Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:12 | #

Just on the Free Speech issue at the start, I certainly don’t see why we, if we win this, should in any way be liberal in regards to free speech when what we are going to have to do by necessity will be so harsh in the eyes of our enemies. Are we going to fight so long and hard to allow a queer Marxist such as Owen Jones to howl from his Guardian pulpit and stir up the liberals into fanaticism? 

It was the open hearted and ‘‘tolerant’’ approach of conservatives in the past which allowed foreign thought to permeate and fester, once the maggots reached critical mass they ruthlessly slammed down dissent. We will have to go even further, first the people will demand that heads roll, they will need an enemy to focus on and the elites and intelligentsia are it, quite rightly. But they will want and need some blood letting so we can move on.
Allowing our would be destroyers to offer a ‘‘critique’’ of what we have to do is madness.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:48 | #

I agree with you in essence Morgoth, as I have said in my last comment:

“One cannot not communicate. We live in communication. Advanced communicological theory might treat all activities as communication, a form of “speech” if you will. Conversely, all speech can be looked upon as a form of behavior.

With that, citing the “free speech hypocrisy” of the ‘We Are Charlie’ campaign is somewhat disingenuous, as we too would prohibit certain behavior/speech if we were to regain sovereignty of our peoples.”

I don’t believe we are going to give pedophilia free speech. etc.

Nevertheless, I imagine that we will try to be as reasonable as possible in the penalties for violations of most prohibitions, which would normally serve to correct and edify the violator and the population.

But finally to belabor that point would be quibbling besides Jez’s points, which are to expose the unfairness of their hypocrisy; moreover, their prohibiting the viewpoint of our people; and with that, the disingenuousness of turning the fundamental issue -  of imposing mass non-native immigration upon us - into an issue of free speech.*

Jez is very impressive in his understanding of what is going on, what needs to be done and his commitment to that. It made me very happy to learn about him, realizing that someone like him is on our side. Fantastic!

* I don’t want to misconstrue GW’s point either, which is probably something to the effect that if you were to free European nations of affectations and obstructions, then free speech would naturally tend to emerge within bounds and without need for significant state enforcement of corrective measures.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:25 | #

Morgoth, what makes you think that, in a nationalist-governed land, there would be a Guardian pulpit for screechy homosexuals and other artistes of the anti-white left?  Do you think there are enough neo-Marxists to fund the paper once all public money has been diverted elsewhere?

The left would be totally exposed and forced to fund itself and advance its political arguments without the privileges it now enjoys in MSM propaganda and the fruits of power, prestige, and position that flowed from the post-1970 Long March.  In the same way, Jewish activism would be dis-accommodated from all its front organisations and forced to speak in its own name.  Anti-racism, as anti-white activism, would be banned.  Political correctness would reign nowhere.  Etcetera.  This would constitute a true foundation for a state of freedom.  Let, then, our speech be free.

Posted by melba peachtoast on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:31 | #

Thank goodness the LNR replaced that irresponsible Troy Southgate person. He was a terrible organizer!

Posted by melba peachtoast on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:33 | #

If Augustus John liked it then his friend Wyndham Lewis probably did too. I wish Jonathan Bowden was here to see this day.

Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:02 | #

GW,

I can foresee a future where Neo Marxists occupy the same position which we occupy now, but with more Merchant money funding sites and Think Tanks. I can see them pushing memes and spreading propaganda but unlike the rubbish they peddle now, they would be able to point toward the policies we have of deportations and ‘‘ethnic cleansing’‘. For a time all of their ideas will, to them, be validated and confirmed, all their fears realized.
In order to preempt this we must give our people a myth in the manner that the Jews have the Holocaust, firstly it will bind them and their identity, secondly we can focus their wrath and vengeance onto the Left and their J Lord Masters.

With a cultural shift of this nature we can indeed allow Free Speech because people will fear being called ‘‘Anti White’’ or ‘‘Politically Correct’’ and therefore untouchable.

I guess it comes to, should we allow the remnants of Neo Marxism what they allow us now? my view is absolutely not.

Posted by jrackell on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:53 | #

Many people, they look at the British National Party and they say, “What did it achieve?  We’ve no buildings.  We’ve no nationalist headquarters.  We’ve no nationalist newspapers, nationalist printing presses.”

Well, I think that’s a materialistic, sort of almost liberal way of looking at things, because the sort of success we seek is to sow seeds in the minds of men.  And I think we have to get out of this liberal drift, this short-termism, this cowardice because if we’re materialists, we don’t believe in anything higher.  It’s just us, this generation all that matters.  Me.  Perhaps my family.  That’s it.

We have to start thinking in an intergenerational way; in a transcendental way, perhaps.  We have to stop thinking short term.

The fight to liberate our race, to ensure our race survives may take a thousand years.  It’s not going to be twenty years.  True, we have to do something now, but in a sense—

There are two wars a man has to fight.  There is the war within his own soul, to improve himself, to be the best he can be.  And then there is
the external war; the war on behalf of his people, to protect his people.

And here is the very important point.  The best way of fighting the internal war—the war in your own soul—is to fight the external war.

And to an extent, whether the external war is a defeat or a victory does not matter too much as far as your soul is concerned. 

The important thing is you fight.

~Jez Turner

Posted by White Left on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 03:15 | #

I maintain that WN is insufficiently emancipated from Jewish influence. One of the key ways in which it is evident is in those who insist upon identifying as “the right.”

I believe that the biggest difference between what I would want, in essence, viz., the sovereignty of native nationals, and what many people who would call themselves right-wing would want, is merely the label: “right wing” or “left wing.”

But there is an important reason to change the label.

The “right wing” is how Jews want us to identify for a reason; calling us “right-wing extremists” associates us with the anti-social - thus off-putting and disorganizing, forever appealing to those questing after elusive, abstract differentiation from improper social obligation and after speculative means to justice.

Changing the label from right to White left provokes and provides the opportunity, the occasion to redefine the White left - distinguishing our difference from Marxist-Jewish-liberal affectations of “the left” -  our unity is of native national interests among all its classes, humanitarian, respecting all positions, inspiring participation by allowing for basic needs through accountability and providing opportunity for private property, additional reward and wealth; while holding achievement accountable to the nation, connecting with our social capital, its history and future, as are all positions in society. It puts our fight on the moral, socially responsible high ground

It is important that we do this since this sort of populism can otherwise be absconded into the wrong hands.

While David Jones talks sense with this view…
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/american-nationalist-network/2015/01/20/the-atlantic-axis-w-david-jones

..do you trust his interlocutor, Rodney Martin? I don’t. He is going to lead people to Hitler, who only used leftism to gain adherence to the ultimate betrayal for his true, right-wing motives. And it seems no coincidence that Hitler and therefore Nazism was insufficiently emancipated from Jewish influence.

TT Metzger is doing excellent work discussing this in his podcasts, in particular from the last few weeks of 2014.

http://www.resist.com/2014_Radio/2014_Radio.html

Posted by Chris on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:17 | #

How are we supposed to induce the young when all that we have is what appears seemingly to be messages of defeatism and negativity? Don’t the Marxist, Christians and Muslims promise a new world?  Shouldn’t we?

What would an all white Britain, Europe and America look, feel and be like? What is the picture we want to fix on our peoples’ minds? Has anyone written, composed or recorded a positive nationalist novel, music, meme or film?

Posted by Ethnocentric Hermeneutics on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:42 | #

We’re working on it, Chris. There are some positive expressions, signs and implications among what, to date, of necessity, has mostly been description of what the heck is going on - unfortunately negative things for us, but nevertheless necessary to understand; however, now that we do have some grip on it, and maintain a routine vigil on problems and antagonists, with MR’s hermeneutic project of ongoing surveying, in particular, we center on the positive concern of our own well being as a people (called ethnocentrism), our use, enjoyment, faith and inspiration in our authentic ways.

Don’t you be negative, Chris.

What would you suggest highlighting beyond negativity of our negativity?

What inspires you to help our people and to comment here?

Posted by Optimization of Motives on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:27 | #

Toward a positive agenda, I intend to re-tool this, one of my initial essays at MR - Re-evaluating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Motives for The White Class

It wasn’t understood very well by the commentators. For example, that I was deliberately using the world “motive” as opposed to “need” for the active correspondence of motive to the same hierarchical levels of concern.

Nevertheless, the concept needs reworking against what Aristotle actually thought of actualization and what we would need of actualization today - particularly optimal biological management that does not become a toxic quest for the individual and particularly not toxic for our social group system. More, I have found that variants on “routine”, as a label, work better than “selfhood”, which was the term that I originally used along with socialization, being and actualization.

Nevertheless, the basic idea was correct - rather than fixed levels of maximization in a hierarchy, it is going to be more like a circular model optimizing concerns between socialization, being, routine and actualization.

Maybe “routine” will yet give way to “practice” or something else. But socialization, being and actualization I am pretty sure that I want to keep among a four-way and optimizing management (as opposed to maximization) of self in relation to our people and our values). And it is positive.

Posted by Chris on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:16 | #

Being born and bred in London and knowing nothing else but ubiquitous multiculturalism, it’s very difficult for people of my generation and younger to envisage an all English London, or Britain for that matter. Using myself as an example, I’ve never been in a public space which has been 100% English. Always does the spectre of multiculturalism reveal itself, even in the most remotest towns of England.

Most of you all have had a palpable taste of what a homogeneous white country is like, but we haven’t! Therefore we desperately need to create this image of what a future, homogeneous white country would look like.

This has to be done, I think, through the culture. We need poetry, art, music and festivals (and fun) to hit those primal, emotive, tribal nerves.

On my streets I see minority white kids speaking like Jamaican gangsters. Why? Because they’ve had to adapt themselves culturally to the demographic reality in order to survive. Why isn’t there a cultural well from which they can gain strength and pride from to overcome this imposition?

I’m not suggesting we become more liberally trendier, or neglect the hardcore topics, but we need to inject some life into this thing. To inject pride into our people, of the beauty of our people especially in homogeneity, and happiness (smiles and laughter) - because we’ve got enough tears and misery.

There is nothing particularly enlightening or original about my post, nevertheless as you know there is a complete absence of positivity in being English et al. I thought I could shed some light on why, perhaps, younger people aren’t being attracted to nationalism - or more importantly, being what they’re naturally supposed to be.

Although this is not an example from England, I think this is the kind of thing we should be doing and the kind of image we want to exhibit to all our people (especially the young) in our own unique authentic forms: Beauty, pride and happiness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-fsTAnmNIY

Posted by voznich on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:21 | #

Good grief, Chris, why not just focus on your own English past?? No wogs there! Read the classics, reimagine the Age of Arthur, read the Patrick O’Brian series, watch old movies - it’s all yours! Maybe English nationalists need to re-teach the English heritage, your own history.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:39 | #

Chris, Your comment was excellent. In fact, we might do well to focus on it for a main post, very much in line with the kind of thing that GW hopes we might emphasize here.

Don’t take Voznich’s didactic incitement to heart. It is his purpose to derail confidence and thoughtful discussion here. As if you didn’t know everything that he suggested!

Posted by Chris on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:01 | #

Voznich, we have the past, but what do we have for the present and future?

Posted by Rodney the Hun on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 08:26 | #

Nice discussion by some young English nationalists.

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/275/show_7275015_2015_01_24_18_13_02.mp3

British Racialist Resistance (Episode 1)

For the first episode of British Racialist Resistance, the host, Jack Renshaw, has a discussion with the controversial blogger known as “cigpapers”. Cigpapers is known for his “Multiculturalism Is Genocide” campaign and for being outspoken… more

It’s too bad that they are at Rodney Martin’s network, but maybe people like this will have a humanizing effect on him and make him more decent and respectful. Doubt it. It wasn’t much more than a year ago that he was drooling, disparaging other European nations with fallacious arguments, conjuring lame excuses for inter European conflict.

Kids like this should come to our side.

Posted by Sebastien Durant on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 00:34 | #

Have you ever considered adopting a more stringent/judicious editorial policy regarding the comments section? I suspect the all too visible presence of trolls, disinformation agents and other ‘antis’ greatly hinder the potential of the website to serve as a forum for debate.

Posted by Speak Content on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:03 | #

Sebastien, it is precisely because MR has been more editorial of comments that commentary has slowed down for a time. After a long time policy of being quite a free for all, trolls inundated the threads along with those of perspectives that were divisive of European nationalist efforts (strong proponents of Hitler), those insisting upon imposing Christian affectation to the European moral order, or that we treat Jews as White and a part of our interest group.

We still have some trolls making their presence felt from time to time - Voznich and JamesUK. It was I who added the images to his comment from “compulsory diversity news” - of dubious taste perhaps, though I must say that I laughed. But my prime motive was to discourage him as he was otherwise attempting to contextualize MR in his way. It was the trolls who have been, until recently, largely responsible for much of the content among comments and also for discouraging more thoughtful participation.

We are still in the process of correcting that. If you are sincere, you might help by stepping down from your meta-critique of a process which, in fact, we’ve already undertaken, and rather contribute a comment of substance and content of your own. There is much of significance to discuss.

Posted by liberum esse on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:03 | #

Have We Carefully Thought of the Consequences of Absolute Free Speech?

January 25, 2015 — Enza Ferreri

One “thought experiment” in the recent — but not yet concluded — debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre particularly impressed me:

  Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night, …  a man stepped out in front …  carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, “Well I’ll be a son of a gun!” or “You’ve really blown me away!” or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed? …  He would have been lucky to get away with his life.

  Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination … into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that such people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don’t know their own minds. They see themselves as committed to the proposition that there are no limits to freedom of expression… But they too have their limits. They just don’t know it.

Perhaps because he’s a philosopher and by profession he’s obliged to analyse the logical consistency and theoretical validity of statements, Brian Klug here encapsulates the problem with the default mainstream “Je Suis Charlie” position.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.
Advertisement

Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don’t realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance.

Similarly, philosophers like Karl Popper maintain that in any debate you cannot question everything. The debaters must share some common assumptions, including the use of the same language and basic definitions of at least some of the main concepts relevant to the discussion.

This corresponds to relativity in the physical world. To establish if and at what speed a train is moving, you need something still to compare it with.

Questioning everything results in chaos, which ultimately means questioning nothing.

This is one of the fallacies often propounded by the so-called “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins: question everything — but at the end of the day, get in line with establishment views on race and immigration.

The prevailing ideology of relativism, wedded to the policy of multiculturalism, does something similar to questioning everything, by denying the idea that some doctrines are better than others and rejecting a shared set of beliefs as a sine qua non for a society.

The belief that everything can be publicly stated implies a belief in nothing.  Hence the current confusion about freedom of speech and in particular the failure to recognise exactly when this good is paid for too dearly at the expense of society.

Therefore the discussion shouldn’t be around ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to free speech but about what should limit free speech and why.

The best way to do that is to establish the principles and goals to guide our decision about what expressions shouldn’t be permitted by law as their effects are so deleterious that they outweigh the benefits of free speech.

The most cited examples of such expressions are falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded place and incitements to commit crime.

But, beyond obvious cases like these, we can immediately see that we cannot reach a consensus, since people in our fractured society have widely-different goals and principles.

Much of this diversity in the West is produced by the influx of large masses of people from countries with worldviews, religious doctrines, and ways of life profoundly diverging from ours.

The Hebdo attack tragically revealed one such irreducible conflict of ideas that makes it impossible for Westerners and devout Muslims to agree on when free expression should be limited.

Not even Charlie Hebdo (henceforth CH), the much-trumpeted supreme paragon and defender to the death of free speech, believed in absolute freedom of speech, as demonstrated by its sacking of the cartoonist Siné for a column considered anti-Jewish but, compared to the rag’s ordinary fare, too mild for words. Later Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against CH for wrongful termination.

CH wasn’t the paper of free speech, but of double standards.

Recently the rag’s long-standing lawyer Richard Malka made evident his opinion that people can be too free in their speech when he chastised Nouvel Obs magazine for publishing a criticism of CH’s slain editor “Charb” by its co-founder Henri Roussel.

I don’t consider Charb et al martyrs. You can be a martyr to a cause, but when your cause is nothing (that’s what nihilism, in the end, is) or evil (CH’s campaign against the National Front), you can’t be one.

The rest of this article is at TOO:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/01/have-we-carefully-thought-of-the-consequences-of-absolute-free-speech/#more-26264

It always makes me sad to disagree with a Christian making an effort to invoke a unifying moral order of Christianity, especially when done in as intelligent a way as Enza has. But hopefully she, or people of similarly subtle thought, will help us to cultivate an expression of a unifying moral order of European interests, more authentically emergent and reliably reconstructive of our kind.

She concludes by saying:

It’s because of publications like CH and media figures like De Andre’ and their successful propagation of desecrations of what had kept us together and strong for centuries, that we have been left with absolutely nothing to fight Islam with.

By disarming us, the CH journalists who were victims of the recent attacks have indeed invited their own death — in a deeper sense than is commonly thought.

Indeed a unifying moral order is necessary, and while we do not get-off on mocking Christianity in the way that CH did, and Jews do, neither can we, in moral conscience, allow ourselves to be yoked to obsolete texts and their alien pretense to our moral interests as a specific people.

It is apparent that there will be European peoples who will not relinquish Christianity and those who will not partake in agreement to it. However, we might seek to coordinate on our mutual interests as European people, providing the Christians can fight on those grounds.

It should be possible. We have not forgotten the overwhelming sounds at noon of bells from churches saturating Agrigento, on the Southern coast of Sicily, obviously set against potential recurrence of Muslim incursion.

Posted by de Craon's thoughtful take on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 04:36 | #

Pierre de Craon has a thoughtful comment at counter-currents - http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/01/have-we-carefully-thought-of-the-consequences-of-absolute-free-speech/#comment-253139

January 26, 2015 - 12:45 pm

The comments by B.A., Maxi, and spiritsplice remind me why I soon came around to being glad when Professor MacDonald shut commenting down more than a year ago. Their comments are nothing so much as what dogs do to fire hydrants and telephone poles, and as such they do this site no credit.

Enza Ferreri’s commentary is thoughtful and sensible. In the present circumstances, it embodies ideas that require repeating. That there is nothing new, strictly speaking, in her commentary matters not at all. Very few people, including me, do not profit from being reminded, from time to time, of first principles, which have the unfortunate tendency to sink to lip-service status when we are not prompted to see that they underlie both how we ought to act and react and how we often fail to. After all, as one of my all-time-favorite Jews, a guy usually referred to as Qoheleth, famously wrote several millennia ago, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

What’s more, Ms. Ferreri’s frank exposition makes blazingly clear how wide and deep a gulf there is between (1) the complex, vexed interrelation of true first principles of speech, thought, action, and the greater societal good and (2) the adolescent, pseudointellectual hobbyhorse of “absolute” free speech, which inevitably entails a radical intolerance for anyone’s freedom to articulate the view that there is no such creature and that the entertainment of any such absolutism has always and everywhere had grave consequences for the society foolish enough to tolerate it.

As for the self-congratulation concretized in the sentence “More often than not I am called pedantic, but more importantly, the weaknesses of any argument are thus easily exposed,” charity counsels that the less said, the better. But since Emily Dickinson failed to hold her tongue on such pedantry masquerading as the antidote to pedantry, I yield to the temptation to close by quoting her.

  How dreary – to be – Somebody!
  How public – like a Frog –
  To tell one’s name – the livelong June –
  To an admiring Bog!

Posted by Reciprocity on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:47 | #

“However, we might seek to coordinate on our mutual interests as European people, providing the Christians can fight on those grounds.

It should be possible. We have not forgotten the overwhelming sounds at noon of bells from churches saturating Agrigento, on the Southern coast of Sicily, obviously set against potential recurrence of Muslim incursion.”

In this case France will be interesting to watch. The question is “What benefit does it do them (Trad-Christian groups) to align with the secular White society of France?  Who really needs who here?

In Southern Italy (and other places), they survived as Christian communities even under Muslim rule! I would guess that Muslims will be content with merely “taxing” them but heaven help the liberals and atheists that provoke them.

Understandably, the situation varies by region, but I just can’t see trad-European Christians conceding any more ground than they already have to liberalism.  Reading some of the information about the hard Catholic right in France—they look like they are steeling for a fight and they too have long memories.

Posted by The Other Cheek on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:49 | #

Reciprocal deliberation

A contradistinction of European nationalists as linked with liberalism as opposed to Christianity, of any denomination, which is said to not be linked to liberalism, is dubious.

It is apparent that Christianity must ignore if not relinquish its liberalism in order to fight on behalf of our EGI. Some have historically, and can still, invoke such inventive interpretations* in order to fight, but nevertheless it is they who abandon liberalism.

* An inventive interpretation of “turn the other cheek” that I have heard is that the first strike could have been out of blind passion, and you might forgive it as not entirely voluntary. By offering the cheek however, a second strike would reveal deliberate malice and unwillingness to reason - therefore warrant to fight.

Posted by Hey middle class! Join up! on Wed, 04 Feb 2015 03:56 | #

In stating the obvious, it is the working poor and ultimately the middle class which is being squeezed to death by health care reform and taxation to fund the welfare and displacement by fecund minorities.

Hey middle class, join our cause for your own damn good !

Posted by Conference of Jewish Presidents on Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:54 | #

Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/

Posted by "hate speech vs blasphemy" on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 03:29 | #

Free speech vs “hate speech”

Where kosher liberals are drawing lines:

“Hate speech” = disparaging individuals, groups and holocaust.

“Free speech” includes blasphemy and disparaging ideas.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/02/10/384959376/the-french-debate-free-speech-versus-hate-speech

When terrorists attacked a satirical magazine in Paris last month, killing eight journalists, millions took to the streets in support of free speech. They waved pencils and carried signs in solidarity with the magazine Charlie Hebdo.

But in the weeks since those attacks, scores have also been arrested for condoning terrorism and inciting racial and religious hatred. Many now wonder if the government’s crackdown on hate speech is compromising free speech.

One of those arrested in the wake of the attacks was controversial stand-up comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’bala. Last Wednesday, a judge ordered him to pay the equivalent of a $37,000 fine for condoning terrorism.

The comic has faced prosecution many times in the past for his crude, anti-Semitic jokes. This time it was for posting “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” on his Facebook page. The judge said Dieudonne’s remark was clear support for Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed a police officer and four people in a kosher grocery store.

Dieudonne’s lawyer Jacques Verdier says his client is consistently denied the same freedom of expression that magazine Charlie Hebdo is granted.

“Dieudonne is constantly hounded and harassed, which is why he said he feels like a terrorist,” says Verdier.

In France, as in the United States, people are free to express their opinions. But in France that freedom of speech ends at insulting others based on their race, religion or sex.

“Hate speech laws were inspired by the horrors of the Second World War, and in particular the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews,” says Christopher Mesnooh, an American attorney who practices law in France.

Jean-Yves Camus is a specialist on extremist organizations. He says French hate speech laws have evolved over time. They were first enacted in 1939 to fight the enormous amount of anti-Semitic propaganda in the popular press.

In the 1970s they were strengthened to protect Muslims. And in the late 1980s the French parliament passed a law making it a crime to deny the Holocaust. This was in response to the realization among the French public of the extent of the crimes committed by the Vichy collaborationist government.

“You really can make fun in France of any religion. And this is what the Muslim community has to understand,” says Camus. “We have this tradition and we will stand by it.”

People who would have been fined for hate speech before the attacks are now facing jail terms. One defense lawyer denounced what he called a collective hysteria gripping the nation.

But Camus says Muslims have also been protected by hate speech laws. He says people must understand the difference between attacking a belief and attacking individuals.

“You can say, for example, that you stand against Islam, but you cannot say anything negative about Muslims as a group,” he says.

Camus says the French won’t tolerate a U.S.-style Patriot Act that gives the government surveillance powers over the private lives of citizens. But the French will accept stricter limits on freedom of speech to stop the spread of terrorist ideology, he says.

Camus says some people are confusing hate speech with blasphemy, which was abolished as a crime after the French Revolution.

Posted by local English politics on Thu, 19 Feb 2015 01:46 | #

David Jones and Chris Jackson discuss the how-to of local political activism

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/american-nationalist-network/2015/02/17/the-atlantic-axis-w-david-jones

Posted by R.I.P. Gordon Baum on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 10:52 | #

Gordon Baum, the former personal injury lawyer who helped found the “racist” Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), has died. He was 74.

http://conservative-headlines.com/

Posted by Javier Nichols at London Forum on Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:26 | #

Javier Nichols - “Richard Wagner and his influence on England”

Long-time chairman of the Spanish Wagner Society and Vice President of the Wagner Society of Madrid; author of several books on history, literature, culture, politics and social affairs; Javier Nichols, who was also the Director of the magazine CEDADE for many years, will here discuss Richard Wagner’s cultural and political influence on key English figures such as George Bernard Shaw, Bulwer-Lytton, William Morris, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and of course JRR Tolkien.

Posted by Lessons from Lessing on Thu, 16 Apr 2015 04:01 | #

Lessons from Lessing on how to coordinate nationalisms and mediate conflicts between them:

‘The Eternal Conservative Freemasonry’

Greg Johnson, Ph.D., is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, the editor of its webzine and occasional print journal North American New Right, and the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

Posted by KM at London Forum on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 02:30 | #

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JlD1zMtoGs

Posted by David Jones / Craig Pond discuss candidacies on Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:52 | #

April 21, 2015

The Atlantic Axis is a radio show promoting the efforts of British Nationalists and featuring related Nationalist news stories coming out of the United Kingdom and the Anglosphere in general.

“This Week: Craig Pond, Independent Candidate for Parliament in May 2015”.

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/540/show_7540453.mp3

Posted by Jez Turner on Schengen shenanigans on Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:24 | #

Jez Turner on Schengen shenanigans

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/08/RIR-150807.php

Posted by London Forum Youtube Account Terminated on Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:46 | #

BREAKING NEWS!

‘The London Forum’ youtube account terminated

Well that’s it folks.

Youtube have terminated The London Forum channel - which had over 7,000 subscribers and whose videos had been viewed over half a million times.

So much for ‘Free Speech’ and ‘democracy’.

All across the net, common sense sites are being shut down.

Is this what our ancestors fought for?

Our enemies know that they cannot win the debate, so they’re shutting us down instead.

We saw it coming.

We’ve made contingency plans.

We shall fight on.

And one day we shall win.

- Jez Turner and The London Forum team