Category: Liberalism & the Left
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
by Daniel Sienkiewicz
When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]
Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.
In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.
In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.
These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.
Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism. We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it. Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay. Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.
I am English. My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples. These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us. Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified. But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence. As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority. My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.
By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event. But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man. As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster. But he cannot. He just can’t do it. Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.
Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies. “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.
I might not contribute much to the thread myself. The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens. However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...
I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey. Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science. But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.
It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history. Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos). Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion. But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel. One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.
Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance. It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant. Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race. In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.
I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument. Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.
I doubt it somehow.
My reply is reproduced below the fold.
by Graham Lister
In the Anglophone world, in particular where it has been picked up by cultural studies, the term ‘body’ is a fairly reliable warning of hot air to come: a flashing sign for the sensible and time-poor to stay well away. But there are exceptions. One of which might well be The Coming of the Body by Hervé Juvin, in which premonitions of a new and radical regime of individualism under the aegis of the human body, as life distends and capital mutates to meet it, emerge (somewhat incongruously) from the French insurance industry.
Social agendas in the West are in flux, as new kinds of issues gain salience - pension provision, immigration policies, reproductive rights, marital arrangements. Juvin’s contribution belongs to the genre concerned with such issues; illustrated with an abundance of striking data, and delivered with an intellectual mordancy and crisp literary style that remain, even today, peculiarly French. The author might also be regarded as a very particular and local phenomenon. In the Anglophone world business and culture are typically strangers, yielding at best, earnest middle-brow apologetics at the level of Adair Turner’s “Just Capital”; but in France the intellectual executive is a not unfamiliar or strange figure. Operating within the insurance world, Juvin writes without any overt political attachments.
“The Coming of the Body” announces a time when the human body has started to pre-empt all other measures of value in the West, separating the experience of contemporary generations from that of all predecessors, and the rest of the world. The basis of this sea change lies in the spectacular transformation of life expectancy. When the Revolution broke out in 1789, the average span of life in France was 22. By 1900 it was just under 45. Today, it is 75 for men, and over 83 for women, and continually increasing. Quoting Juvin; “We have every reason to hope that one girl out of two born in France since 2000 will live to be a hundred years old”. This prolongation of life is “the present that a century of blood and iron has left us - the present of a life that has doubled”. It amounts to “the invention of a new body, against need, against suffering and against time; against the world too - the world of nature, which was destiny”. The gift is restricted to the rich. “An entire generation will soon separate Europe from its neighbours to the south, when the median age of its population passes 50 (towards 2050), while that of the Maghreb remains under 30”. If we were from the developing world we too would be desperately doing everything within our powers to make it to the West.
… against the pathological left, anyway.
I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online. They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport. Perhaps they do.
They are certainly not very sporting themselves. They never answer questions. With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic. But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything. The answers just aren’t there.
The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:
The rest of the article is worth a browse. The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.
Next stop Cool Britannia?
This piece in Saturday’s Daily Mail could not be allowed to pass without comment here, even at the very real risk of re-igniting the Cock-up or Conspiracy debate that inflamed passions around these parts not so long ago. Has there been a single confirmed Scrooby sighting since?
While the Mail article succeeds in its obvious aim of getting the readers stoked up (almost 600 overwhelmingly hostile comments so far) it fails to add any real context or search for greater meaning, taking the opportunity to slag off Tony Blair being apparently an end in itself.
But, we perhaps we need to probe a little deeper ...
Der Struwwelpeter is one of the most famous German children’s books. Written in 1844 by Heinrich Hoffmann, it consists of 10 illustrated rhyming stories, most of which depict children being subjected to fantastic punishment for misbehaviour. One such story is “Die Geschichte von den schwarzen Buben” (The Story of the Black Boys). In it, 3 boys are punished by St. Nicholas for teasing a negro kid passing the city gates. What follows is my translation of the German. It might sound a bit awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original meaning as possible (the English translation changes the story somewhat).
by Christian Miller ©
Most violence and violent rhetoric is leftist in origin. As the left has a firm grip on the reins of mainstream media, it should come as no surprise that the right is the scapegoat for the sins of the left. The irony is that the left is guilty of what its favorite leftist psychologist, Sigmund Freud, coined “projection.” The left denies its own violent actions and rhetoric and instead ascribes it to its chief political opposition - the right. The left projects its own violent tendencies upon the right through extensive use of media propaganda. “Right-wingers” are immediately blamed for any outburst of random violence perpetrated by isolated and disturbed individuals, yet the entire history of leftist aggression, angry rhetoric, and physical violence is swept into the dustbin of history. Leftist riots, leftist terrorists, leftist serial bombers, leftist calls for genocide - all of these sink down the memory hole, purposefully eclipsed by a barrage of stories about right-wing violence. Reality is quite different.
Worldwide, the left-wing forces of communism are responsible for more than 100 million civilian deaths in the Twentieth Century. Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other communist-controlled nations became killing fields in the name of social progress - a favorite term of the left. America mistakenly believes that Marxism and leftism largely died with the fall of the Soviet Union, but the parasite merely changed hosts.
In the dawn of the new century, the American left and incognito left - neoconservatives who infiltrated the Republican Party to subvert it toward leftist ideas - pounded war drums that led to the second invasion of Iraq. The mainstream media conveniently places the blame for this war upon the right, covering up the fact that neoconservative ideology is merely leftism in strategic disguise. The neoconservative infiltrators of the Republican Party were the catalyst for the second invasion of Iraq and these leftists-in-disguise were aided and abetted by most mainstream leftists in government and media. The elite leftist press and Democratic Party politicians were firmly in favor of invading Iraq. Combined with their neoconservative compatriots at the spear’s point, there seemed to be a “consensus” regarding Iraq - but few understood that it was a leftist consensus. Nation-building, foreign intervention, and pre-emptive war are not genuine conservative values. They are the hallmarks of a leftist, a person who wishes to impose ideologies upon the rest of the population by force, all in the name of “progress.
The two dominant racial stories currently on the Daily Mail website are the pursuit and stabbing of Nicholas Pearton in South London by six negro gang-members and the lift from The Times about the “tidal wave” of Muslim grooming of white girls in the North. They are both very emotive stories. They are both completely ignored by the left-wing press and the BBC. Google has removed all links to the original Times story and the Daily Mail version. It is completely clear that white lives do not mean anything to the people involved in those decisions. What does matter is the progress of the MultiCult. At all human costs, if those humans are white.
Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen. They are white liberals. The political malice and detachment from reality, the evident unwillingness to comprehend that but for honesty and responsibility among journalists like themselves these terrible events and thousands of others like them might never have happened ... all that belongs to the liberal mind. My question is: how did that mind come to this vile and complicitous estate? How did it arrive not just at the point where it is content that the lives of hundreds of young girls and their families be ruined and young boys be murdered, but where it actually chooses it as a preferred outcome? Consistently, over a period of years?
I don’t have a real answer. But here are what seem to me to be a few clues.
1. Psychologically, the willingness to submit strangers to harm is associated with an exaggerated respect for authority. The Milgram experiments of the early 1960s demonstrated exactly this. Liberalism in its philosophical conception was a retort to the power of the Catholic Church, and it retains the teleological essentials of religion. Indeed, its ultimate meaning is the replacement of God with Man the Creator. The liberal is a religious. Would he not, then, invest his politics with religious authority, and find therein the need for a religious obedience?
2. The very essence of obedience is the objectification of one’s own role as an instrument of authority, rather than as a fully human being responsible for his own choices. The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good, and if one day he is brought before due process that is exactly what he will plead.
3. We observe liberals projecting loathing onto others on a daily basis. Projection is obviously a significant factor in the psychology of the liberal. It is also very apparent to us that liberals, in their desire to demonstrate their doctrinal purity, can be extravagant in their denial of humanity to their own people, as well as their approbation of it in others. How difficult can it be, then, for these people to view white children as objects of no account?
4. Not every person has the right psychological profile to inflict harm in this mechanical way upon other people. It seems likely to me that part of that profile must involve a strong capacity for self-delusion. We, of course, are well aware that the radical, self-authorial individualism which energises liberal politics is a fiction. Yet I have encountered scores of ordinary, little liberalistic people who insist on their own peerless sovereign individualism. They are fooling themselves, every one.
By contrast, nationalists have to hack their own truths out of the political rocks, and withstand the gale of ideological hatred while they do it. They are genuinely independent of mind (as well as often quite eccentric). They tend to argue a great deal with one another too - something liberals are not noted for.
That’s about it. It aggravates my soul that there are people in this world who would conspire to remove news about negro youths and Pakistani males for the sake of white dispossession. That they have the power to do it, too, is almost too much. Sometime someone is going to have to pay.
UPDATE - THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MOSLEM CHILD GROOMING, BUT BEGINS TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE TERMS OF DEBATE
Dear Have Your Say contributor,
Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below.
Posts to the BBC website may be removed if they are considered abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, disablist, homophobic or racially offensive, or disruptive to discussion. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house
You can read the House Rules in full here:
Please do not reply to this email. For information on appeals visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#canappeal
Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.
The BBC Moderation Team
URL of content (now removed):
Subject: Should schools teach pupils about the dangers of weapons?
Posting: If we cannot even be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge on the BBC that gun and knife crime is substantially a pathology of black youths, how on earth can we do anything about it?
In short, it is no longer even capable of honestly confronting the massive problems that it’s creating nor can it make due on its many promises. It is characterized by cowardice, exhaustion, and fear. The Sword of Damocles is starting to wobble a bit.
But we’re only going to consider this in microcosm right now, which means - yes - another clip from Bloggingheads.tv.
Comes now Mr. Adam Serwer who is a young and up-and-coming lefty that writes for The American Prospect, I believe he is Jewish with a shade of Black blood - a real man for our time. His interlocutor is Mrs. Amy Wax who is here to discuss with Adam her new book, “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies”. And here is where things get interesting, Mrs. Wax happens to be a liberal who is really concerned about the hopelessly dysfunctional state of the American underclass (both Black and Hispanic), she is worried that their situation is quickly going from bad to worse and that we - the collective liberal elite - have abandoned these people. Of course, she is right; the liberal elite have abandoned these people because they don’t give a damn about them, the colored underclass is just a voting farm and an object to be manipulated for the left’s benefit.
But they are a growing problem, and I think Mrs. Wax senses that we can’t continue to ignore their dysfunctionality forever because, well, eventually we won’t be able to.
Mr. Serwer - the future of the left and a man for our time - is having none of this, with his gaze always shifted to the side he spits out the standard retorts and the mindless babble that passes for conventional thinking. Mrs. Wax won’t have any of it in return, which means an entertaining spectacle for the likes of us is about to take place. Enjoy.
Mr. Serwer is, for me, just another piece of evidence for why the left is finished and exhausted.
Nietzsche said that after euroman lost Christianity, he would go searching for other things. Big N propounded the Overman as a conduit for his effort, dreaming, and aspirations.
In the West we had less teleological furore to become an archetype of greatness and accomplishment, I think it was Germany’s scatteredness, comparative powerlessness and unsuccessful self-assertion that kept these fires burning so brightly there. But in the west we had the beginnings of a different kind of cult: the religion of the end of suffering. Its a kind of noblesse oblige which, as best I can imagine, began to form in western Europe after it had become clear that we had ‘beaten the game’ - i.e. enjoyed centuries of technological and cultural flowering.
It coincides with man turning inward, and a forward development in sensibility. The question is posed if a society can concentrate on these things without losing its ability to weaponize, etc. Its an open and many-sided question.
But there is no doubt that we have an incipient religion which is the religion of the end of suffering. According to this religion, the bounty of white sociobiology and technological progress should be not just used but used up, if required, to heal the ills of everyone.
The belief is that suffering is unnecessary and has no place in the world, that it has no lesson to teach us. Suffering is “a wrong outcome” and is just that: simply wrong. Starving in Africa? Wrong. People not able to afford things which you view as being prerequisites of human existence? Wrong. People living with a lower living standard than you could tolerate? Wrong. Disease? So wrong. Dying children? Utterly wrong.
To me the arrogance of it is pretty breathtaking since, to my mind, suffering is a part of life that is as meaningful and has as much to teach us as happiness does. Potentially much more. Suffering is a lesson for man.
But rather than critique, I just want to hold up for your perusal one of the most beautiful expressions of this religion. It is Pink Floyd’s song On the Turning Away:
White Nerd: You know, I really like rap music, because the singer is talking about his struggle. And I really identify with that. Like, I have my own struggle, you know, each of us has our own struggle.
Black security guard: Struggle? What do you know about struggle?
White Nerd: Like my struggle to fit in with my peers, find out what I want to do with my life, find companionship, get out of my parent’s control, etc.
Black security guard: You call that a struggle? How can you call that a struggle?
White Nerd: What do you mean?
Black security guard: You know what a struggle is, not having enough money to have a new pair of shoes.
White Nerd: um ...
Black: Finding out your baby sister just got knocked-up by a crack head!
White: uh ...
Black: Growing up not knowing who you’re daddy is! Thats a struggle!
White: ull ...
Black: Havin’ your mom killed by a drug dealer when you was two! Thats what a struggle is!
White: uff ...
Black: Every day hearing shots and not being sure, if your friends is out there dyin’! Thats a struggle!
White: utt ...
Black: What’choo want to tell me about a struggle? What’choo know about a struggle?
White: udd ...
Black: You means to tell me, when you’se in your pretty white house, that you sometimes ride around in your nice car, and feel sad about yourself, because you’ daddy didn’t understand you? Is you sad because your friends don’t understand you? Is that your struggle?
White: urr ...
Black: Cuz let me tell ya somethin’ son, that aint’ nothin’.
- End of fake discussion -
This is a question, open-ended, for your consideration, stemming from debates with liberal friends ...
A recurring picture-argument is that of the possibility of a universal Renaissance, conditioned on the possibility that all people everywhere get a middle-class white upbringing. Essentially this scheme would graft onto the private lives of numberless ghetto-dwellers the kind of nurturing, loving, book-reading childhood enjoyed by upwardly-mobile middle class whites. This is justified because the liberal formulating the argument understands that patterns of behavior are given their first impetus by parents when the child is young. That component of non-genetic variation which is formed by imprinting in childhood is the wiggle-room they need to make everyone theoretically conformable to European standards of behavior.
A person adept at truth search would have to detect in themselves, were they to find themselves arguing in this way, the existence of a cherished hypothesis beating a hasty retreat into a shadowy corner of plausibility where its premises can evade inspection ... for the moment. Realizing that one cherished a hypothesis, which is a sin in the truth search, one would have to take steps to remedy it. But since our liberal friends might not be tainted by that degree of enthusiasm, we have to encounter this argument on its own terms and not point out how suspiciously it resembles certain things you might have learned to recognize from elsewhere ...
Its not clear which entity would ‘reach in’ at the appropriate time to prevent the inappropriate behavior while the non-whites are being upbring-ated. Who would shop for them, and choose healthy groceries? Who would prevent the Dad from drinking? Who would prevent the mother from spending 20+ hours watching television? Who would allocate the spending of money which resulted in enough money being left over for cultural events such as attending art museums? Who would attend to the thousand little details (time allotted? car keys? everyone present? enough gas? directions?) which in the absence of real motivation to go to the art museum, give birth to myriad rationalizations about why it need not happen. In the absence of the DNA-sprung desire to see art, explore and understand the world, who would explain to the children the context of what was being seen, and tie it into a larger narrative emerging from adult experience and knowledge? Who would prompt the natively-uninterested person to bring up the same issues later at the dinner table, sustaining a living interest in what had been experienced? Are government entities going to do this? Individual concerned citizens?
by Potential Frolic
Perhaps morality consists in individual rules or Sententiae stored somewhere in the mind. These would be abstract image-calculation algorithms, where one plugs in the images of other people and things to get the result. Then again perhaps morality consists in matrices containing perspectives of other people with whom one is close. We could imagine a matrix like this:
father, mother, sister, brother, friend1, friend2, teacher, neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 ... etc, etc.
Each item in the matrix represents a perspective that one has acquired or modeled; the word ‘modeling’ reflects accurately the action but implies more consciousness than the matrix-former actually possesses. A more accurate term might be “absorbing other people’s evaluations”. Each perspective contains a list of weighted evaluations of things. Father’s evaluations of doing drugs may be -5, but friend1’s evaluation of doing drugs is +0.5 and friend2’s is 2.5, so friends may prevail with a young person to try drugs. When the young person inhabiting this matrix makes a decision about whether to try drugs, they cross-check each perspective in the matrix for evaluations and arrive at some form of weighted average, which guides their behavior.
by Alexander Baron
An obscure if somewhat bizarre murder case from the State of Texas is back in the news, and the bleeding heart liberals are banging the drum again, this time for a convicted murderess who is facing execution by lethal injection.
Surprisingly, though Linda Carty is black, her principal supporters haven’t quite played the race card; they have though overplayed their hand with an endless stream of half-truths and bland acceptance of demonstrable lies. Carty’s case has garnered a great deal of unwarranted publicity in the UK and has been endorsed uncritically by the mass media because she is said to be a British citizen, a claim that is true only in a purely technical sense. Her supporters have played a tape of her begging for her life, and a cardboard cut out of her was erected on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square during the recent innovative living artwork exhibition. Those like the current writer who have longer memories, suspicious minds and a reluctance to take the top fifty Google listings at face value, will be less than impressed.
According to an article on Reprieve’s website, to which its director, campaigning lawyer Clive Stafford Smith contributed, it’s all down to her incompetent lawyer, a flawed trial and a frame-up, if not by the authorities then by the actual perpetrators. Carty was convicted of the murder of a young mother who was bound, gagged, and stuffed in the boot of a car (that’s the trunk to US readers). The evidence shows clearly that the death of Joana Rodriguez was not an unfortunate accident – which might just have reduced it to second degree murder or even manslaughter - it was an intentional and cruel act. Unlike her, Carty’s co-defendants – whom she had tricked into the kidnapping – were interested only in stealing drugs and money from the apartment the victim shared with her common law husband and his cousin.
Sally Rowan of Reprieve wrote:
Yes, that bad lawyer again, but why should the State of Texas allow the British Government to dictate to it how it should run its criminal justice system - even if the British Government were so minded?
So what exactly are Carty and her supporters claiming?
My reply on the liberal mind thread to our Guardianista OZKT29B - henceforth called Ozy courtesy of Captainchaos - grew rather long. There is a 5,000 character limit on comments, so I thought I would make a new post of it instead. Ozy’s last comment, to which I was responding, is here.
I was happy to follow Lord Arlen’s example and allow you to strike the very first blow. The meat of the conversation, though, will now be on the worth of the beliefs you hold.
Our racial thoughts and instincts are the racial thoughts and instincts of the people. They are no more marginal than is human nature itself. But there is a powerful conflict between human nature and liberalism in the West. Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is the controlling idea of our age. Every person of European descent is enculturated in it, and enculturated thereby in conflict with their own racial thoughts and instincts.
Nationalist philosophy is not at all a formative factor on the psychological landscape. To come to nationalism, then, you must, at some level, realise that your entire understanding of not just politics or even ideas, but life in general, including the acquired part of the Self, has been unconsciously absorbed, and all life long you have defended the result quite unconsciously too - just as you are defending it today.
We are not born with the power to choose the influences we absorb. We walk out in the rain, that is all. Freedom - the real thing, not the liberal confection - consists in recognising this unconsciousness, this power of the acquired, and turning instead towards that which is true in us. Many of us here know this. I think it highly unlikely that you know it.
So ... I am not “perpetuating” any narratives. I am trying to bring you, as quickly as possible, to the beginnings of the understanding that, so far in your life, you have not owned the formative processes of your own mind. Not only, then, are you not free but you cannot be free, regardless of the “liberty” in the liberalism you espouse.
We can discuss in detail what passes for freedom in the liberal canon later.
These days my relationship with the moderators of Comment is Free - Matt Seaton’s censorious defenders of the Guardian faithful - is in a bad way. They know someone who means to cause their poor lambs ideological pain is out there. They don’t like it, and they have their knives out.
Of course they are right. I don’t log-on to engage with their flock in the spirit of fraternal Semitism and peace to all men and man-hating dykes that they intend. Originally, CiF provided an opportunity to test our arguments against the little clutch of undeniably good minds that frequented it. And one or two profitable and educational exchanges were had, for sure. But the good minds grew weary and the moderators wary. The immoderation began with a noticeable narrowing of the discourse perhaps a year ago. References to the meaning for the English of miscegenation were excised more swiftly. The meaning of minoritisation followed. Lately the notion of ultimate and proximate values has gone too. That and the terms “race-replacement” and “left-racism” are no more than invitations to the trigger-happy guardians of ideological purity. The notion that the English have the same natural right as any other people to pass their ancestral land onto their own children seems to be too unimpeachable to delete. For now. But just this afternoon the perfectly respectable idea that violence in society enters at the most formative level of the common conception of the human, if that conception is partial, was deemed too offensive for the ba-bas. Fifteen minutes of my writer’s life was wasted for nothing.
Give them their due, Matt’s boys have become ever more creative in interpreting the house rules to fit their agenda. There are threads on which they memory-hole comments by the dozen, as often as not where the lead article has been ghosted for a government minister. From my experience, the great majority of deletions also result in the ultimate sanction in red just about the comment box: “oh yea, further offence shall ne’er stain this temple of false middle-class virtues. Thou art modded.”
Mehdi Hasan is the senior political editor of New Statesman, which is an organ of the British left Establishment. You can read an email he sent Simon Darby here and, in Britain, listen to a BBC i-player recording of Mehdi’s aggressive anti-BNP views.
Failing that, here’s a post he put up at New Statesman which offers the same rationale:
Now, in that radio interview Mehdi not only made the point that BNP representatives should not be entertained on the airwaves, but if by some chance they were, they must be “challenged”. But with what? What foundational argument does Mehdi have to counter the BNP’s?
So I thought I would invite Mehdi, or any other New Statesman folk, to tell us, and posted the following remarks there:
by David Hamilton
This is Linda Colley professor of History at Princeton and a Wolfson Prize winner; and historian, showing her prejudices in her book, Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850.
The book expresses contemporary orthodoxy. Of today she writes:
To Colley, racism and sexism are the unforgivable crimes - that is code for attacking white males! The British Empire was evil and its “victims” would have been perfect if it were not for us. These themes are still the prevalent ideology now, and are re-interpreted in government policy as moral debts which the beleaguered British people are forced to pay.
Well, I thought we should see how intellectual some Caste academics are. These people, this intelligentsia, are erudite and articulate when talking on comfortable subjects. But when it comes to immigration and national identity they go to pieces and can not talk rationally. They become childish or avoid an objective analysis by retreating into the past.
The David Irving event at the Hilton on Michigan Avenue in Chicago last Friday was much more entertaining than I anticipated. The speech was interrupted briefly by a leftist who popped in at the door of the room like a whackamole and was summarily removed in the same fashion. (This intlrod individual graces this film at 0:20.)
By Dr KR Bolton
Eric Margolis of Canada is one of the most experienced of journalists, with a rare insight into geo-politics. He is an opponent of US global adventurism, and writes for many reputable Canadian newspapers. He has been a lecturer in military history and is widely travelled, a real veteran in international journalism.
Margolis is not afraid to air controversial opinions, albeit ones backed up by deep insights, first-hand experiences, and perspectives of history normally lacking in journalism. On his blogsite Margolis tackled the question of World War II after the comments of Pres. Obama in France marking the Normandy invasion. Writing in a column for 8 June, Margolis states in part:
When I wrote a few years back “An Open Letter to the War Generation” in response to an unsolicited letter that was sent to me, I expressed a largely cynical view of WWII, its origins, purposes and outcomes. Similar opinions have been expressed in addition to Margolis, by Pat Buchanan, and even by the pre-eminent WWII historian Prof. A J P Taylor in his “Origins of the Second World War”.
My “Open Letter” which was aimed at trying to get a veteran to THINK about how they’d been betrayed (in keeping with the opinions I used to hear from NZ vets who were the mainstay of the New Zealand Right when I was a lad first getting interested in politics) was taken up by Australian Dr Toben, an alleged ‘holocaust denier’, and placed at one time of his website for the Adelaide Institute. With much ado, several oddities from the Left, who have the ear of journalists in trying to carve a cheap and easy career for themselves as ‘anti-Nazi crusaders’, have paraded this article – which they never attempt to critique historically – as proof that I am a neo-Nazi etc. In particular Mat Henderson from Australia, whose favourite sport he states is ‘body surfing into fat kids and making them cry’, who has a phobia about ‘fat chicks’ (sic) and who had a really sicko fantasy about Alexander Downer that I’ll not describe here, has referred to this “Open Letter” as proof of my ‘neo-Nazism’. Another oddity, self-described ‘stupid drunk’ Trotskyite Dr Scott Hamilton of Auckland, who has graduated from smearing and threatening fellow communists with trying to establish a name for himself as an ‘expert’ on the pervasive neo-Nazi threat in NZ (like fellow sociologist Dr Paul Spoonley a few decades previously) has stated on such a basis that I work “closely with Toben” (sic); reminiscent of the semiliterate nonsense about me on Wikipedia, which among other things states that I am “a [sic’] associate of the Adelaide Institute.”
Are the likes of Mat Henderson, and Dr Scott Hamilton,– his having a doctorate perhaps again attesting to the poor standards of tertiary education? – now going to rant that Eric Margolis, whom I understand is of Jewish descent, is a ‘neo-Nazi’, a ‘holocaust denier’ etc.? Well, on second thoughts, yes… they probably would… but at least I’d be in good company.
William I Robinson is a sociology professor at University of California, and a specialist in globalisation, particularly in a Latin American context. However, on 28th January this year he gave a more general talk titled The Crisis in Global Capitalism. He’s a pretty long way left, but he thinks he knows a thing or two about the great enemy ... “fascism”.
He talked about it for a little under five minutes in his presentation, starting at 46.24 on the slider. The idea was to answer the question: “What is the ability of the popular classes to resist this transfer of the cost of the crisis onto their shoulders?” Robinson came up with five answers, one of which was the rise of “fascism”. As he says:-
Now, what follows tells us nothing at all about “fascism” but quite a lot about the pitiful ignorance of himself and the left in general. The thing is, they don’t want knowledge. They don’t want to penetrate beyond the usual “resentment and fear” level of analysis of our motivations. They think that’s enough. They are happy with that.
Nonetheless, Robinson feels empowered to pass judgement on us. Here he is doing just that:-
Well, alright. This seems like it might be new and interesting. Whatcha got?
Germany? Would that be the Germany. Next to Austria? Nah, can’t be.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa