Abs Brill

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2009, 01:37 PM | #

Love that guy.

Posted by Dan Dare on August 08, 2009, 01:59 PM | #

Yes, I do like the cut of his jib. The BNP would do well to consider making JB its principal media spokesman.

Posted by James Bowery on August 08, 2009, 02:37 PM | #

Are there any clues in this image to explain why BNP might be serving as a lightning rod, however unwittingly?

Posted by danielj on August 08, 2009, 03:09 PM | #

Is that Saint George’s Cross draped over the table? That was a National Front thing wasn’t it?

Also, the Star of David is strange…

Posted by jamesUK on August 08, 2009, 03:12 PM | #

How come you haven’t posted anything about the Georgian conflict seeing how this is the anniversary of ZOG/US/EU vassal state in Georgia’s attack on Russia to do an Operation Storm on South Ossetia like they did to the Serbs in 95.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIh8_UJrOGc&feature=related

When are you going to post this Dugin video for discussion like the one above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XI3eqEteT0

And why don’t you talking about geo-politics I have a whole bunch of things I have researched over the years with this war on terror hoax and energy consolidation culminating in the upcoming war against Russia organised and lead by the most evil man in the world today, the anti-christ Zbignew Brezinski.

http://www.takeoverworld.info/grandchessboard

“Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Lets start with the Srebrenica hoax

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

http://de-construct.net/e-zine/?p=6082

Then we will continue with other elements like every terrorist attack including 9/11 have links to Bosnia and the creation of an Albanian European crime network in Europe.

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

http://thelondondailynews.com/albanian-hire-london-£5000-p-2560.html

So instead of talking heads nonsense start researching and writing about these things.

Posted by DRS on August 08, 2009, 03:59 PM | #

danielj asked:

Is that Saint George’s Cross draped over the table? That was a National Front thing wasn’t it?

Also, the Star of David is strange…

Draping a flag over the table is done by all Nationalist groups in the UK.

The ‘Star Of David’ you mention is part of the flag of Northern Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Northern_Ireland

“There is a dispute as to the meaning of
the star, with some maintaining it is the
Star of David, and others say it represents
the six counties that make up Northern
Ireland.”

Posted by DRS on August 08, 2009, 05:56 PM | #

By the way, the entire video in one part can be watched here.

Posted by jamesUK on August 08, 2009, 07:00 PM | #

That speech SUCKED!

Same old fare immigration erodes British culture.

Others have said the same thing in fact all the speakers make the same point.

And why do they praise the British Empire it is the British empirical model of banking and globalisation that got us into this mess we are in just now and there subversive intrigues to destabilise and knock off any potential rival power like Germany and Russia and supporting radical forces for geo-political advantage and resources Young Turks, Communism, Islamism, etc

Post something good like Dugin and the other links above.

Posted by Søren Renner on August 08, 2009, 09:36 PM | #

jamesUK: Your second comment worked against your first. Start your own blog if you like and leave your betters alone.

Posted by jamesUK on August 08, 2009, 10:11 PM | #

@Søren Renner

But they are rehashing the same topic of immigration and that’s going to change anyway because Jews want to stop non-white immigration into Europe from Muslim countries from forming an anti-zionist block of political parties.

http://vdare.com/misc/epstein_steinlight.htm

I would be more impressed if he actually made a definition as to what is British is it more than being white?  I bet he doesn’t know.

And they don’t seem to mind a creation of an Islamic terrorist state which has a base from which attacks in Europe have been launched which Albanian organised crime gangs control the London underground with 90% of the sex slave industry in Soho.

Posted by Lurker on August 08, 2009, 10:48 PM | #

The star in the Ulster flag really isn’t a Star of David, at a glance maybe, otherwise not.

JamesUK, there is nothing wrong with having the same message repeated over and over. Repetiton is good as long as as its not dull - and there are always those hearing it for the first time.

Our liberal pals never tire of repeating their story, over and over and over.

Do you ever see Casualty on BBC1 on Saturday night? I try to avoid it but every now and again…

Every time I do see it there is always at least one story line which reminds us non-whites positive, whites negative. Every time. The BBC never get bored of repeating that story. We have to be as persistent.

Posted by Jake Featherston on August 09, 2009, 03:44 AM | #

The BNP would do well to consider making JB its principal media spokesman.

I’m inclined to agree.  I didn’t think I’d make it through a nine-and-a-half minute video, but I could have watched him speak for half an hour, quite easily.  I’ve never heard of this man before, but he may well have a bright future.

Posted by Jake Featherston on August 09, 2009, 04:37 AM | #

By the way, the entire video in one part can be watched here.

Thank you for posting that.  Its nearly an hour long, and I enjoyed every minute of it.  And he goes on to talk about quite a bit more than immigration; that nine minute clip is the end of his speech, where he closes on an anti-immigration note.  He discusses many other vital issues in the entire body of his speech.  I highly recommend checking it out.

Posted by Englander on August 09, 2009, 05:49 AM | #

It would have made sense to start with part one.

Jake, you might be interested in his talk about Marxism and the Frankfurt School.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnBQUJJ-7iE

Posted by jamesUK on August 09, 2009, 06:00 AM | #

@Lurker

But what is British we never get a definition

Famous Brits or those that represent British interests Jacob Rothschild, George Soros, Nigel Farage (obnoxious UKIP leader), David Milliband, etc

Do they represent what it is to be British?

In fact define what it means to be an American, French, Italian, etc.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 09, 2009, 07:33 AM | #

James: But what is British we never get a definition

Do we get a definiton of Tibetan beyond “the people native to Tibet”?  All peoples know who they are without having to define themselves.  The left constantly insists that we define ourselves in order to claim the right to survive.  It is a racist demand.

Explain why you need a definition, James.

Posted by DRS on August 09, 2009, 08:02 AM | #

Here’s a definition for you jamesUK:

500K SNP Europe-wide study of genetic structure

image

Posted by jamesUK on August 09, 2009, 10:17 AM | #

@Guessedworker

Buddhist and Asiatic. 

I would define what makes each nationalist country is race, religion, culture and history.

But the idea of race and religion has been eroded since the concept of the enlightenment where it does not have any contemporary meaning in western countries.

A good example would be a classic Southerners in the US who supports the confederacy, anti-Lincoln, Christian with a Southern accent (although not exclusive).

Yugoslavia is a good example all three where white but what defined them was religion Croat Catholic, Bosnian Muslims and Serb Orthodox Christian.

@DRS

So it’s simply genetic?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2009, 10:39 AM | #

“By the way, the entire video in one part can be watched here.”  (—DRS)

“Thank you for posting that.  Its nearly an hour long, and I enjoyed every minute of it.  And he goes on to talk about quite a bit more than immigration; that nine minute clip is the end of his speech, where he closes on an anti-immigration note.  He discusses many other vital issues in the entire body of his speech.  I highly recommend checking it out.”  (—Jake Featherston)

Thank you DRS and Jake Featherston for calling our attention.  I just watched it ( http://vodpod.com/watch/1991917-jonathan-bowden-in-greenwich ) and I would call it must watching.

This man Bowden is really something.  Notice he speaks rivetingly without written notes or teleprompter.  Not many in the modern era can do it as well (I remember Ross Perot could; that’s about it that I’ve ever seen).  The man’s a major asset to whatever party is lucky enough to have him as a member and speaker.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2009, 11:01 AM | #

JamesUK:  race isn’t everything; no one here ever said it was.  It is, however, a sine qua non.  If race goes all goes.  You’re not going to have a mulatto England, Germany, Russia, Italy, United States.  You can put those names on anything you want, if they’re mulatto they’ll be something else because only Englishmen in their aggregate give England, only Germans in theirs Germany, Dutchmen in theirs Holland, Frenchmen France, etc.  You want mulattoes?  OK you’re talking now about Egypt — yes modern Egypt can be mulatto and still be modern Egypt (not ancient, mind you — modern; it was the transition to mulattohood that did in Ancient Egypt and it’ll do in any country that makes the same transition).  For us race is not everything but IS an essential ingredient, a necessary factor, a pre-requisite, and on that we will never compromise.  Ever.  Do you know what never means?  If not, you know now because I’m going to tell you:  it means until the end of time and even then it still goes on.  That’s how long we’ll never compromise on race being a sine qua non:  till the end of time and even then our refusal to compromise goes on.  If you’ve come here thinking you’re going to dismiss race’s importance and find sympathetic ears you’ve come to the wrong blog to hand around at.  If you’re laboring under any such misconception, before continuing you’d better get your mind right.  Do you understand now?  This blog is not called MysteryMeatRights.com and there’s a reason for that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2009, 11:07 AM | #

you’ve come to the wrong blog to hang around at.

Posted by Armor on August 09, 2009, 11:18 AM | #

” This blog is not called MysteryMeatRights.com and there’s a reason for that. “

Fred Scrooby should have been a teacher.
(Actually, he is a internet teacher.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2009, 11:22 AM | #

JamesUK, you called for more discussion of geopolitics at MajorityRights.com.  Geopolitics is discussed here but in its proper place, which comes AFTER race in importance because if race is gone there’s no geopolitics worth discussing any more.  You want to read about the history of the geopolitics between the different Papua-New-Guinean tribes?  Between Kenya and the Central African Republic?  Between Fiji and American Samoa?  That’s all that’ll be left once race goes. 

If it’s geopolitics you’re partial to and you’d like to see it discussed ahead of race, one of the best blogs for that is Robert Steuckers’ blog, Euro-Synergies, here:

http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/ .

Steuckers is very big on geopolitics.  It’s obviously his major interest, in fact.  To read his blog you have to know foreign languages, as very little is in English.  He publishes in French, German, Dutch, English, Italian, and Spanish in something like that order.  But if your French and German are serviceable you won’t find any better blog out there on geopolitics ahead of race (ahead of almost everything except biographies, another of Steuckers’ strong interests).

Wikipedia’s entry on Robert Steuckers:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Steuckers .

Posted by jamesUK on August 09, 2009, 02:46 PM | #

@Fred Scrooby

Geo-politics and race are interconnected.

Take Turkey for example if they become senior partner in the future of the Nabucco oil transit project to pump oil into the EU then they would have to be submitted into the EU and become a memberjust like they are a member of NATO.

Posted by Bill on August 09, 2009, 04:50 PM | #

I suppose most political speakers tailor their material at a level commensurate to their specific audience(s) level of awareness.  The caption to this address reads, “At a recent meeting of Greenwich BNP, Jonathan Bowden gave a rousing speech on the desperate state of modern politically correct Britain.” 

Rousing it was, delivered in an eloquent robust style, punctuated with subtle wit and humour.  He engages his audience and soon establishes a rapport. Laughter and applause are delivered in generous equal measure.  A good night was had by all, but how informative was it?

Jonathon Bowdon is an accomplished knowledgeable speaker and an asset to the British National Party.

But what about informative content?  I wonder how different and complex the content of his speech would have been, had he been addressing an audience of MR’ers? - Vastly different I would venture to suggest.

Having watched all five parts, if I were not reasonably aware of what it was all about, I think I would have been hard put to conclude anything by the end of his speech as to why we were experiencing such high levels of immigration and why our elites were so hostile to their people and so accommodating to the newcomer. (Why? - Who? - How?)

According to JB, Britain has become (cannot control streets of S. London on a Saturday night, obese, 25% of children born of non white extraction) what it is today because our establishment has become (fearful, cowardly and lazy and deconstructed and lacks pride, lacks identity, lacks vigour….) 

He later goes on to opine that our enemies haven’t been Germany, Austria, Italy…..the enemy has been an interconnected series of ideas which have dominated over the last 60 to 70 years , liberal ideas of of one sort or another….. resulting in the giving away of our culture, of giving away of the demographic nature of our cities… (in short mass immigration. (me)

And that basically is it.  No attempt as to Why? (other than abstract and descriptive traits - fearful, cowardly, lazy etc)  Who? (liberal establishment) and how?  No explanation at all. (your guess is as good as mine)

Assuming that JB’s audience were BNP members, what do you think of the general level of information delivered?  Should this be the general informative level at this stage of national development?  For example, at what party level would the sort of information which is routinely available here at MR be included in JB’s speeches?

In a few more months there will be a general election and parliamentary seats are up for grabs, but at what level of awareness will the voters be?  I would venture to say that if it is no higher than the content of this speech then I cannot foresee any significant breakthrough. They already know most of this.

The biggest threat of mass immigration JB offers his audience is that they will become a minority at some point in the near future, the non spoken greater threat is left to their imagination.

I cannot help but think the BNP are back pedalling here.

Am I being too critical?  I hope not, and it is not meant to be so.

Posted by Bill on August 10, 2009, 01:04 AM | #

Over at Simon darby’s blog he and Nick Griffin discuss the implications of the Birmingham protest by the EDL. 8/8/09

http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/

Meanwhile over at Lionheart’s blog it seems Lionheart’s enterprise has been hijacked and he has withdrawn.

http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/

Posted by Søren Renner on August 10, 2009, 10:45 AM | #

Bill, the BNP has official positions which Bowden must uphold if he is speaking for them. Some of the “sort of information which is routinely available here at MR” could never be promulgated in any BNP speech. I know exactly what I mean, and I think that you do too.

Posted by jamesUK on August 13, 2009, 06:03 PM | #

We now what’s wrong presumably that’s why people are there they already know what the problem is they want to know the solution which he does not outline a. Terrible speech.

Nick Griffin addressed this issue in the 2004 or 2005 Euro conference with better clarity. 

Again why won’t you post this Dugin video for people to comment on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XI3eqEteT0

What’s with the Dugin censorship?

You do post and discuss political and theological issues don’t you?

Posted by Captainchaos on August 13, 2009, 06:55 PM | #

What’s with the Dugin censorship?

I don’t know man, but a more pressing issue is to keep the greasy wogs from the Caucasus away from Russian women (some fine specimens of which were pictured in the video), and to get Russian women to have more White children.  What does Dugin have to say on that?

Posted by Captainchaos on August 13, 2009, 07:13 PM | #

Until Dugin speaks out directly on the need to secure the genetic continuity of the Russian people he is useless.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 13, 2009, 07:15 PM | #

“why won’t you post this Dugin video for people to comment on? [...]  What’s with the Dugin censorship?  You do post and discuss political and theological issues don’t you?”  (—JamesUK)

JamesUK, people can comment on it from your posting it in the threads.  Links posted in the comments threads often start discussions.  A thing doesn’t have to be posted as a log entry to start discussion.  There’s no “Dugin censorship” here.  Furthermore, Dugin has been discussed quite a bit here in the past — he’s a topic of interest here. 

You can also post your video as a “thread starter” in the MajorityRights.com Forum (see the sub-headings across the top of the home page).  This blog’s comments threads have consistently proven so lively and interesting that the Forum has tended in comparison to be a little overlooked — additional activity over at the Forum certainly wouldn’t be unwelcome.

Posted by Captainchaos on August 13, 2009, 07:20 PM | #

Here is a video of Dugin apparently debating another man regarding Amerikwa in what appears to be a game show format (LOL!).  They are speaking in Russian, so what they are saying, your guess is as good as mine.

Posted by Captainchaos on August 13, 2009, 07:53 PM | #

Dugin is Putin’s court intellectual, Putin says come up with some high falutin stuff to rationalize what Putin wants done, and Dugin does it.  Putin says go on Putin’s political game show and Dugin does it.  However, if Dugin were to show up at said venue dressed only in assless leather chaps, Dugin just might “accidentally” fall down an elevator shaft for making Putin look like an idiot.  True, the Russians do do “gangsterism”, but queer shit, never.

Posted by raskolnikov on August 14, 2009, 03:48 PM | #

JAMES UK says-

“I would be more impressed if he (JB) actually made a definition as to what is British is it more than being white?  I bet he doesn’t know. “

then says-

“I would define what makes each nationalist country is race, religion, culture and history. “

James—I insist you email Jonathan Bowden with your insightful definitions of what it means to be British this instant. I bet he will be eternally grateful that you have managed to fill this gaping hole in his understanding. Bowden probably thinks being British means being a giant penguin covered in ice-cream or something. But I’m sure that after much soul-searching and more reading and deep thought he will have to agree that you are really on to something.

Well done, James.

Posted by jamesUK on August 14, 2009, 06:30 PM | #

@raskolnikov

Do you mock me sir?

Bowden probably thinks being British means being a giant penguin covered in ice-cream or something.

Maybe he does he certainly didn’t say what Britishness is.

His implication was that if you are not white then you are not British.

But he didn’t say what Britishness is.

I would like to see your definition on what it is to be British?

You probably think Katie Price (model Jordan) is the definition of what it means to be British.

@Captainchaos

That was pretty funny. Bravo!