent of the law, and judging you in the course of such prosecution will be not Englishmen like you but malcontent white lesbians out for revenge against “The Patriarchy,” Hindus, Pakis, Chinamen, Jamaican and Nigerian Negroes, and Eurochristian-hating Jews.  Anyone now in possession of such videos had better make plans to keep them hidden against a future when they’ll be both needed to educate upcoming generations as to the way things used to be and can be again, and forbidden the way child pornography rightly is today and grounds for draconian criminal prosecution if caught.  That is not hyperbole.  That is fact.  It is going to happen.

Can that future be changed?  Yes but only if decent white men act NOW, not tomorrow or another time.  Part of acting is voting.  Enough said.

PART OF ACTING TO STAVE OFF SUCH A FUTURE IS VOTING.  ENOUGH SAID.  This comment is meant not for regulars here, of course, who already know all this, but for any others who may have wandered in for a look around.  When you wander back out, please take the above thoughts with you.

Posted by Bill on May 27, 2009, 05:42 PM | #

The news reader said that the majority of immigrants coming into Britain are white and from the EU.  This is a lie, a total scurrilous lie.  The bulk of immigration is coming from the third world, Griffin should have challenged this. 

Where are these D Day veterans who are deeply offended by the BNP’s ‘What would their mates say’....

We need immigration, we neeeeed immigration - bollocks! and Griffin should have said so.

TV man openly infers that Griffin, by being far right (is a Nazi) he and his British supporters would start a war and would foot and mouth (shoot and burn) all opposition. 

According to the TV man, this anger is all down to the MP’s expense furore, no it isn’t it’s the whole bloody shooting match.  Political Correctness, surveillance, police state, immigration, hate laws, multiculturalism, affirmative action, yada, yada, yada.

TV man alludes to Griffin and Barnbrook (are an item?) Hmmm?  (Guest at palace.)

Nick and his advisers should run and analyse theses clips over and over, Nick must learn to spot these dreadful lies and innuendos and instantly shoot them down.  Make the TV people look like the traitors they are.

Griffin is coming on by leaps and bounds, but he is still too reactive, was he a counter puncher in his boxing days?  Too many lies and assertions by commentators go unchallenged. 

Let’s see some two fisted attacks to the head and body.  Metaphorically speaking of course.

Keep up the good work, it’s all coming together..

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 06:05 PM | #

Excellent points by Bill.  I hadn’t sensed, watching the thing, that the interviewer’s question as to why Barnbrook had invited Griffin to the Queen’s must certainly have been an attempt to insinuate the possibility of a homosexual relationship.  Bill caught it and I agree that MUST have been its purpose.

I’ll just add a word about Griffin’s “body language” during the interview:  he was sort of leaning forward in just a hint of a slouch, with both arms kept forward resting on the table.  It was OK but not ideal.  Ideal would have been — well, I’m not going to speculate but there are experts in “body language” who know which kind of physical bearing makes the best impression for this or that goal, and the BNP should consult one to coach Griffin.  One session is all it would take, and Griff would go home and practice getting the recommendations down pat for his next interview.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 06:30 PM | #

One more thing if I may, and I realize I’ve said this umpteen gazillion times here and elsewhere (just recently over at Prozium’s) and I realize most are unmoved or outright think I’m full of it, but in my view no one on our side should accept to be labeled as “right” let alone “far right.” As far as I’m concerned Nick Griffin and the BNP are strictly a middle-of-the-road, slightly left-of-center party and in their place I would flatly reject any other description.  I would call Griffin a Progressive.  I’d love it if he called himself that and politely, steadfastly repeated it when called “right” or especially “far right.” I DON’T CARE who “already owns the word progressive.” I don’t care in the least.  As of now I own it, as far as I’m concerned.  That’s my feeling on the matter.  Take what you need, men!  Take what you need!  Did anyone consult us before setting in motion the wheels of our race-replacement?  Hell no, they just went ahead and did it!  Did anyone consult us before deciding who would get to be called “the Progressives”?  No, no more than the other consulted us!  So f*ck them, as far as I’m concerned.  We’re the Progressives.  (I actually like “Normals” better, for Progressives will do for now.  “Right wing”?  I reject that UTTERLY.)

Posted by Englander on May 27, 2009, 06:37 PM | #

Is last night’s election broadcast by the BNP on youtube yet?  I missed it when it aired.

Posted by CullTheDumbest on May 27, 2009, 06:45 PM | #

no one on our side should accept to be labeled as “right” let alone “far right.”

Agreed. Claim the center as the normal, just, unbiased, fair and upright. Ever other party is an unreasonable and proven dangerous extremist with a narrow special interest constituency, whether the very bottom or the very top classes, who are at war against the productive majority. The BNP is the only reasonable centrist party capable of doing right by all involved.

Posted by Red Mercury on May 27, 2009, 07:05 PM | #

Yes. The real extremists are those who are imposing Race Replacement schemes on White populations. The true radicals are found in the establishment parties, with their Multi-Cult programming and genocide agenda.

The BNP are against racism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 27, 2009, 07:54 PM | #

What a pleasure to see someone on TV advocate so unabashedly for our people. I’m afraid it will come to violence before we’ll ever see such a thing on American TV.

The newsman’s attempt to paint that as “extreme” - right in the wake of Griffin’s analogies with the black police and muslim lawyers - came across to me, and others I hope, as an own goal scored by a robot reading from a worn out script.

Posted by Bill on May 27, 2009, 07:57 PM | #

Fred.  Some more thoughts on the BNP and the media types.

It doesn’t suit the media’s agenda not to label Griffin as a Nazi and you know why.  The holocaust connotation is the jewel in the crown of bash whitey, inculcate guilt into those nasty, brutal, far right BNP scum.

I’ve seen countless opportunities go begging by the BNP to stick it to the media and make them look like stupid traitors. (useful idiots)

Counter to charge of being a far right Nazi storm trooper.

‘You mean all those British people from hard working families, with British values of fair play, who only have the BNP to to turn to because you, (media) have turned your back on them.  Are you actually saying they wish to throw people into concentration camps and gas and burn them.  Is that what you’re really implying?’

Counter to we need more immigration.

‘Why do we need endless immigration?  What do you think will become of the white British if mass immigration continues to flood the country with non whites.  What do you think will happen to our culture if this happens?  Do you want your grandchildren to grow up in a non white country?  Do you want white British whites to be gone from this land?  You sound as if you do.  Why do you want whites to disappear and be replaced by people of colour.  Tell me please do.’

There are endless other variations to counter ‘We need immigration’.  Jobs, housing, infrastructure, water, carrying capacity etc.etc.  Endless immigration is a no brainer.

The killer charge against the BNP is racism.  Griffin always winces when the word is uttered, no matter how many times he hears the charge, he’s like boxer who has taken a straight right on the jaw and didn’t see it coming.

The cry for more immigration and similarly the charge of racism by the media, can be legitimately and logically countered by the BNP.  They seem reluctant to vigorously defend their views.  Jeeeze, it’s them, the BNP who are in the right, it’s the media who are the bastards in all of this and yet the BNP still get a bashing.  Perhaps they’re insufficiently agile to think on their feet.  A cruel charge perhaps, but maybe true.

I think the time is rapidly approaching, (if not already here) where a different type of BNP politician is needed, a thinking man’s politician if you like.

Nick Griffin (and his supporters) have performed a herculean task in getting this far, I take my hat of to them, I really do, but perhaps the time has come - to step up a gear or two in the cerebral department.

Perhaps MR need to set up thread similar to countering the liberal lexicon, by think-tank ideas to counter these interview techniques of slur used by the media.

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 27, 2009, 08:06 PM | #

Fred makes a good point. One he’s made before and which is well worth reiterating.

The snappy refutation to any accusation, or even a quick snide and passing comment as in this interview, that advocating for our people is “extreme”:

I am not “extreme”. I’m perfectly sane and perfectly normal. It is my intent to serve the healthy interests of myself and other perfectly normal people like myself. If you have a problem with that it is because you’re the one who is “extreme”.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 27, 2009, 09:08 PM | #

According to recent opinion polls, “extremist” parties like the BNP are expected to have 150 seats in the 736-member European Parliament.

I hate to say it, but Ian Jobling was right all along. The central aspect of his marketing strategy is the same as the European nationalist right in general, and the BNP in particular: go soft on the Jews, abandon Holocaust revisionism and National Socialist ideology, and you will disassociate yourself from the “evils” of Nazism and thereby gain votes. The difference between the BNP and Ian Jobling is that he merely creates websites and does almost nothing else besides.  But the overall trend in Europe suggests that his marketing strategy, when combined with genuine political activism, is capable of yielding fruitful political gain. I am NOT suggesting it is morally acceptable and worth pursuing. It’s bad in the long term, for it means surrendering to the Jew, and ignoring the underlying root cause of our racial problems. But I can see why the BNP is doing it.

Perhaps it is about time Americans imitate the methods of the BNP?

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 27, 2009, 09:31 PM | #

Ian Jobling doesn’t just disassociate himself, he actively joins in the bashing of anyone who would criticize jews.

The BNP obviously puts the native Britons first. Jobling obviously puts jews first.

Posted by Søren Renner on May 27, 2009, 09:34 PM | #

If we could get the thin edge of our wedge into any elected body here in an election conducted by proportional representation, I’d say maybe yes. The BNP technique depends on PR elections. Doesn’t it?

Posted by torgrim on May 27, 2009, 09:42 PM | #

Ex-Tory- “Perhaps it is about time Americans imitate the methods of the BNP.”

If only, if only.......but hence what works in Britain unfortunately will not work here, we need another tack.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 27, 2009, 09:48 PM | #

Tanstaafl wrote:

Ian Jobling doesn’t just disassociate himself, he actively joins in the bashing of anyone who would criticize jews.

The BNP obviously puts the native Britons first. Jobling obviously puts jews first.

Whatever Jobling’s motivations, based on the recent successes of the nationalist Righ tin Europe, one thing stands out clear and undeniable: abandoning the Jewish Question, Holocaust Revisionism, and National Socialist ideology/imagery is a good marketing strategy. American nationalists take note.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 27, 2009, 09:48 PM | #

Soren,

PR in any form comes down to who builds the majority coalition.  That said, it is synonimous with unstable government because coalitions break down so easily.

The British system of First Past The Post can deliver the reins of government on a third of the popular vote.  Labour won the 2005 election with 35.3% of the popular vote, won 55.11% of the seats, and had a parliamentary majority of 67.  The turnout was 61.3%, which meant that Labour’s share of the total electorate was just 22.3%.

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 27, 2009, 09:57 PM | #

It’s also obvious that despite their “marketing strategy” the BNP is still relentlessly attacked as “racist” and “fascist”.

They are gaining support now for the same reasons the German National Socialists did in the 1930s: they’re speaking truth in the midst of a great crisis.

The regime’s lies are threadbare. The people, deep down, know it. I couldn’t care less if some anti-White bolshevist calls me a “racist” or “fascist”. They do me the favor of identifying themselves as a fool or enemy. I suspect many BNP supporters feel similarly. They’re fed up with the two-faced sanctimonious moralizing from people who hate them no matter what they do.

This is, of course, not at all the kind of sentiments Jobling appeals to. His “marketing strategy” is to pledge to protect jews from the “judeo-obsessives” who recognize where the anti-White bolshevism originates.

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 27, 2009, 10:04 PM | #

I don’t mean for those quotes around “marketing strategy” to come across as sarcasm against your point about the BNP’s path to success EX-TORY. I agree with it. It’s the comparison to Jobling I don’t agree with.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 10:08 PM | #

As everyone knows I view Jobling as an important and staunch ally and I wish him and his web-site the best of success in whatever strategy he chooses to pursue.  But here’s his Alexa page, and his traffic ranking continues to hover at around a million:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.whiteamerica.us .

Neither Jews nor anyone else much seems to be “flocking to his site.”

Posted by Dasein on May 27, 2009, 10:14 PM | #

Whatever Jobling’s motivations, based on the recent successes of the nationalist Righ tin Europe, one thing stands out clear and undeniable: abandoning the Jewish Question, Holocaust Revisionism, and National Socialist ideology/imagery is a good marketing strategy. American nationalists take note.

One of the better-known far-right parties in Germany (the DVU) has recently been switching to what they call a ‘New Right’ position.  Jews are not a problem, the real enemy is Muslims, and culture trumps biology.  The most ‘extreme’ nationalist party (the NPD) has not made any such shifts in strategy, and in fact at their last party convention the more extreme elements of the party were said to have gained more power (although it’s a hackneyed term, there really are ‘neo-Nazis’ and they seem to prefer the NPD to any other party).  It’s a big election year in Germany, so we’ll see which tactic works.  The NPD has a much stronger youth base and is more polished, although the DVU recently revamped their website (a Swedish multi-millionaire has recently thrown his support behind the party so it could be that they have more cash for such things now).  The two parties have an agreement not to compete with each other in elections (the Deutschland Pakt), but it will be interesting to see how this holds up now that they appear to be drifting apart philosophically.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 10:18 PM | #

I read Jobling’s site regularly, by the way — as regularly as he posts new material or his forum gets active; I find the site outstanding, excellent, and I give it my highest recommendation.  As everyone also knows, I disagree with his total discounting of a Jewish role in all this.  He’s one thousand percent wrong in that.  He’s also too snide, bitchy, and obnoxious in the comments he makes about us.  But none of that is the important thing:  the important thing is that opponents of race-replacement must win and he’s on our side.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 27, 2009, 10:25 PM | #

Tanstaafl wrote:

“It’s also obvious that despite their ‘marketing strategy’ the BNP is still relentlessly attacked as “racist” and ‘fascist’.”

But increasingly such accusations run off the BNP like water, no doubt as a result of their recent marketing efforts.

“They are gaining support now for the same reasons the German National Socialists did in the 1930s: they’re speaking truth in the midst of a great crisis.”

The old BNP wouldn’t be enjoying the same degree of success even in the midst of the economic crisis. Most of BNP’s votes would probably go to UKIP if the BNP hadn’t got its act together by now.

“His ‘marketing strategy’ is to pledge to protect jews from the “judeo-obsessives” who recognize where the anti-White bolshevism originates.”

On the other hand, Griffin has stated on several occasions that he supports the state of Israel, that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, that Churchill was heroically fighting against Nazi tyranny and foreign invasion, that the BNP welcomes Jewish members, and so on.  Even if, as you suggest, their motivations differ, Griffin and Jobling have in effect adopted the same public position on the Jewish question, Holocaust revisionism, and National Socialism. They both recognise that this is the way to win votes. The only difference is that Griffin is actually doing something other than creating websites.

Posted by skeptical on May 27, 2009, 10:32 PM | #

EX-TORY,

The only difference is that Griffin is actually doing something other than creating websites.

In all fairness it is not possible to replicate the BNP phenomena in America.  I am sure that other American commenters would agree with this.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 27, 2009, 11:04 PM | #

What exactly are the successes of the BNP? Let’s see them demonstrate their electability before pompous gits start lecturing Americans upon which nationalist “strategy” is in their best interest. West Bromwich, 1973, 16% of the vote. Maggie gives her “swamping” speech in 1978, gets elected in 1979 and the NF goes the way of Puff the Magic Dragon. How soon we forget!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 11:07 PM | #

I agree with you, Skeptical, and with the others who’ve made the same point.  My feeling is that over here the best way to go is to start pushing for secession, whether of states or regions and no matter where, as long as it’s white people with our views who are behind it.  Also, the Jewish problem over here is enormous, something like an order of magnitude bigger than any Jewish problem Europe directly confronts, which is why good British and European comrades like GW, A Finn, Hoff, and others see our empahsis on the Jewish factor as unjustified and would like to hear less of it.  Not having the sheer number of Jews over there which we have here, they can’t see it.  What they do see is America’s bad influence on them, not realizing that in turn is Jewish influence on America which white Americans dislike as much as they in Europe do. 

I think the Jewish problem over here has to be tackled openly, certainly at the “intellectual” level.  The Jewish approach is to ignore it, deny it, denounce it, shout “anti-Semite!,” and hope it will go away.  It’s not going to go away and will only get worse the longer it’s not confronted head-on and solved by decent well-meaning people on both sides.  There are plenty of “non-anti-Semitic” ways to confront it head-on (I deny the term “anti-Semitic” has any meaning but I use it, as here, when I have to in order to communicate with folk who see it as meaning something).  Lawrence Auster, for example, has outlined a way of talking to the Jews which he would consider proper and which would get our objections to their behavior across adequately.  He feels that part of the reason Jews behave in certain destructive ways is they’ve never been told, in a manner that they find appropriate, how much we consider their behavior unacceptable.  Jews on our side should be recruited to either do the talking to the bad Jews (about 99.9999999999% of them) or train us in how to go about it.  With some Jews you’re never going to win because everything in the universe to them is anti-Semitic, but so be it, whatever horrific consequences ensue from their not listening will be on their heads for eternity.  Let them think about that.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 27, 2009, 11:32 PM | #

EX-TORY: Griffin and Jobling have in effect adopted the same public position on the Jewish question, Holocaust revisionism, and National Socialism.

When I challenged Jobling some months back I had the distinct impression that he truly, deeply believes in saving us from our “Judeophobia”.  But beyond that I think that he sees Jewish lives and Jewish freedom as supreme values.  OK, his refusal to accept Jewish ethnic activism as any kind of real-world fact might possibly be a condition for saving us from our, as he sees it, self-harming Judeophobia.  But his strident advocacy of Lieberman’s attack on MacDonald takes us beyond that, to true Jewish activism.

I’m sorry, I just don’t trust him.  At best he is a vain distraction.  I’d take Alex Linder any day (though Alex probably thinks all the above about us!)

Posted by Loriver on May 27, 2009, 11:45 PM | #

Posted by EX-TORY on May 27, 2009, 09:08 PM | #

I hate to say it, but Ian Jobling was right all along. The central aspect of his marketing strategy is the same as the European nationalist right in general, and the BNP in particular: go soft on the Jews, abandon Holocaust revisionism and National Socialist ideology, and you will disassociate yourself from the “evils” of Nazism and thereby gain votes. The difference between the BNP and Ian Jobling is that he merely creates websites and does almost nothing else besides.  But the overall trend in Europe suggests that his marketing strategy, when combined with genuine political activism, is capable of yielding fruitful political gain. I am NOT suggesting it is morally acceptable and worth pursuing. It’s bad in the long term, for it means surrendering to the Jew, and ignoring the underlying root cause of our racial problems. But I can see why the BNP is doing it.

Perhaps it is about time Americans imitate the methods of the BNP?

Three things:

a) Jobling also is on the record saying he doesn’t care about race per se, it’s all about culture for him. Therefore he is not something to emulate.

b) It’s damned obvious that dropping any suggestion of Nazism, including all but delicate references to Jews, is necessary - at least for the foreseeable future. However, out of the public eye (e.g. places like this) discussion can be a little more free.

c) People who give any credence to the big JQ idea should consider that apart from Jewish influence, the other change that has occurred over the past few centuries is an incredible change in environment, totally unprecedented in human history in so many ways.

What is more realistic: the Jews did it almost all themselves, or it is essentially an environmental problem (with lack of cues prompting ethnic nepotism, excessive comfort making people soft etc.), coupled with ideological/sociological unpreparedness...with perhaps a small contribution by the Jews?

PS Don’t you think the Nazis were evil, at all? You have no qualms about genocide and the initiation of insanely destructive warfare? Well OK…

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 27, 2009, 11:45 PM | #

Hoo boy.

It isn’t how you talk to jews that’s the problem Fred. You can see that in something as simple as how so many of them went batshit foaming at the mouth apoplectic with fear and loathing at the improbable prospect of Sarah Palin as VP. It didn’t matter to them that she’s a zionist who would throw people like you and me to lions, literally, in order to protect jews. What mattered is the same je ne sais quoi that made her instinctively appealing to so many White voters.

For jews being White is offense enough. Saying you’re White is worthy of condemnation. Saying you’re White and favor Whites over anyone else, but especially jews, is a hate crime. Trying to talk to them about it? Not even your chosen guru on the matter, Lawrence Auster, is capable of handling that truth.

As you say, he thinks the problem is nobody’s ever told jews that what they’re doing is wrong.

Riiiiiiight. It’s all our fault. How....original.

Posted by q on May 27, 2009, 11:47 PM | #

In all fairness it is not possible to replicate the BNP phenomena in America.  I am sure that other American commenters would agree with this.

I agree, the USA is too far gone for a BNP phenomena to become a reality

The election of Obama is the best indicator of just how far we have declined. I compare this decline to Detroit. Detroit was once a vibrant first-class majority white city, run by whites, with a first rate public school system, great public transportation, clean neighborhoods, libraries, etc. What happened to Detroit? Why the decline? Answer: Brown v Board of Education and the subsequent forced crossed district busing policy designed by liberal (read anti-white Marxist [mostly white, btw]) social engineers to achieve racial integration. Result: White flight to the burbs resulting in a near zero white population within Detroit proper. Now Detroit is such third-world crime-ridden slum, even the Negroes are fleeing from it at a rapid pace. Now the white suburbs of Detroit are being inundated with ghetto Negroes via government funded(our tax dollars) housing programs such as ‘Section 8’. Who can dispute that the entire USA is going the way of Detroit?  Brown v the Board of Education was the seminal event that marked the beginning of the end for White majority control in the USA.

Good job you traitorous white-liberal scum!

Posted by Guessedworker on May 27, 2009, 11:48 PM | #

Fred: Also, the Jewish problem over here is enormous, something like an order of magnitude bigger than any Jewish problem Europe directly confronts, which is why good British and European comrades like GW, A Finn, Hoff, and others see our empahsis on the Jewish factor as unjustified and would like to hear less of it.

Speaking for myself, I would like a deeper and more rounded analysis, that’s all.  I am not unhappy that we discuss the JQ.  I think it is important to discuss the JQ.  But if the focus is narrowed too much, something goes missing - and, ultimately, that something is us, ourselves.  Alex’s (sort of) libertarianism demonstrates this to a T.  The late John Bryant’s faith in isostasy also.

There is no way to convince Single Causers of this, because they do not acknowledge that there is no way out but through the acquired in the self.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 12:25 AM | #

GW,

Speaking for myself, I would like a deeper and more rounded analysis, that’s all.  I am not unhappy that we discuss the JQ.  I think it is important to discuss the JQ.  But if the focus is narrowed too much, something goes missing - and, ultimately, that something is us, ourselves.

Agreed.

Towards that end, how do the JQ fanatics explain the anti-racist leftism of a typical continental European nation (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc)?  This has always been a sticking point for me since so few Jews actually live in those nations nowadays (seeing as how they all came to America).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 12:57 AM | #

“how do the JQ fanatics explain the anti-racist leftism of a typical continental European nation (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc)?  This has always been a sticking point for me since so few Jews actually live in those nations nowadays (seeing as how they all came to America).” (—Skeptical)

How much does the United States influence those Jew-sparse countries?  Zero?  Or quite a bit?  (Britain and France aren’t Jew-sparse.  We’re talking here about the others.) How much do the U.S.’s Jews influence the United States?  Zero?  Or quite a bit?  Applying the transitive law (or whatever):  How much do the U.S.’s Jews influence those Jew-sparse countries?  Zero?  Or quite a bit?  (And how much do Jew-rich Britain and France help to influence them?)

Why are the U.S.’s Euros as if paralysed, seemingly unable to react?  Same reason a prey animal is, unable to react, when its nervous system is taken over by predator neurotoxin. 

The mass media are a country’s nervous system. 

Draw your conclusions.

Posted by Texan on May 28, 2009, 01:09 AM | #

I’m sorry, I just don’t trust him.  At best he is a vain distraction. 

Yep. Can anyone point me to an interesting, insightful article Jobling has written? He’s a dull, philo-semitic non-entity.

On the other hand, Griffin has stated on several occasions that he supports the state of Israel, that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, that Churchill was heroically fighting against Nazi tyranny and foreign invasion, that the BNP welcomes Jewish members, and so on.  Even if, as you suggest, their motivations differ, Griffin and Jobling have in effect adopted the same public position on the Jewish question, Holocaust revisionism, and National Socialism.

Not even close to being true. 

You’ve also got a short memory if you’re attributing the “don’t talk about the Jews” strategy to Jobling, as he’s hardly the first to advocate that position. Jobling’s former boss, Jared Taylor, did it first and still does it better. The BNP’s position is actually a lot closer to Taylor’s than it is to Jobling’s.  You don’t see the BNP blaming whites for all conflict between whites and Jews or promoting the work of an anti-white, professional ethnic hitman like Lieberman.  BNP is using the Amren strategy, not the Jewishamerica.US strategy.

Posted by Texan on May 28, 2009, 02:20 AM | #

Didn’t mean to imply that Taylor did it *first*, just that he did it before Jobling.

Posted by CullTheDumbest on May 28, 2009, 02:44 AM | #

Towards that end, how do the JQ fanatics explain the anti-racist leftism of a typical continental European nation (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc)?

Scandinavia - Jewish Media Ownership

The newspapers and television set the tone for permissible public discourse. All it takes is a handful of owners and a host of compliant employees easily dismissed if they dissent. This is a powerful tool if control could be wrested back to the Euroman.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 04:20 AM | #

Scrooby,

The various continental European nations don’t follow America’s lead on many different issues (large and small).  If these nations were really under America’s spell then I would not expect that to be the case.

CullTheDumbest,

After following the link you provided I was, quite frankly, disappointed.  If someone were to exhaustively chronicle the Jewish takeover of American media it would fill many web pages if not a whole book.  Granted Scandinavia isn’t as large and populous as the U.S., but I was still hoping for more.

Posted by CullTheDumbest on May 28, 2009, 04:35 AM | #

Your skepticism would ring with truth if you offered a counterpoint highlighting all the non-Jewish major media control throughout Scandinavia. I don’t believe that will happen exactly because there is so little to be had and all of it is covered at the web page provided. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 28, 2009, 04:40 AM | #

Griffin and Jobling have in effect adopted the same public position on the Jewish question…

It worked for Sinatra...

Posted by J Richards on May 28, 2009, 08:51 AM | #

Joining forces with Jews disastrous for European nationalists

Ex-Tory,

I hate to say it, but Ian Jobling was right all along … go soft on the Jews, abandon Holocaust revisionism and National Socialist ideology … But the overall trend in Europe suggests that his marketing strategy, when combined with genuine political activism, is capable of yielding fruitful political gain. It’s bad in the long term, for it means surrendering to the Jew, and ignoring the underlying root cause of our racial problems.

Bad in the long run?  No, absolutely disastrous!  Among the aliens living in England and other European nations, Jews are the most dangerous as they are in control of the central banks, the issuance of money and the mainstream media, and clearly very hostile toward non-Jews.

Nationalists have everything to lose by cozying up to Jews.  People shouldn’t forget that the large number of Muslims in Europe has created a big problem for Jews.  Aryan Sanctuary nails the issue:

It is now almost fashionable to state that Zionist agents were responsible for the immigration of Muslims into Europe. But why did they do this? The common answer is “so that Europe can be Islamized.” But how is an Islamized Europe – what Bat Ye’or (Jew) calls ‘Eurabia’ and Melanie Philips (Jew) calls ‘Londonistan’ - beneficial to Israel or international Jewry? Why would Jews act to enlarge the geographic base of the largest anti-Zionist faction in the world? Here the proponents have no good answer. Anyone can see that an Islamized Europe would be disastrous for Jewish interests, so why would Jews themselves try to engineer such a scenario?

Let us consider a different explanation, that Jews promoted Muslim immigration into Europe as an attempt to corrupt the Muslim community with Western decadence. Success would have resulted in weakening of the Islamic culture that has until now been relatively successful at protecting Muslims against Jewish control. Such corruption might even have spread backwards to Muslim communities outside of Europe, which would have been even more advantageous to the global Zionist agenda. It is in Jewish interests not to Islamize Europe, but to Westernize Islam. 

However, this endeavour has been unsuccessful, with many European Muslim communities defending themselves from decadence. European Muslims are earning money and taking it off the usury grid by keeping it in Islamic banks. They are boycotting retailers/suppliers that support Israel and setting up rival retailers/suppliers that even non-Muslims purchase from. They are gaining local converts to Islam. They are raising awareness of Zionism and the ongoing oppression of Palestinians. Thus Jews are now paying a political price for underestimating Muslim cohesion. This is exactly what David Myatt predicted. And now Jews are trying to reverse the damage.

This would explain why Jews (Christopher Hitchens, Melanie Philips, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, etc.) have been among the earliest and most active defamers of Islam and the most vocal proponents for expulsion of Muslims from Europe. This would explain why the Jewish media is going overboard with reporting insignificant crimes and community issues and trying to link everything to ‘radical Islam’. Are they positioning their own agents to solve the problem they created and take credit? This would explain why – right alongside the scaremongering stories - the Jewish media is constantly providing free advertizing for the BNP and similar groups.

http://aryansanctuary.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/muslim-immigration-analyzed/

If European nationalists cozy up to Jews, they’ll superficially gain politically, but they’ll be doing a favor to Jews by going after Muslims and thereby setting the stage for a more disastrous European future. 

Picture a scenario where European nationalists and Muslims joined forces and succeeded in expelling Jews.  The major wealth leeching source in the world, Jewry, would be vanquished.  The median wealth of people in agrarian and industrial societies will increase because Jews are no longer leeching it (see example of how Jews leech the wealth of poor nations).  Hence most Muslims will gladly return to their homelands, on their own, because Europeans live highly un-Islamic lifestyles and Muslims are supposed to avoid environments that threaten their Islamic way of life.  Some may counter that Muslims may try to Islamify Europe.  This can’t happen because they are a minority and the only way for them to Islamify Europe would be to use force, which will be far more disastrous for them than for Europeans. 

I am NOT suggesting it is morally acceptable and worth pursuing.
….
Perhaps it is about time Americans imitate the methods of the BNP?

Looks like someone is having problems making up his mind.

Posted by J Richards on May 28, 2009, 09:02 AM | #

The Scroob at it again

I read Jobling’s site regularly, by the way — as regularly as he posts new material or his forum gets active; I find the site outstanding, excellent, and I give it my highest recommendation.

Surprise, surprise! 

But none of that is the important thing:  the important thing is that opponents of race-replacement must win and he’s on our side.

Scrooby doobie!  What’s the difference between me paying an illegal alien from Mexico $20 to recite a hundred times, ‘I am opposed to the race replacement of European people’ and Jobling repeatedly saying the same?  Both are equally meaningful and equally effective.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 09:43 AM | #

Loriver wrote:

“a) Jobling also is on the record saying he doesn’t care about race per se, it’s all about culture for him.”

If he did say that (please cite), based on his other writings, it is safe to assume that he would have done so with the qualifier: culture is a product of race. And in that respect I agree with him. When divorced from the culture and civilisation that whites create, and which is a reflection of their nature, pro-white advocacy is rather pointless.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 09:55 AM | #

Texan:

“You’ve also got a short memory if you’re attributing the ‘don’t talk about the Jews’ strategy to Jobling, as he’s hardly the first to advocate that position. Jobling’s former boss, Jared Taylor, did it first and still does it better.”

I am not suggesting that Jobling invented or even practices a “don’t talk about Jews” strategy. He is quite open in his denunciation of Nazism and antisemitism. But so are the BNP. Both Jobling and the BNP have explicitly criticised antisemitism and have attempted to distance themselves from Nazism by denouncing Holocaust revisionism and National Socialist ideology. Griffin is not merely silent on the matter like Jared Taylor. Like Jobling, he is quite open about it.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 10:01 AM | #

I share Tanstaafl’s view on Jobling.  I’m also a bit surprised that Fred offers such high praise for Jobling and his site. 

As everyone knows I view Jobling as an important and staunch ally and I wish him and his web-site the best of success in whatever strategy he chooses to pursue.

‘Staunch’ seems a tad extreme.  Fred, based on your understanding of the importance of the JQ in race-replacement, I’m surprised you would say this.  Jobling thinks you’re delusional.  And I don’t think you really mean ‘whatever strategy he chooses’.  So far he’s attacked MacDonald and argued that there is no inherent basis for ethnocentrism.  As Loriver mentioned, Jobling is not interested in ethnicity, only phenotypic issues like culture.  I personally would consider him a possible ally, but by no means a strong one.  If the JQ and EGI are important components of your opposition to race-replacement, I would think Jobling is of questionable value and we should cast a skeptical eye towards any strategy he adopts.  I would not be upset if his project went belly up.  He does not offer anything that AmRen doesn’t (to Whites at least).  His site is dominated by Jews and mediocre intellects.  Some of his main posts are good but they’re not terribly original (and when he does try something different it’s usually to defend a loony view of his such as there being absolutely no inherent basis for ethnocentrism).  And if he did fail it would be justice at some level for the lack of gratitude he showed to Taylor, without whom Jobling would only be a failed humanities academic.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 10:19 AM | #

If he did say that (please cite), based on his other writings, it is safe to assume that he would have done so with the qualifier: culture is a product of race. And in that respect I agree with him. When divorced from the culture and civilisation that whites create, and which is a reflection of their nature, pro-white advocacy is rather pointless.

Jobling is opposed to culture-replacement, not race-replacement.  If he is opposed to race-replacement, he hasn’t given any reasons (that I’ve seen) that are not completely phenotypic.  If we could exchange all Mestizos and Negroes for ‘model minorities’ or discovered a way to make Negroes appreciate Bach and Beethoven, what would Jobling’s argument be then?  And is the culture that exists even White?  Yockey was absolutely correct with his label for Jews: culture distorters.  What we see is in some sense a White culture, but it’s not White in the way that the historical cultures of Europe were.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 11:00 AM | #

Dasein:

“Jobling is opposed to culture-replacement, not race-replacement.”

Jobling believes that culture is racially genetic in origin.

“If we could exchange all Mestizos and Negroes for ‘model minorities’ or discovered a way to make Negroes appreciate Bach and Beethoven, what would Jobling’s argument be then?”

Racial separation can only be justified by the fact that the races are indeed different and produce different cultures and civilisations. If all races were the same, then replacing one race with another would merely be an exchange of two identical and interchangeable units. Even so-called model minorities are incapable of assimilating into white society, have a lower average intelligence, and produce civilisations that are utterly alien and inferior to our own. [It’s important not to confuse integregation with assimilation. East Asians are well /integretated/ into white society—there is no profound tension and conflict between whites and East Asians, at least in comparison with that between blacks and whites—but they are far from assimilated, i.e. absorbed into white society and to the point where they are culturally and socially indinguishible from ‘other whites’.]

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 11:02 AM | #

Previous post should read “integration” rather than “integregation”.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 11:26 AM | #

For those interested, here is Nick Griffin saying that millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis in “the worst crime in history”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuRm83X0JUI

In another clip, which I am also looking for, he puts the figure at six million.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 28, 2009, 11:28 AM | #

Dasein: What we see is in some sense a White culture, but it’s not White in the way that the historical cultures of Europe were.

And what, of this culture, is us?  Is culture a separate entity to personality?  What, if anything, is real and truly belongs to us in culture and in ourselves, and what does not?

Posted by Loriver on May 28, 2009, 12:23 PM | #

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 09:43 AM | #

Loriver wrote:

“a) Jobling also is on the record saying he doesn’t care about race per se, it’s all about culture for him.”

If he did say that (please cite), based on his other writings, it is safe to assume that he would have done so with the qualifier: culture is a product of race. And in that respect I agree with him. When divorced from the culture and civilisation that whites create, and which is a reflection of their nature, pro-white advocacy is rather pointless.

Jobling quote (less than a year old): “It’s values that matter most to me, not race or ethnicity, as is the case with tanstaafl. I’m only interested in preserving white cultures because I believe Western values are rooted in the biology of the white race.”

From here http://lgfbannedandblocked.blogspot.com/2008/10/levi-from-queens-and-great-discarded.html

He also says: “The defense of Israel makes perfect sense from my perspective because Israel is a state founded on Western values.” and “Yes, there are a lot of obnoxious Jewish leukophobes who ought to be opposed, but there is no evidence that Jewish leukophobia is a strategy for Jewish power or that Jews differ from Gentile whites in any important respect.”

Which explains why he is so keen on defending the Jews; he sees them as producers of Western culture, therefore interchangeable with indigenous Europeans. What a useless twat.

Granted, the Jews are closely related to us as non-Europeans go, also I don’t buy the Jewish cause idea, but this guy has an approach that is irreconcilable with EGI - which is the strongest and soundest basis for racialism.

Also, Kevin MacDonald - regardless of whether CofC is entirely accurate - is an asset, and Jobling should treat him with more respect.

“Racial separation can only be justified by the fact that the races are indeed different and produce different cultures and civilisations. If all races were the same, then replacing one race with another would merely be an exchange of two identical and interchangeable units.”

So you’re saying what Jobling said. Perhaps you should read the EGI links at the top of the MR page, for a different perspective (in which culture is not important) on racial nationalism; that is a primary message of this blog, I’m surprised you seem ignorant of it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 12:51 PM | #

Dasein, thanks for your critique of what I wrote.  Forgive me if I don’t argue back in detail — I don’t think protracted arguments about Jobling are what we should be doing at this point. 

I see race-replacement fighters deploying themselves, on their own, over a broad battlefront, each using the tactics he finds best.  Each has my blessing even if he considers me a piece of crap (and if Jobling knew of my existence, of course, he would consider me a piece of crap).  I appreciate your point of view on Jobling and see it as valuable.  He’s wrong in saying ethnocentrism isn’t inborn and in denouncing Dr. Duke, Jared Taylor, Prof. MacDonald, and others as he does.  He can be exceedingly obnoxious in some of his denunciations, unnecessarily obnoxious.  This thing that’s been brought up about his not valuing race, only culture, is something I don’t recall reading (I don’t read every word he writes and must have missed that) and without the citation I can’t comment on it.  I have nothing further to say about Jobling here because it’s not something that should be taking up lots of our time, in my view.  You get the last word and thanks again for your thoughtful criticism.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 12:51 PM | #

Loriver quoted Jobling quoted Jobling as saying:

It’s values that matter most to me, not race or ethnicity, as is the case with tanstaafl. I’m only interested in preserving white cultures because I believe Western values are rooted in the biology of the white race.”

Since he clearly recognises that culture is indelibly tied to biology, I can’t find much to disagree with in this quotation. If white culture and civilisation were not hereditary and racially genetic in origin, racial separatism and preservation would be philosophically unsound; for race ‘replacement’ would then be merely an exchange of interchangeable and identical units. The genetic interest argument, though intriguing, simply does not suffice; I am pro-white because only the white race has provided the biological framework in which a superior civilisation can prosper and endure. If the white race were proven deficient in this respect, I could not in good conscience continue to advocate for white separatism and preservation, regardless of my ‘genetic interest’.

Loriver wrote:

He also says: “The defense of Israel makes perfect sense from my perspective because Israel is a state founded on Western values.” and “Yes, there are a lot of obnoxious Jewish leukophobes who ought to be opposed, but there is no evidence that Jewish leukophobia is a strategy for Jewish power or that Jews differ from Gentile whites in any important respect.”

Griffin has also stated that he supports the state of Israel and he has repeatedly denounced antisemitism.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 01:14 PM | #

Jobling quote (less than a year old): “It’s values that matter most to me, not race or ethnicity, as is the case with tanstaafl. I’m only interested in preserving white cultures because I believe Western values are rooted in the biology of the white race.”

Jobling sounds confused.  If White culture is rooted in the biology of the White race, then he is also only interested in preserving the White race.  He just can’t make that final leap to a position where he could speak honestly and coherently.  Instead he has to say stuff like ethnocentrism is a human universal but has no genetic basis (see his post on GST).  The fallacy is to defend Whiteness as a phenotype (culture), decoupling it from EGI and genetic ontology.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 01:23 PM | #

The genetic interest argument, though intriguing, simply does not suffice; I am pro-white because only the white race has provided the biological framework in which a superior civilisation can prosper and endure. If the white race were proven deficient in this respect, I could not in good conscience continue to advocate for white separatism and preservation, regardless of my ‘genetic interest’.

Do you think you could convince Negroes/Mestizos/Tibetans/… that they aren’t worthy of existence?  Would you trade your kids in for the neighbour’s if his were more intelligent and better looking?

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 01:36 PM | #

What Mr. Jobling is saying, Dasein, is that our racial genetic heritage is worth preserving only because it provides the biological framework in which our values, culture, and civilisation can endure, not because our genetic interest or lineage is of innate value in and of itself. And he is absolutely correct on that score. White genes are only worth preserving because the culture and civilisation which only whites are capable of creating and sustaining is itself worthy of preservation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 01:56 PM | #

I apologize to Loriver:  when I wrote that I couldn’t comment on what Jobling said without the citation I hadn’t seen that Loriver had already provided the exact quote.

Loriver’s criticism of Jobling in that comment is for the most part right, as is Dasein’s where he says,

“Jobling sounds confused.  If White culture is rooted in the biology of the White race, then he is also only interested in preserving the White race.” (—Dasein)

That’s exactly right:  Jobling in that quote is in effect saying both that he values only culture not biology and that he values only biology, both in the same statement.  He is indeed confused or careless.  Or he’s lying and has been caught in the trap that catches liars when they can’t keep track of their lies and so contradict themselves.

I don’t think Jobling’s lying exactly, but I think he realizes there’s more up with the Jews than he wants to openly acknowledge, and he feels he’s justified in playing dumb because he thinks openness about it would hinder the fight against race-replacement.  But I could be wrong. 

Jobling’s brain has gears that don’t appear to mesh right.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 01:58 PM | #

What Mr. Jobling is saying, Dasein, is that our racial genetic heritage is worth preserving only because it provides the biological framework in which our values, culture, and civilisation can endure, not because our genetic interest or lineage is of innate value in and of itself. And he is absolutely correct on that score. White genes are only worth preserving because the culture and civilisation which only whites are capable of creating and sustaining is itself worthy of preservation.

Seems to me the phenotypers are putting the cart before the horse.  They would do well to study the myth of Narcissus and Plato’s cave.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 01:58 PM | #

EX-TORY, but that’s a tautology and trivial.  I agree with Dasein:  Jobling contradicted himself in that quote Loriver posted.

Posted by Loriver on May 28, 2009, 02:11 PM | #

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 12:51 PM | #

Loriver quoted Jobling quoted Jobling as saying:

It’s values that matter most to me, not race or ethnicity, as is the case with tanstaafl. I’m only interested in preserving white cultures because I believe Western values are rooted in the biology of the white race.”

Since he clearly recognises that culture is indelibly tied to biology, I can’t find much to disagree with in this quotation. If white culture and civilisation were not hereditary and racially genetic in origin, racial separatism and preservation would be philosophically unsound; for race ‘replacement’ would then be merely an exchange of interchangeable and identical units. The genetic interest argument, though intriguing, simply does not suffice; I am pro-white because only the white race has provided the biological framework in which a superior civilisation can prosper and endure. If the white race were proven deficient in this respect, I could not in good conscience continue to advocate for white separatism and preservation, regardless of my ‘genetic interest’.

That’s up to you. But EGI treated the right way is not ‘philosophically unsound’, actually I would question whether such a phrase is even meaningful. Many of us have strong motivations to oppose race replacement, and EGI makes sense of this, after the fact really. There is no reason to dispense with these motivations if they have a reproductive basis, whereas there would be if race and ethnic reproductive interests didn’t exist biologically (since racism would then be a stupid baseless prejudice, something to try and supress and not something comparable to family nepotism).

An argument from culture is OK for you maybe, but don’t expect it to get far in terms of persuading the public.

Loriver wrote:

He also says: “The defense of Israel makes perfect sense from my perspective because Israel is a state founded on Western values.” and “Yes, there are a lot of obnoxious Jewish leukophobes who ought to be opposed, but there is no evidence that Jewish leukophobia is a strategy for Jewish power or that Jews differ from Gentile whites in any important respect.”

Griffin has also stated that he supports the state of Israel and he has repeatedly denounced antisemitism.

I don’t object to people supporting Israel, if anything I do as well, nor do I object to people denouncing excessive anti-Jewism. What I do object to is the last part, and I quoted his comment on Israel as well to give a perspective on his line of thinking.

If Jews are exchangeable with Europeans, this means that Turks, Armenians and Kurds also would be apart from the cultural issue...and so would Nigerians, presumably. That’s profoundly anti-EGI.

I respect Griffin plenty, and what’s more I recognise that a lot of things he has to say about ‘racism’ are necessary for PR at the moment, and not truthful.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 02:16 PM | #

Fred Scrooby wrote:

That’s exactly right:  Jobling in that quote is in effect saying both that he values only culture not biology and that he values only biology, both in the same statement.  He is indeed confused or careless.  Or he’s lying and has been caught in the trap that catches liars when they can’t keep track of their lies and so contradict themselves.

You are conflating the general idea of genetic causation with the specific idea of genetic interest. “In the same statement” he is merely denying that he is motivated by the latter consideration and accepting an underlying genetic causation of white cultural distinctness. There is no fallacy, confusion, or contradiction implied in the belief that white genes are worth preserving, not because it is in our genetic interest to desire their perpetuation, but because they provide the biological framework without which our culture and civilisation cannot be sustained.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 02:25 PM | #

Another thing about Jobling I agree with, which some have pointed out, is the viciousness of his attacks on pillars of our side like MacDonald is almost to the point of according to things that are less important than race-replacement greater importance than race-replacement.  (Jewish feelings about the scholarship of Kevin MacDonald are less important than race-replacement, Ian.  Don’t be an asshole.)

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 02:26 PM | #

And what, of this culture, is us?  Is culture a separate entity to personality?  What, if anything, is real and truly belongs to us in culture and in ourselves, and what does not?

These are profound questions, GW, and I can only offer a very short answer for now (I plan to offer lengthier posts dealing with these questions).  Culture is a complex group phenotype, a manifestation of our collective Being.  As a phenotype, it is not fundamental in the ontological sense.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 02:27 PM | #

But you’re saying a tautology there, EX-TORY.  Everybody knows that and it’s trivial.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 02:29 PM | #

OK I’m out of this discussion about Jobling now.  Have fun, guys.

Posted by EX-TORY on May 28, 2009, 02:42 PM | #

Fred Scrooby wrote: But you’re saying a tautology there, EX-TORY.

There is nothing tautologous in the belief that white genes are worth preserving because they provide the framework without which our culture and civilisation perishes. Your objection to Jobling’s statement, on the other hand, is grounded in an obvious conflation of the general idea of genetic causation with the specific idea of genetic interest. When these ideas are properly distinghuished from one another, it is impossible to show any contradiction on Jobling’s part in (a) denying that he is motivated by his ‘genetic interests’ in his desire to preserve white civilisation and (b) accepting that white civilisation is racially genetic in origin. Your whole argument, and that of Dasein, is based on an obvious conflation of these two distinct concepts.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 03:11 PM | #

Racial separation can only be justified by the fact that the races are indeed different and produce different cultures and civilisations. If all races were the same, then replacing one race with another would merely be an exchange of two identical and interchangeable units.

If same could be interpreted as indistinguishable, then you’re still leaving the door open for race-replacement.  Depending on environmental conditions, the races could be made indistinguishable.  Granted, it would take a whole lot more state violence to make it possible.  But you’re still left with no counter to those who would say that they can adapt environment (or non-White population) to create equality on whatever cultural trait you can say matters.  And if one were to say that culture is produced by an elite (court musicians, Hollywood), what’s wrong with having a significant group of non-Whites around to consume that culture?  Culture is too nebulous a term to provide a solid defense against race-replacement.  It appeals to Jews because they currently dominate the commanding heights of culture.

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 28, 2009, 04:02 PM | #

Thanks for digging up that thread Loriver. On rereading it I’m rather satisfied with my criticisms of Johnson/Jobling/Auster and the substanceless non-response provided by Jobling. For shame it’s buried on some obscure anti-LGF site.

I haven’t kept up with all the details of the “anti-jihad” soap opera, but all the infighting is clearly based on what’s best for jews. Johnson, Jobling, and Auster distinguish themselves from each other mainly by how strenuously they oppose “fascists” (Johnson), “judeo-obsessives” (Jobling), and “anti-semites” (Auster). Protecting jews is the foundation for their anti-jihadism and for their demonization of any White who distinguishes their interests from jews. In separating and defending distinctly jewish interests but demonizing Whites who do the same all three are hypocritical to their core. That is however a stereotypical jewish conceit.

Johnson is anti-White. He considers even crypto expressions of White identity and even weak White nationalist instincts detestable. He does not pathologize jewish identity and ardently supports the jewish ethnostate.

Jobling and Auster are faux-White. They use coldly-calculated pro-"w"hite language and tap the vast pool of anti-Whiteness (spawned by jewish-led neoliberalism) to channel the White reaction into...protecting jews! They pretend jews and Whites are all one big happy “white” family - except of course that jews are special and need to be protected from “anti-semitism/judeo-obsession”. Neither of them delve often or deeply into the jewish animus behind neoliberal anti-Whiteness. Neither notes for example that neoliberalism is anti-White and quite distinctly not anti-jew (they even try to pretend it is). When and where they do delve they always end up blaming the problems entirely on “liberals” or “anti-semites/judeo-obsessives”. Their view is that we “whites” are “suiciding” ourselves.

The comparison of the BNP to Jobling or even Auster is fair, though the comparison to American Renaissance is more apt. The difference between BNP/AR and Jobling/Auster is not just political activity. The former are at root pro-Briton/pro-White, while the latter are first and foremost pro-jew.

Before someone accuses me of pretending we’re all one big happy “White” family, minus only jews, I will point out that in speaking of Whiteness I recognize the validity of EGI and appreciate the biopolitical distinctions between the European diaspora’s far-flung and jumbled amalgam and the more intact native European subethnies. I refer to us all collectively as White, largely in recognition that this is precisely how our enemies identify us, whether we accept that label or not. I prefer we work together, but I still support even those Whites with more narrow views of their interests. For example, I recognize the source and validity of Desmond’s resentment of my Whiteness vis-a-vis his Anglo-Saxoness. Like MacDonald, I see White interests as multi-layered. I don’t consider anyone who wishes to preserve their more distinctive inner layers as an enemy. My enemies are those who pretend my interests don’t exist or who try to subordinate them to their own.

This is why I support the BNP, but see Jobling, Auster, and other pro-jew/faux-White dissimulators (Guy White and Fjordman come to mind) as enemies (or at least not worthy of support).

Posted by Guessedworker on May 28, 2009, 04:41 PM | #

Tan

That’s a beautiful articulation of the structure and motives of White American advocacy.  My complements.

Posted by Tanstaafl on May 28, 2009, 05:25 PM | #

GW, I largely credit the diverse pro-White opinions I’ve encountered directly or indirectly through MR for shaping my thoughts. Thanks also to you personally for reaching out when I took my first awkward steps.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2009, 07:00 PM | #

The various continental European nations don’t follow America’s lead on many different issues (large and small).  If these nations were really under America’s spell then I would not expect that to be the case.

It’s not just a “spell”—it’s brute military force.

General Wesley Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO, enunciated the rule:  “There is no place in Europe for ethnically pure states… That’s a nineteenth century idea...”

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2009, 07:44 PM | #

Towards that end, how do the JQ fanatics explain the anti-racist leftism of a typical continental European nation (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc)?  This has always been a sticking point for me since so few Jews actually live in those nations nowadays (seeing as how they all came to America).

This issue was also discussed here:

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

And in great depth here, in my all-time favorite comment thread:

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

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 08:06 PM | #

ben tillman,

That quote from Wesley Clark doesn’t prove anything and doesn’t answer any questions, it is merely suggestive.

Also, I appreciate your linking of Phil Peterson’s MR piece on Sweden (from back in 2005); however, Peterson was essentially making my point in the following paragraphs:

Sweden has a tiny number of Jews. They are very few in number and their political influence is negligible. Anyone who questions this needs to look at the sheer number of UN Resolutions in which Sweden has consistently voted against Israel.

But, it has the exact same problem as the United States! An immigrant population that now constitutes a higher percentage of its total than even America (the highest percentage of foreign born in the US was before the beginning of World War I). Sweden has accomplished this without any Jewish involvement, any Jewish money, Jewish academics or Jewish left-wing fanatics (who shall be dealt with appropriately in later blog entires).

So how did it happen? What went wrong?

If you reread the entire piece you’ll see that Peterson couldn’t find an answer to this question either.

I continue to maintain that there is a conundrum for GW’s Single Causers.  Namely, our race is in peril throughout the globe in spite of the fact that Jewish influence (in White nations) is heavily concentrated in the Anglosphere.  Sweden is just one counterexample.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2009, 08:13 PM | #

But Sweden isn’t a counterexample.  Please read the comments on those threads.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 28, 2009, 08:18 PM | #

And in great depth here, in my all-time favorite comment thread:

Ah, those were the days.  I thought I might have a map in my hands, and it was a landscape painting all along.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 08:59 PM | #

ben tillman,

But Sweden isn’t a counterexample.  Please read the comments on those threads.

The only thing I found interesting in those comments was a commenter by the name of “Hincha”, who claimed Swedish ancestry and said that the Jews control everything in Sweden just like in the U.S.  Naturally, he didn’t provide any evidence for this claim nor did he try to harmonize it with Peterson’s observations, so it’s hard to know what to make of it.

GW,

Ah, those were the days.  I thought I might have a map in my hands, and it was a landscape painting all along.

No no no.  You see we have this skeleton key that answers all of our riddles and reveals the solution to all of our problems, we just need the courage to use it.  There is no landscape.

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2009, 09:42 PM | #

Towards that end, how do the JQ fanatics explain the anti-racist leftism of a typical continental European nation (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc)?  This has always been a sticking point for me since so few Jews actually live in those nations nowadays (seeing as how they all came to America).

Are you saying the Japanese blew themselves up in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  I guess so—the American population in those cities was minuscule, much less than the Jewish population in Sweden.

And obviously no Jews were gassed by the Nazis; even Orthodox historians tell us that the population in the gas chambers was often 100% Jewish and always 0% Nazi.  Obviously Jewish suicide!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 09:45 PM | #

A couple of excellent pieces by Prozium:  this one (posted today),

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/05/28/raimondo-libertarians-and-paleos/ ,

puts the libertardians in their right place.  Proze dwells here on Justin Raimondo but they’re all fundamentally the same — Perry de Havilland, the whole lot. 

The next piece, which addresses Skeptical’s questions, is so good I’ll paste it — it summarizes Proze’s view of what has made whites embrace so warmly and so enthusiastically their own race-replacemnet genocide:

Response to Gottfried

Why are whites so degenerate? Why have they imposed race suicide upon themselves?

- Having followed the WN scene for about eight years now, I can say that in all that time I have never heard a white racialist argue that whites are genetically partial to sound ideas (quite the contrary), so I fail to see what WNs in particular should have to answer for in this case.

- Any given individual, white or nonwhite, is capable of entertaining a bad idea. Why have whites alone come to see their own race replacement as morally justified?

- Humans are social beings. We also rely upon authority figures to discern truth from falsehood. The vast majority of humans are not independent thinkers. They mimic elite opinion in order to preserve their own social status. At the moment, white racial consciousness is deeply taboo and associated with low social status. This explains why 90% of non-elite whites feel the way they do about race.

- Why then has white, Western elite opinion come to associate “racism” and “anti-Semitism” with low status?

- This was not always the case. Up until the 1920s, “racism” and “anti-Semitism” were not taboo in the West, but the transformation was complete by 1965. Why did white, Western elite opinion change during this time period?

- A combination of reasons:

#1. The revulsion against Nazi racism in the West during the Second World War.

#2. The victory of the Allies in the Second World War and the rise of the United States to an interventionist world superpower, which spread the triumphant anti-racism around the world to countries like Ireland and Sweden..

#3. The anti-racist ideology of the Soviet Union. In order to compete with the Soviets for influence in the Third World, Western elites adopted the anti-racism of the USSR as their own.

#4. The reigning liberalism of the day in Britain and America explains their negative reaction to Nazi racism.

#5. The attack on “racism” by insurgent Jews in the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology) undermined the scientific basis of “race.”

#6. “Anti-Semitism” became taboo in the West after WW2. Afterwards, the barriers to Jewish professional advancement began to fall. Jewish enrollment at Ivy League universities exploded. As Jews became more powerful in the U.S. and other countries, they used their wealth and power, especially their influence in the media and other elite institutions, to attack and stigmatize white racial consciousness.

#7. Racial distinctions were always a nuisance to the sheer greed of Western capitalists, who aligned themselves with anti-racist white liberals and upwardly mobile Jews.

#8. The rise of the anti-racist “conservative movement” of William F. Buckley and National Review in the United States, which quickly became and has remained the false opposition to the liberal status quo ever since.

#9. The revolutionary impact of modern telecommunications (radio, television, internet).

#10. The equalitarian strain within Christianity in the context of 1 - 8.

#11. Higher enrollment at American universities since the GI Bill after WW2.

#12. The degenerate, unnatural living environment of suburbia which three generations of whites have been raised in.

#13. The ideal of expressive individualism promoted in the media which is corrosive of all collective affiliations.

#14. The racial homogeneity of the areas where anti-racism has sunk the deepest roots, such as the American Deep North, insulates anti-racist whites from the consequences of their bad ideas.

#15. Disciplinary institutions like the SPLC and ADL which maintain the status quo by threatening the income and social status of dissident whites and their organizations.

#16. Generations of bad ideas and the hyperindividualism of American racialists continues to stiffle their attempts to form an effective resistance.

#17. In some countries, ethnic opportunism has been a factor: white ethnics (Slavs, Italians) siding with non-whites (other ‘outsiders’) against the native white majority (’insiders’).

#18. The vast majority of whites still feel like ‘insiders’ in their countries. This inhibits their ability to develop a feeling of alienation from the status quo and explains their attachment to organizations like the GOP.

( http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2008/11/12/response-to-gottfried/ )

As can be seen, the quality here is vintage Proze.  Not everybody can do it this well.

“Many are called; few are Prozium.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 09:56 PM | #

For what it’s worth (not much I admit, compared to Proze’s efforts above, and those who know my stuff don’t need to look, it’s more of the same) here’s a brief couple of cents’ worth I threw into the mix the other day over at OccidentalDissent, in regard to:  WHY IS IT HAPPENING?

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/05/21/silver/#comment-12200

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 09:59 PM | #

ben tillman,

Are you saying the Japanese blew themselves up in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  I guess so—the American population in those cities was minuscule, much less than the Jewish population in Sweden.

I don’t know about you, but I think Jewish subversiveness is characterized by the ethnic hijacking of a modern nation’s collective mind (i.e. media, academia, intelligentsia, entertainment, etc).  This is precisely what’s happened in the U.S., where all forms of media and entertainment are under Jewish governance and where there they have disproportionate influence in the academy and broader intelligentsia.

However, I do think that numbers are needed in order to accomplish this kind of intellectual coup (in contrast to the simple act of dropping nukes).  It is on these grounds that I find it hard to believe that a smattering of Jews in continental Europe (save France) can accomplish the same thing as 5.3 million Jews in America.  At some point, common sense has to give way here.

And obviously no Jews were gassed by the Nazis; even Orthodox historians tell us that the population in the gas chambers was often 100% Jewish and always 0% Nazi.  Obviously Jewish suicide!

I think this was a failed attempt at sarcasm, irony, or both.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 28, 2009, 10:10 PM | #

5,000 Jews riot, twenty million Canadians lose their freedom.

http://ezralevant.com/2009/05/three-great-editorial-comments.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 10:12 PM | #

They’re a much bigger percentage of the élites than of the general population, Skeptical.  The élites run things.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 10:18 PM | #

Scrooby,

They’re a much bigger percentage of the élites than of the general population, Skeptical.  The élites run things.

O.K., so would you like to hazard a guess as to what percentage of continental Europe’s elites are Jewish?  Keep in mind that according to recent census data, Jewish people make up roughly 0.3% of continental Europe (excluding the U.K.).

By the way, I agree with you that the elites run things.

Posted by Dasein on May 28, 2009, 10:19 PM | #

The next piece, which addresses Skeptical’s questions, is so good I’ll paste it — it summarizes Proze’s view of what has made whites embrace so warmly and so enthusiastically their own race-replacemnet genocide:

On the subject of Whites warmly embracing their coming race-replacement, I offer the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJiczgsbR10

It’s from the Germany’s Next Top Model competition final last week.  Of course the sound engineers can make the crowd sound much louder than it is, but I get the impression that many there were hysterically happy that an Ethiopian won this.  Then again, Cologne (where this was filmed) is over 30% non-White, so perhaps the crowd had a large number of non-Germans.  Somehow it’s ironic that this competition took place on the weekend before the big celebrations in Berlin for the 60th anniversary of the BRD’s constitution.  This girl is really the Bundesrepublik Deutschland’s Top Model.  And this same weekend the top story on the website of Die Zeit (the weekly paper in Germany) was an interview with some British evolutionary biologist with the title ‘My advice: marry a Nigerian’.  One ray of hope though.  The shooting of Benne Ohnesorg in 1967, which is credited with having radicalized the student movement and brought the current generation of race-replacement enthusiasts (die 68’er) to power was discovered to have been carried out by a policeman who was an agent of the East German secret service (Stasi), as was the first photographer on the scene.  At some point leftists are going to have to admit that they’ve been dupes (though perhaps they will only do so as a defense at their trials for genocide).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 10:21 PM | #

The Ezra Levant piece Desmond linked a couple above is must reading.  Be sure to read the entire thing, down to the piece’s bitterly ironic concluding sentences.  Very educational.

By the way, Ezra Levant deserves great credit for the relative open-mindedness he’s displayed ever since he’s been caught in the snares of these Stalinist hate-speech tribunals.  Yes, yes, yes, had he never been caught he’d never have demonstrated this fair side of himself.  But he was and he has demonstrated it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 10:31 PM | #

Here’s my reply, Skeptical:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/05/21/silver/#comment-12304

Posted by ben tillman on May 28, 2009, 10:46 PM | #

I think this was a failed attempt at sarcasm, irony, or both.

No, it’s a direct refutation of your thesis.

A population can be harmed by influences from outside of the space occupied by that population.

don’t know about you, but I think Jewish subversiveness is characterized by the ethnic hijacking of a modern nation’s collective mind (i.e. media, academia, intelligentsia, entertainment, etc).  This is precisely what’s happened in the U.S., where all forms of media and entertainment are under Jewish governance and where there they have disproportionate influence in the academy and broader intelligentsia.

You’ve been presented with facts indicating direct Jewish control of much of the “Swedish” mass media, and we have no reason to believe that the managers of other media operations have not fully adopted the Jewish ideology.  In fact, you’re conceding it!  You just think that, in a miraculous coincidence, Swedes have through an entirely independent process adopted precisely the same ideology for reasons other than Jewish influence!

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 10:54 PM | #

Fred Scrooby,

Here’s my reply, Skeptical:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/05/21/silver/#comment-12304

Alright, I followed the link and understand your point.  But lets be clear that your argument is not that Jews dominate the continental European elite it is instead that Jews dominate the U.S. (something we both agree on) and that continental Europe slavishly imitates America on matters of race-replacement.  So far so good I think.

It seems more likely to me that continental Europe is engaging in race-replacement independently from the U.S., if it were not so then by what mechanism is American Jewry coordinating continental Europe’s race-replacement regime?  The New York Times?!  The U.S. Department of State?!  I really can’t think of a good candidate here.

Posted by q on May 28, 2009, 10:58 PM | #

What are the odds we can save a race of people whom are hellbent on destroying themselves? Answer: “Six million” to one ... that is unless we can discover an antidote to the disease of Liberalism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:12 PM | #

Skeptical, a lot of factors came together and the Jews are the ring-leaders.  The man-hating bulldyke-lesbians aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, the Homintern aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it (including the Vatican homo establishment), the el mucho sicko mainstream Prods aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, clueless women voters aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, eunuchoid SWPL males aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, Negroes (Mexes, Subcons, Arabs, Moslems, Orientals, etc.) aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, the big non-Jewish international capitalist thieves aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it (what relatively few of them there are compared to the numbers of Jews in this role), dumb whites who live where they’ve never seen a Negro in their lives so have no idea the fire they’re playing with aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, the communists aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, the libertardians aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it, white women who crave Negro cock aren’t the ring-leaders but they’re in it (oops! some things are better left to the imagination but you get the picture), etc.  The Jews are the ring-leaders.  That’s how I see it.  Don’t tell Ian or FJ, we don’t want to be the cause of any major fantods, vapour attacks, or conniption fits.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 11:13 PM | #

ben tillman,

Now now, there’s no need to get worked up about this stuff.  We’re only debating a finer point of our race’s global problem.

You’ve been presented with facts indicating direct Jewish control of much of the “Swedish” mass media, and we have no reason to believe that the managers of other media operations have not fully adopted the Jewish ideology.

This is just not true.  I have been referenced to a few dodgy websites that gave a handful of names and a commenter named “Hincha”.  Ideally, I would have liked to see the Swedish version of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique in addition to some hard statistics.

You just think that, in a miraculous coincidence, Swedes have through an entirely independent process adopted precisely the same ideology for reasons other than Jewish influence!

I think the deeper answer to our problem exists within the common denominator of race and not within any particular ethnic group.

As a commenter on MR I would expect you to believe that race has something to say about society and that societies that share a common racial makeup are bound to share many other things as well.  Surely that’s not hard to understand.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:18 PM | #

“What are the odds we can save a race of people who are hellbent on destroying themselves?  Answer:  ‘Six million’ to one” ... (—q)

Well put.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:24 PM | #

Skeptical, what can a group accomplish in the way of domestic and international influence, propaganda, and just general “control of the agenda and of what gets said and thought” — what can a group accomplish, along those lines, a group which totally controls the mainstream media of the United States of America, has the damn thing in one-hundred-percent lockdown, and has for forty years (and prior to that had it in, what — fifty percent lockdown?  Something like that)?

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 11:25 PM | #

Scrooby,

Look, we really agree on practically everything.

My stance is that Jewish influence is responsible for the hegemony of anti-racism in the U.S. and probably the Anglosphere writ large.  Moreover this is amply supported by a great deal of evidence, which is buttressed by the fact that continental Europe’s most subversive Jews came to America in the early-to-mid 20th century (i.e. Adorno, Marcuse, Boaz, etc) for obvious reasons.

That said, I don’t think Jews have supernatural powers, which is what some around here apparently believe.  This means that I have a hard time believing that Jews can control a nation like Austria when Austria has fewer Jews than Iran (ditto for Denmark)!  A phenomena this incredible calls for some kind that mechanism that no around here has yet to provide.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:27 PM | #

Actually, when you read Henry Ford they had it in something approaching lockdown as far back as the teens and twenties.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 11:28 PM | #

Scrooby,

totally controls the mainstream media of the United States of America, has the damn thing in one-hundred-percent lockdown, and has for forty years (and prior to that had it in, what — fifty percent lockdown?  Something like that)?

Yes, Jews control The New York Times, Hollywood, and all the rest.  But what does this mean to Scandinavia?  Do you really think they learned race-replacement from The New York Times and Hollywood movies like Terminator Salvation?  Really!?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:29 PM | #

The U.S. strongly influences the rest of the Eurosphere, Skeptical.  Not just influences but coerces behind the scenes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:32 PM | #

“Do you really think they learned race-replacement from The New York Times and Hollywood movies”

Exactly.  And MTV and all the rest of it, plus there’s behind-the-scenes government-to-government and industry-to-industry coercion the public never sees.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 28, 2009, 11:35 PM | #

And as Ben has pointed out, the Jews have an extremely strong position in Scand mainstream media.  Britain and France have large domestic Jewish presences who influence matters enormously at home in those nations and exert influence beyond Britain’s and France’s borders just as the U.S. does.

Posted by skeptical on May 28, 2009, 11:38 PM | #

Scrooby

[skeptical] “Do you really think they learned race-replacement from The New York Times and Hollywood movies”

[Scrooby] Exactly.  And MTV and all the rest of it, plus there’s behind-the-scenes government-to-government and industry-to-industry coercion the public never sees.

O.K.