Category: Thread Wars
There is a common perception among participants in the thread wars at the Daily Telegraph that an era of some fairly rich pickings is at an end. The editorial line is moving inexorably leftward. The moderation is becoming obsessive and has nothing whatsoever to do with house rules any more. Genuinely right of centre bloggers are leaving. Absurdly leftist academics and outright anti-racists are being provided with platforms.
A number of things could be going on. For one, there is a new American boss who is expected to deliver some exciting and hitherto undreamt of digital future to the Telegraph Media Group. And that is notwithstanding the fact that the Telegraph, probably alone among nationals in Britain, delivers a healthy £60 million profit, mainly from its print titles. Apparently, Jason Seiken is very keen on bottom-up revolutions – meaning it’s the troops who have to come up with creative suggestions for their own areas of activity. Whether the collective stampede to the left is a nervy reaction to that one cannot say. I guess it is more likely than a top-down directive to take the paper to the left, given Seiken’s dislike for that kind of management.
On that basis, Damian Thompson’s truly pathetic mimicry of the lower end of UKIPer commentary does not bode well for his understanding of what the word “creative” might mean. It was Thompson who invited the Hope Not Hate sympathiser Matthew Goodwin and his pal from Manchester, Robert Ford, to begin a blog titled UkipWatch. Two more petty academics have now joined Ford in a polling blog, evidently for the run-in to the May elections.
These creatures aside, the rest of the writing slate is looking markedly unTelegraph-like. Liberal leftists and outright socialists now jostle with goody two-shoes Tory boys. Readers are expected to regard Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan as anti-Establishment figures. It’s all a long way from the promise exhibited by Ed West a couple of years ago, and by Delingpole til the present, of course
Added to this, the switch to the full DISQUS format has entailed more intrusive word-blocking. The moderation has become very tetchy (with some hyper-sensitive protection of the Chosen by, I think, one moderator – a single frank sentence will earn you a ban). I have the feeling that a fair number of nationalists working the DT threads have given up already, and repaired to less problematic sites. There is quite a bit of talk among anti-AGW types today on the final Delingpole thread of giving up on the DT and leaving it to its two AGW fanatics, Geoffrey Lean and Jenny Jones.
It may be that we are victims of our own success, and the shift leftward represents an angry turn against discourse the liberal mind simply cannot deal with. I guess we must have seriously pissed off a lot of people who thought they had control of the ideology, and would never be challenged. How much we have changed reader perceptions I cannot begin to say. Probably very little. There is an argument that newspaper threads are not as useful as propaganda tools as we might like to think. At the same time, we don’t have anything else.
So what to do? Well, carry on for the present. But keep a watching brief on the unfolding hostility of the DT editors and mods. The story might change after the elections, if UKIP don’t do well as expected. If they do, of course, we can expect the panic at Central Office to reach down into the house magazine, and life to remain difficult for the foreseeable future.
The pay-wall at the Daily Telegraph has been oddly ineffective at gating off journalistic output, and the site continues to witness a relentless growth in truth-speaking. Likewise, the cowardly closing of the comment facility of recent “diversity news” stories has not helped the DT editors. The commenting heat has just been turned up on other articles, sometimes with little or no substantive connection to The Great Issue. Clear your cookies if necessary and browse through the comments here. Then have a look at them here, on a thread of an article to the most censored of recent DT subject matter. The DT editors cannot win. The flood-tide cannot be held back.
Personally, I am still devoting an inordinate amount of time to work on the DT threads, employing a variety of user-names to confuse the enemy. They, meanwhile, are still putting up a very poor show, and have not thought of a means by which they may respond to our questions. Generally, they avoid prolonged confrontation. Even obviously convinced anti-racists skip away once their initial smear-tactic has been challenged - they’ve learned not to hang around while their moral worth is investigated. It is clear now that the most tenacious and (self-evidently) committed anti-white commenters are those with non-white family members. Their very defensive worldview is that genetic change to our people now is just the same as genetic change in the ancient world. Wherever the Roman legions went, or Angles, Saxons and Normans, modern Africa and Asia may go likewise. In essence, our people don’t exist except as a capacious bag into which any gene from anywhere can be stuffed without implications for who and what we are. There is nothing to defend.
Yesterday, for example, I was informed here that:
In response I put up a couple of links to gene studies of the British population and said this:
So the political threads of the Daily Telegraph are to be available on a restricted basis to non-subscribers to the print or on-line edition. Whether that basis will be generous enough to preserve the site’s utility for us (that is, as a site where we can offer nationalist analyses without the deadening influence of pre-moderation) remains to be seen. Regular readers of the DT on-line will be well aware that the journalistic output suffers from Red Bus Syndrome. Whenever some event of interest occurs, half-a-dozen articles appear about it within an hour. A restriction to twenty articles a month will considerably hamper selection, and have a scattering effect on our collective presence.
A schwerpunkt is as virtuous in a war of discourse as it is in a war with guns and grenades. The huge progress that has been made over the last couple of years in liberalising speech on the DT threads is largely a product of the weight of nationalist sentiment, not of individual argumentation - excellent though much of that has been. Individuals are easily dealt with moderation-wise. It is when everybody is freed to speak inconvenient truths that the moderators’ battle is lost, and this has been the story at the DT.
One can always subscribe, of course, and then there are no restrictions to access. But what would be the point if the general readership plummets as it did at The Times:
Whether we can remain at the DT or we look for new journalistic soil to till, it is surely worthwhile maintaining the collective presence we have built up. I think that is possible. It may need a site secure from prying eyes as an organisational base. MR is a public medium. But at least we can have a discussion here and now about that and the other options that we have in our war for the freedom to state unambiguously that our people must live.
This comment appeared today on the thread to a Daily Telegraph leader pushing the usual Tory line on immigration. It was posted by theft_act1968. It is one of three comments this poster has fashioned touching on the same subject. He appears to be posting these comments serially.
I have no idea if he is alone in using the terms “The Runnymede Trials” and “The Runnymede Tribunal”, but I like them. They are good word-tools full of stout optimism and moral certainty. I think they could prove useful in roping in anti-Blair types to racial thinking. One of the other two comments is this, incidentally:
“Theft_act1968” is averaging ten recommends a comment, which is pretty good. I am going to start using the Runnymede references too. We’ll see how far this meme can be spread.
As the victims of the very successful Jewish/leftist seizure of the terms of racial debate all across the West, it behoves us to have some respect for this form of warfare. Rhetorical tools come in two forms: those that condition the moral tenor (“racist”, “anti-Semite”, etc) and those that stipulate how to understand the world (“diversity is our strength”, “British-Asians”). Nullifying this toxic language requires more than a selective dismissal of the most commonly used terms. We have to put something in their place that speaks of our worldview, and we have to keep hammering it home. Speaking of which ... Bob Whittaker’s mantra, “Anti-racism is anti-white racism”, has been around long-enough for us to assess its effectiveness. The term “anti-white racist” was used prior to it, of course. But the left on both sides of the pond has heard it. As one would expect, it is dismissive. But its capacity to apply the “racist” term does seem to have been restricted. There has been a blow struck.
The left has also caught on that we are speaking increasingly of a white genocide, and again it is dismissive (for reasons we all understand). The term “race-replacement”, however, is more difficult to reject because of the clear statistical evidence in the public domain. As far as I am concerned, the author of this rhetorical tool was our friend Fred Scrooby. I am only aware of Frank Salter using the term before Fred did, and then not in a rhetorical sense. If MR achieves nothing else, at least we have, through Fred, launched into the world one valuable word-tool.
I think we are missing several tricks in fashioning such word-tools, principally through our intellectually incoherent and casual approach. We need to think much more systematically about how we were out-manoeuvred in the past and about the positives of our worldview. We need to return to the two forms of moral and perceptual tools and work out more precisely what we need to effect a mechanical shift in the way our people think - if we possibly can, given the very tenuous hold we have on public discourse.
Of course, tenuous hold notwithstanding, we are working with the grain. It is easier for us to achieve results than it was for our foes.
Just a quick note to offer my compliments to a Whittaker Task Force that went into action over the last three days at The Washington Post.
Jonathan Capeheart, a black journalist writing for the WP, said he “couldn’t resist clicking” on a link to the Whittaker group’s White House petition to “stop white genocide”. The petition - one of three on this subject, apparently - is posted at the We The People site.
The petition has twenty more days to achieve its supposed goal of 25,000 signatories. The present number of signatories is 630. So, plainly, this is a publicity effort, and Capeheart’s unwitting help is no doubt greatly appreciated. The interesting thing for me, though, is to see in an American setting the exact same moral and intellectual ownership of the discourse that one observes routinely at the DT. Since political correctness and anti-racism are so dominant in the Establishment, and have been so ruthlessly and effectively applied to bludgeon the white instinct for racial survival, one would expect a generality of the non-activist public to express shock and distaste at the sight of white people fighting back. But there is none of that on the WP thread. Two or three anti-racist activists made attempts to belittle the pro-white advocates, but the quality of their argument was quite wretched. One even complained of bullying, which is exactly what these creatures have done for the last two decades or more.
Good job, guys.
Since the BNP demise thread transmogrified into a thread warfare thread, I thought it might be helpful to augment previous advice on comment style and content with a few practical tips on staying alive in the thread war.
Choosing your battleground
Different media have widely differing accessibilities for nationalists and tolerances for nationalist opinion. We are, though, engaged in a war for control of the discourse, and that means finding the level of truth-speaking at which it is possible to participate.
Pre-moderated media, such as the Daily Mail and the BBC, tend not only to exclude the possibility of an exchange of opinion, but weed out radically pro-white comment. These media have, in my view, to be addressed later, if and when the general discourse has been liberalised. The place to start is post-moderated sites on the political right, where the tenor of comment provides more cover. Post-moderated sites on the left, like CiF, New Statesman, and The Independent are good places to conduct raids but are not relevant to the campaign as such (though they have utility when the left is in power).
The Daily Telegraph is clear favourite among the dailies in Britain. It has the advantage of separate DISQUS systems for the general comment and news system and for the blog system, so a user-name ban in one does not imply a user-name ban in the other (a full IP ban does, though).
In the ongoing war of words on the website of the only national daily where some semblance of free speech exists, the poor, benighted anti-racist fraternity, that
Here’s a few, rather disembodied samples of the fine use to which they are threatening to put it, all from the same DT thread titled Hispanics: the rising power in the United States
The Act, by the way, sets a reasonably high bar to prosecution. The Crown must be able to demonstrate not only the presence of language that might be threatening, abusive or insulting, but that racial hatred has been stirred up by same. There has to be a linkage. Further, Section 18 states:
A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.
It is not easy to manufacture an intention to stir up racial hatred from an articulate presentation of the morality of survival.
Now Dan can come along and tell me that it is!
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 ...
The most predictable consequence of proposing the survival of the white race in public places like the DT threads is that those who consider such argument to be “racism”, “prejudice”, et al will pour their bile upon one’s head from the greatest possible height. For many of them, that’s the gutter. But occasionally one who affects to know better will come along, and offer the fruits of a superior education.
Over the last two or three days I’ve been assaulted, for want of a better word, by quite an educated fruit, an Irish homosexual with a bookshelf full of worthy analytical empiricism. His mission was not simply to put the argument for our race’s survival beyond use, but to fatally wound the arguer. The news that race-loyal white men are actually thinking about our existential crisis, and not just reacting conveniently as carriers of the mental disease of “racism ‘n hate”, required an immediate relegation of said thinkers back to the lumpen category.
So our anti-racist hero - his handle is 90Lew90 - set about deriding my arguments as “derivative”, “strawman”, “bullshit”, etc, while informing me that, contrary to my understanding of race and genetics, there is no race but the human race, and anyway “when you breed for pedigree, you have to get sperm from all over the world”.
He put his philosophical pedigree on the line twice, rather tragically. He confused method with methodology, and then wrongly appealed to the Naturalistic Fallacy. A few times he picked at terms I employed in the hope of demonstrating his superior understanding. But mostly, of course, he just stamped his feet and shouted abuse, like the worst anti-racist.
The conversation sprawled over a large part of a very long thread and involved interventions from various friends and foes. I am not entirely sure what lessons to draw from it. Obviously, there is a lot of fear out there among anti-racists. I recall reading an exchange between a couple of Guardianistas two or three years ago in which our oft-made and somewhat triumphal but true claim that they cannot win debates with us was airily dismissed. I thought at the time that their confidence sounded very hollow, and they probably knew that there is something horribly strong and insurmountable in pro-white discourse. Lew offers an extended insight into that hollowness. At no time did he offer a positive argument for the dissolution of the white world, and each time his attacks on specifics were rebuffed he retreated. In the end all that was left was the ad hominem. In the end, all that will be left of anti-racism is a wholly visible white-hatred.
Lew had anticipated an entirely different outcome when he sallied forth, as his opening remarks in one of our exchanges (which I reproduce below) show. I imagine that today he is, somewhere in his head, trying to rationalise his failure to himself, putting a spin on it, sharpening his axe for the next time. But we are developing our ideas all the time. The result for Lew will only ever be worse. Morally and intellectually, it is already too late for anti-racism.
by Leon Haller
A purpose of sites like MR is, or ought to be, the sharing of practical strategies to advance white EGI. Methods of dispute resolution in a White Republic, the ‘unencumbered self’ and its relation to race-liberalism or postmodernity, the existence of God, etc, are all interesting matters. But discussing them hardly directly aids our cause.
Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again ...
Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change.
I started writing a comment on a Yahoo board earlier today (I have posted thousands of pro-white comments in mainstream places over the past dozen years), and ended up producing something longer than I had anticipated. My comment, which responded to an article on current political divisiveness, is hardly ideal (esp insofar as it was written quickly and ‘straight’, with no reflection), but re-reading it it seemed adequate for Americans to use to further the awakening process. Of course, I welcome the suggestions of others (perhaps MR could eventually have a file of repeatable comments for mass distribution depending on the article types at issue - American, UK, continental Europe, crime, general race, race science, immigration, etc). The point is for people to be ‘proselytizing’ to the very maximum extent. I don’t wish to belittle the discussions at MR or similar sites, but isn’t the ultimate purpose of those discussions to change the real world?
One ought to note the fact that three of the poor old Daily Telegraph’s threads have been occupied today by a very race-conscious commentariat.
The first was a news report about an announcement from the Conservative Party that, yes, they are going to “get tough” on immigration. Again. The relentless bile directed towards the natural party of government has been something to behold. My efforts to expand the discourse were rendered redundant by a succession of commenters speaking even more expansively than me.
The second thread concerned another announcement, this time that a garden city is to be built in the Meriden area between Coventry and Birmingham. There is only one reason why this breaking of the ground is necessary, and it has nothing to do with finding homes for young English couples who are first-time buyers. There are few causes dearer to the English heart than the banks of green willow, and again the DT commentariat did a stellar job.
The third thread was to a leader supporting that announcement of the “immigration crackdown”, and again the speaking could not get much plainer. It was my intention to reproduce some of the comments to illustrate what, even a year ago, would have seemed impossible for a national newspaper to let pass. But there is so much of it, I wouldn’t know where to start.
Of course, one has to put this free-speaking, welcome as it is, into perspective. The DT is unique in sometimes - not always - allowing pro-white sentiment of this order (followed by The Independent, but not very closely). The other rags control comments with pre-moderation or, in the case of The Guardian, with really outrageous post-moderation. Even at the DT, the wider subject matter produces a less nationalist readership, and threads can be hard-going for a racial loyalist. Recent football threads and one on Friday about the sad F1 driver Lewis Hamilton offered little in the way of reward for statements of our Weltanschauung. There is a long way to go to exercise any kind of real influence over public discourse. But since the freeing of the discourse is a precondition for making politics, and the nationals’ threads offer the only way to reach tens of thousands of still pretty sleepy readers, one has to make the effort.
When I see commentary like that on the three aforementioned threads, it does encourage me to believe that the effort is worthwhile.
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.
It’s been said that the halls of academia echo with the chorus of freedom of speech, but the most vociferous members of this chorus often do everything within their power to suppress it! I know of no better example than this of the uselessness of explicitly endorsing support for free speech; behavior, not what one superficially endorses, matters.
Assuming one’s inclined toward respecting freedom of speech, how does one accommodate those hostile to free speech? Suppressing the hostiles is a form of suppression of free speech, but one must suppress the hostiles in order to freely discuss the things the hostiles want suppressed. An open discussion can’t be productive if the hostiles barge in with obfuscation, lies, distortions, noise, nonsense, straw men, trolling, guilt-by-association arguments, discrediting the opponent by making assumptions and then critiquing the assumptions, exposing false information by fellow-hostiles, false dichotomies, deflecting attention from the perpetrators, directing animosity toward the victims and other foul techniques.
Getting rid of the hostiles is an easy matter if the discussion is taking place among a non-proselytising group. The hostiles can complain all they want about suppression of free speech, but the group can keep them out without explanation and without apology.
But the solution to having a productive discussion with hostiles lurking about isn’t easy when the discussion group seeks to bring naive individuals and fence sitters into the fold. Let’s look at a specific issue, the discussion of who did 9/11.
I had just spent a pleasant ten minutes sampling the anti-white racism of the liberal classes when, on checking the Telegraph opinion page, I found the first “right-wing” article about the Emma West video. I say “right-wing” but it is written by a white female journalist who, it transpires, has Asian in-laws.
My first comment was also the first on the thread, and the 250+ that have followed demonstrate that, at the Telegraph at least and on threads specifically relating to the race issue, the only opinion that counts is our opinion. The opinions of anti-racists and foreigners are almost wholly lacking. But, and this is the significant thing, so too are the opinions of civicists, “respectable” conservatives, or anyone, frankly, close to the kind of view that the Telegraph itself puts forward on race matters.
This represents a real change. To what extent it is the product of the kind of truth-speaking at which nationalists excel I can’t say. It would be nice to think so. But perhaps there is just a general drift towards the polarisation of opinion, which is fine too.
At any rate, I mark that one down as an objective achieved. The next one is to effect the same kind of shift on threads not directly related to “the question” - on which I shall report later.
As some of our readers will already know, something odd happened at 7.00pm on Saturday evening when an article by Alasdair Palmer was posted at the Telegraph on-line. I say an article, but in fact all that appeared was a headline reading “For overcrowded England, there is no turning back” and a picture of Oxford Street in all its usual, crowded vibrancy.
The semi-finished nature of the post plainly invited suggestion. A sense of abandon spread through the right-wing badlands, and some extraordinarily plain-spoken suggestion followed, the great preponderance of it pointing out that, yes, there is a turning back. It’s called repatriation.
The moderators snipped around the edges a little but they could not deal with the sheer volume of racial loyalty without turning it into a bloodbath. They withdrew.
On Sunday morning Palmer’s article finally appeared. It was about the National Office of Statistics report last week, which updated the immigrant numbers and brought home the full horror of the situation. “Should we be worried by the prospect of 70 million people living in Britain in 2027?” wrote Palmer. The answer had been there on the page for at least twelve hours.
The comment total at the time of writing this post is 1354, spread over 55 pages of Disqus format. Too much to read in toto. But I do recommend a quick browse just to get a feel for a freedom that exists nowhere else in the MSM. It should now be possible to say anything content-wise at the Telegraph. This is important. To change public opinion, to lead public opinion, is going to require a great deal of such freedom. It has to be worked at, routed out, made serviceable everywhere, eventually.
One of my compatriots and fellow patriots from the Daily Telegraph threads has come up with an interesting idea. He wants MR to display censored commentary from the thread wars so that (a) it is not entirely lost, which is extremely annoying for those of us who work this angle, (b) we can keep track of what is verboten, and of media behaviour generally, and (c) where applicable, debates can be continued.
It would require only that the principal URL and the date, time and content of deleted posts be entered on a dedicated thread. We can initiate as many threads as there are media websites at which we wage the war of discourse. I would have to expand the side-bar to accommodate an entry point to the project, where all the individual media-dedicated threads would be gathered. And, of course, it would require the forward-thinking on your part to record the requisite information for every even remotely edgy commentary, and to post here when it was taken down. But that’s not much to ask, I think.
What about it? Worth doing? What media would require dedicated threads?
Further to Lurker’s suggestion, I am opening this thread as a permanent resource for MR readers to use when they are active on an MSM or blog thread, and think others might be interested in weighing in. It would be useful for a little context to accompany the URL, and the odd report of scalps taken would also be very welcome.
In due course, the link to the thread will be placed on the side-bar under “Of note”.
So ... here goes.
Yesterday, in a brief debate with the star of Tory Euroscepticism Daniel Hannan - it had to be brief because he has no time to waste on the BNP, apparently - I was informed that:
That was on the subject of whether his own English people (actually, he’s half-Irish) have the same right to life as any other people, and this was on the subject of whether they have, in addition, the same right to land:
And this creature, in all his anti-English civicism and fatuous libertarianism, is supposed to be an Old Marlburian and an Oxford grad, and high-grade political material.
His problem, of course, is that there is a certain depth and gravity to the argument we bring to the MSM threads which no one, and certainly not he, can match, and with which many are completely unfamiliar. We talk about existence and genocide, natural rights and interests, power and coercion, political corruption and deception. We shock. We break taboos. We challenge complacency, received wisdom, the habitual way of doing things. When we go on the threads we do so as revolutionaries. We are there to change everything. We are there to fight, and we fight to win. This is where we validate not just our politics but our racial selves: where we can be useful and contribute to the cause. This is where we can demonstrate that we are not what our enemies say we are, that the enemy’s ideological position is easily destroyed, and that the path we have taken is true and right for others to follow. For did we not also benefit from others who have performed this same small service?
It is important, then. It is important that we do the job well. So I thought I would pull together some of the rules of thread warfare as I understand them. Again. As ever, your own thoughts and experiences of what works in which media would be appreciated.
On Wednesday night the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze devoted 45 minutes to consideration of whether BNP members should be employed in public services. 7 minutes 40 seconds was given over to the (decidedly) cross-examination of Mr Lee John Barnes, who these days goes under the title of National Coordinator of the British National Party legal department.
His performance was nothing if not combative, and earned him and the party some level-headed and fair praise from one panel-member, Michael Portillo. For breaking the BNP taboo, he will no doubt receive the due amount of contumely and criticism from former friends and colleagues.
The programme can be heard for the next few days here, with Barnes’ contribution starting at 11 min 56 sec.
Barnes answered (rebuffed, really) the less than neutral questions of panel members Melanie Phillips and Clifford Longley. The first question, though, came from the programme’s presenter Michael Buerk:-
Spacist not racist! Does anybody really believe that? Probably not. But, obviously, the party has not been able to defend itself against the charge of racism. I’m not constrained by the minefields of the political world. I’m interested in developing an argument that thoroughly nukes the “r” issue.
Towards the end of last week I spent three or four days picking up not one, not two but three Guardian bans while defending the BNP membership against the deracinated hanging judges of the Comment Is Free website. That takes my CiF bans to sixteen, assuming I haven’t forgotten any of my earlier dramatis personnea. Does it get me in the Guinness Book of Records? Probably. Shouldn’t I be ashamed of this obsessive desire to force innocent liberal backs to the wall? Er ... erm ... aaah ... nope. I’m just shameless like that.
Besides, this really only mildly obsessional effort is devoted to a perfectly noble cause: to test the intellectual quality and rhetorical strength of my current ideas against the best, generally, that the other side has to offer, and to refine them further in the light of that experience. This, in other words, is a work in progress.
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