Posted by Thorn on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:44 | #

No doubt the liberal elites delight in arresting Paul Weston for the simple fact he is emerging as the most effective voice who’s publically fighting against the ongoing ethnocide being perpetrated against the native English in particular, and the white race in general.

I can only hope and pray the arrest of Mr. Weston serves to promote him and his/our cause rather than deter him. IOWs Paul Weston’s act of civil disobedience and subsequent arrest may very well backfire on the tyrannical ruling class. Given a few lucky breaks, it might catapult him and his message into the national spotlight and as a result, begin to turn the propaganda war in our favor ... for a change.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:13 | #

I second that, Thorn.  Paul is a very thoughtful guy, and I don’t doubt that he thought through the Winchester action carefully.

However, the question is: on what grounds was he arrested?  If for breach of the peace, he would have to be saying something that might cause a riot.  Unlikely on a quiet morning in well-to-do Winchester.  If for hate speech in some form, he’s free and clear without any doubt if he was only reading from Churchill’s text.  Unlawful assembly is out because it doesn’t apply, I think.  That leaves local by-laws, since Paul was standing on council-owned property.  But, ordinarily, the police would not arrest someone making a political protest on council property.  So it’s all a bit odd.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:22 | #

Morgoth, welcome to the site.  I have admired your work in the thread wars for a long time.  I am very pleased Daniel has opened the doors to you.

Posted by Morgoth on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:06 | #

Thanks GW, and Daniel for making this a main post.

Whether or not it is related I can’t say but Paul’s Party recently tried to update their manifesto moving into the upcoming Euro elections, the Electoral Commission rejected the Party’s manifesto. Unfortunately I can’t find the rejection letter but George Whale has published the reply sent back to the Electoral Commission here:

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6384-political-censorship-by-the-electoral-commission

The idea that a Party can have it’s policies rejected on the grounds that they are ‘‘offensive’’ has deeper implications for the growing number of dissident parties.

The article on Paul’s arrest has already gained 10x the amount of comments, and presumably reads, than other articles on his Party’s site so once again we see the death spiral of Liberalism in action, this time it’s a real peach, an Englishman arrested for quoting Churchill (!) The system creates dissidents, the system clamps down on the dissidents and thereby creates far more dissidents.

I posted this on the main DT comment piece:

‘’ Yesterday Paul Weston who is a regular commentor here was arrested for reciting a speech by Winston Churchill. This is the ‘‘Tolerant’’ Britain we now have, a country where repeating a speech by the man who was voted ‘‘The Greatest Briton of all time’’ will get you arrested.
And yet on threads like this the totally insane Liberal Left still argue that ‘‘we’’ and not ‘‘they’’ are the problem.’‘

It gained 75 ‘‘recommends’’ within 30 minutes and was then removed and the entire board shut down, needless to say it doesn’t even come close to an infringement of ‘‘house rules’‘.

The system is starting to appear brittle, like cold toffee.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:20 | #

The arms of those cops look awfully thin.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 04:06 | #

I’ve long liked this Paul Weston. I’m starting to really admire him now. Farage is OK, but nothing more. Weston seems like the real deal. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an Occidentalist in the White House, one who would immediately recall America’s ambassador to the UK until such time as all such phony charges against Weston were dropped?

Meanwhile, how can Americans and others help Mr. Weston?

Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:09 | #

lol I knew this was a DanielS entry from the huge photographs!

But a massive (bigger than a DanielS photograph), planet-sized lolno @ this arrest of Paul Weston.

This is an unwarranted action against Good Mr. Weston’s called-for whine!

IIRC Guessedworker once credited the EDL with “visible resistance”. Well, this visible, and audible, show of resistance from Paul Weston lay somewhere between the faggotry of “raising awareness” and the thuggery of “direct action”.

Should prick the conscience of even the most hardened Islamophile.

Or perhaps not.

Good work all round as I hadn’t come across this story before I saw this thread this morning.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:06 | #

Most nationalists carp and do nothing but bemoan their sad fate. Weston, like Griffin, is actually getting off his ass and doing something for the cause. Good for him!

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:16 | #

The quoted Churchill speech regarding Muslims.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

          - Winston Churchill

Posted by tom metzger on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:23 | #

Bravo! A Brit with balls!!!!! Terrible Tommy

Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:20 | #

The latest on Paul Weston’s run in with the law including a post arrest interview.

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6390-video-paul-weston-could-face-2-years-in-jail-for-quoting-churchill

Amazingly the police chief told Paul off the record that England is already in an ‘‘unofficial war’‘.

Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:09 | #

The MSM has picked up the story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-04-28/euro-elections-candidate-arrested-over-hate-speech/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27186573

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10792895/Election-candidate-arrested-over-Churchill-speech.html

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11175418.European_election_candidate_arrested_on_suspicion_of__religious_or_racial_harassment_/?action=success#comments

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/28/UK-Cops-Arrest-Man-for-Quoting-Churchill

Posted by Mick Lately on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:55 | #

Good.

The more people that read about this in the MSM the better.

The Churchill quote might get them thinking something along the lines of:

*Didn’t Churchill see the dangers of Islam a long time ago!*

and;

*Did Britain fight the Second World War for this?*

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:30 | #

Interesting interview.  Paul deliberately forgot to mention to the investigating officer that he was quoting verbatim from Winston Churchill’s writings.  He was seeking to provoke an arrest, and to prove that the legal system, corrupted by pee-cee and anti-racism as it is, would blunder into action against the words and meanings of perhaps the greatest hero of the British people.

So this was a challenge to the legal system.  If the system doesn’t like it and tries to take him to trial, he will be able to elect to go before a jury at, presumably, Winchester Crown Court.  There is no way that the Crown Prosecution Service could risk that.  The legal officers involved in doing so would be exposing themselves to some very heavy political fire when the jury finds for Paul - which it certainly would.

Either way, the nett effect is that Paul will be free to repeat the Churchill quote as much as he wants.  The hands of the system will have been tied a little, and all power to him for that.

Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:39 | #

Guessedworker: “He was seeking to provoke an arrest, and to prove that the legal system, corrupted by pee-cee and anti-racism as it is, would blunder into action against the words and meanings of perhaps the greatest hero of the British people.”

Quite clever, if that’s the case.  Hat’s off to Paul Weston.  I’m only familiar with him through a couple of speeches that I’ve seen on video, but I was impressed.

Posted by uKn_Leo on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:11 | #

Paul Weston came here remember - he shows up @ post 49:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_allure_or_the_danger_of_political_realism

Posted by wobbly on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:00 | #

Amazingly the police chief told Paul off the record that England is already in an ‘‘unofficial war’‘.

If correct that’s big - not that it’s true, it’s been true for years but that a senior po-leece would say it.

Posted by Jon on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:22 | #

That excerpt from Churchill is one big non causa pro causa fallacy. It’s not unlike blaming “cannabilism” for why Bassongos act like Bassongos. As if if Muslims would only convert to atheism or Christianity, all untoward customs and behaviour would disappear.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:51 | #

If a Churchillian criticism of Islam is not to be permitted to be voiced in officially Christian England, that is a big deal.

I don’t know what it will taken to awaken Europeans. I find Europe’s “racial” problems utterly baffling - I mean, the fact that Europeans in their own homelands tolerate crap from nonwhites. America is a completely different situation in every sense, beginning with the presence “on the ground” of nonwhites, which antedated the Founding. One can understand, if not exonerate, white race liberals in the US. However poorly behaved our blacks might be, they do have an ‘excuse’ for being here, which in turn renders the white liberal desire for “racial justice” at least intelligible.

But how can Europeans tolerate nonwhites wrecking their countries, when there is no excuse for a nonwhite presence in Europe? There ought to be 90+% support for terminating immigration, and at least majority support for reclamation-via-repatriation.

Which simply takes us back to the grim empirical diagnosis that there is something racially aberrant about the white race, considered collectively ...   

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:23 | #

Leon, I take your unremitting contention that the White race is defectively passive to be useless and tantamount to a Jewish trick - first time I saw that argument was from stinking Ilana Mercer.

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:46 | #

Bill Warner on the Arrest of Paul Weston

Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam discusses the recent arrest of Paul Weston for quoting Winston Churchill. He suggests how Counterjihad-minded people can use Mr. Weston’s example to be more effective in their efforts.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/04/bill-warner-on-the-arrest-of-paul-weston/

(Thorn note: The report of Paul Weston’s arrest is being widely reported in the KWA. From the Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage to the Fox News Channel —The Five....  That’s a good thing but the problem is, they’re all framing the event within the context of free speech violations. For reasons all too obvious to race-realists, those in the MSM will not venture into the central issue that Paul Weston stresses: the ongoing race-replacement of England’s native population via massive immigration. As expected, the news blackout WRT white genocide continues.)

Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 01 May 2014 00:16 | #

Thorn: “As expected, the news blackout WRT white genocide continues.”

Yes, which is why it is important to make the link ourselves, wherever we may post comments.  Paul Weston, opponent of white genocide, was arrested for exercising his free speech rights.

Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 01 May 2014 00:39 | #

Leon Haller: “But how can Europeans tolerate nonwhites wrecking their countries, when there is no excuse for a nonwhite presence in Europe?”

Leon, I used to think this way too.  I remember first learning about non-white immigration to Europe when I was a kid back in the 80s.  I distinctly recall thinking, “Are they crazy?” Why would they inflict this misery and stupidity upon themselves?  I understood immediately that America had created its own racial problems, and we therefore had to deal with it, but it simply made no sense whatsoever that Europe would do this to itself. 

Now, of course, I understand that we whites are being subjected to a racial attack at an international scale, and therefore the struggle for our people is inherently an international one.  What I didn’t understand at that time, but do now, is that the anti-white liberal (by this I mean the garden variety types, not those that are at the top and orchestrating all of this) is not a rational being.  Certainly, he is far more akin to a cultist than a rational man.  What he believes doesn’t need to make sense.  He is fundamentally hostile to the continuity of the European peoples, and if he lacks a good reason to justify this, he’ll just make one up.  Any ludicrous reason will do, or none at all.  Arguing with them reveals this bizarre nature. 

Not too long ago, Jesse Jackson visited Sweden, unless my memory fails me.  He told a group of liberal Swedes that Sweden must become a multiracial society, and the justification for this seemed to be that some Swedish ships were supposedly involved in the slave trade.  Even if true, even if a handful of Swedish sailors and merchants were involved, by what utter madness does one conclude that an entire people must be swamped with Africans?  That an entire people must become Africanized hybrids? It’s beyond mad hatter insanity, but the Swedish liberals ate it up.  They grinned and applauded the good reverend.

Really sickening stuff, but also bizarre. Again, madness. 

It’s so insane, so grotesquely evil, that it baffles the mind that any sentient creature could believe such a thing.  But the anti-whites do so believe.  None of it has to make the least bit of sense, which is why Americans who think that they have to argue over Indians or slavery are missing the point.  The anti-white cultist doesn’t actually care about any of that stuff, any more than the anti-whites in Europe do.  The are immune to reason and evidence, they are cultists, and we must separate from them entirely.

Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 01 May 2014 14:21 | #

Maimonides ruled that where it is politic to do so and the Jews will not get the blame, then Christians are to be killed whenever possible.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 01 May 2014 23:17 | #

Typical leftist/PC propaganda from liberal rag The Week, but at least the author (a sodomite, I think), succinctly explains why America has been ruined:

Last month President Obama went to the LBJ Library in Texas to celebrate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Next year is the 50th anniversary of something that shaped our society almost as much: the 1965 Immigration and Nationalities Act, which forever changed the demographic seams of America. In 1965, the racist quote [sic] system that governed immigration since 1920 was replaced by a series of rule-based preferences for family cohesion and economic contributions. It was much fairer, in more tightly linking citizenship to what individuals were able to do for America. The 1965 Immigration and Nationalities Act is why a majority of children being born today in America are not white.

http://theweek.com/article/index/260817/theres-no-such-thing-as-an-illegal-immigrant

Immigration of nonwhites is THE white enemy. Never forget that. Never let the confused (or the mendacious) try to channel justified rage over white dispossession and oppression into the useless or secondary channels of antisemitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, etc.

The issue is RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE!! 

When WN confuses its mission with other concerns apart from condemning the disaster of totalitarian racial integration, it merely retards the growth of white consciousness and patriotism. Any self-styled “WN” who is not first and foremost a racialist (and therefore anti-immigrationist) is no WN at all.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 01 May 2014 23:26 | #

Train@23

My lifelong thoughts, precisely. “Diversity” is truly a new religion. Hence, my long term desire to write a book (post-doctorate) on The Cult of Diversity, exploring diversity in light of Religious Studies analyses of classic cults, and then comparing diversitarianism with what I understand to be the true creed of Christianity.

But for political purposes, consider my comments on White Zion, and its justification. I will be proven correct re WZ. Our people, to live, require TOTAL SEPARATION, not only from nonwhites (including Jews), but from white liberals, too. We will never achieve this within the historic state system. We are ideological minorities everywhere, and always will be. Even if a majority of whites achieve race consciousness, our votes will be swamped by white liberals + burgeoning immigrant communities (cf. white American conservatives - a clear majority of whites - and national power).

Only by international ingathering do we have a chance.

Posted by Robert Reis on Fri, 02 May 2014 05:43 | #

Feminism is one long, impassioned plea to restructure society so smart women with repellent personalities can find comfortable sinecures that don’t require attracting a husband.http://anti-gnostic.blogspot.com/

Posted by Robert Reis on Fri, 02 May 2014 05:51 | #

If I fuck your daughter and your wife in front of you – and all you do is gripe online about it – you have given me no reason to fear you

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 02 May 2014 15:11 | #

David Hamilton article discussing Churchill’s White patriotism, obscured in recent WN discourse, wherein “Churchill” has become synonymous to cooperation with Jewish war-mongering banksters and Dresden

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/05/winston-white-nationalist.html

Sir Winston Churchill attempted to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955. He also wanted the Conservative Party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.”

Churchill:

“If it is felt that coloured workers should not be allowed to obtain employment in this country, I should have thought the proper course would be to deny them entry to the country.”

Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 02 May 2014 15:31 | #

So after his Jew-Jew pays better than you-you phase Churchill attempted to turn the tide post Windrush?

That’s to his credit but it seems that the NWOish plans might already have been in place after the Jews emerged as the real winners of the Second World War.

Difficult to know: I admire the sober-minded approach that Dan Dare took on the immigration series here but it does seem as if there may have been a secret plan to rid the world of whites that was put in to place ~1948.

Posted by wobbly on Fri, 02 May 2014 21:20 | #

@Trainspotter

But the anti-whites do so believe.  None of it has to make the least bit of sense, which is why Americans who think that they have to argue over Indians or slavery are missing the point.  The anti-white cultist doesn’t actually care about any of that stuff, any more than the anti-whites in Europe do.  The are immune to reason and evidence, they are cultists

You’re right that sense and logic aren’t relevant. However what is critical to them is that they believe themselves to be moral. That’s their weak spot.

Posted by Nick Dean on Fri, 02 May 2014 22:46 | #

Yay! Go Churchill and Ukay neocons!

If that doesn’t make nationalism more appealing, next stop Afriyie and Sacha Baron-Cohen!

Posted by Robert in Arabia on Sat, 03 May 2014 02:24 | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU Ape With AK-47

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 May 2014 10:41 | #

WHO IS DAVID CAMERON?!

The Hollowness of David Cameron

Who is the real David Cameron? We’ll probably never know—and he may not, either.

Freddy Gray

April 22, 2014

May-June 2014

IN ANTHONY TROLLOPE’S NOVEL Phineas Redux, Mr. Daubeny, a prime minister modeled on Benjamin Disraeli, proudly announces, “See what we Conservatives can do. In fact we will conserve nothing when we find that you do not desire to have it conserved any longer.” It’s a credo that Prime Minister David Cameron appears to live by.

Among a crowded field of contenders, Cameron may be the slipperiest Briton ever to have successfully climbed the greasy pole. We read his name in the papers. We see his face on our televisions and computer screens, yet nobody is quite sure who he really is or what he is doing. Buying muffins for his children? Tending to weighty matters of state? Conscientious servant? Rank opportunist? He has been at the forefront of British public life for almost a decade, yet all definitions slide off him. He has been prime minister for nearly four years, but his agenda remains no more than an aspiration. As the journalist Alex Massie recently asked, “What is David Cameron for?”

We used to think we knew: “Dave” was a modernizer. In 2005, when Cameron first rose to prominence, the British Conservative Party seemed ruined. The Tories had lost several elections in a row. They were distrusted, reviled, “the nasty party.” They needed a savior: in breezed Cameron. Only a few months earlier, nobody outside Westminster Village—London’s equivalent of the Beltway—had heard of him. His only brush with the big time had come in his twenties when he worked as a special adviser to Norman Lamont, the chancellor of the exchequer, and then Michael Howard, the home secretary. In the footage of “Black Wednesday,” September 16, 1992, when Britain announced the withdrawal of its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, you can see the twenty-six-year-old Cameron, his hair and suit unruffled, standing behind Lamont as he addresses the cameras outside Downing Street with the momentous news.

Cameron went on to have a successful career as a PR man at the media firm Carlton Communications, where he fine-tuned his genius for news management. He returned to politics as a member of Parliament in 2001 and quickly emerged as a first-rate public speaker, the outstanding figure among a group of young center-righters on a mission to “detoxify” the Tory brand and drag their party into the twenty-first century. He went to great lengths to appear as un-Tory as he possibly could. He wore Converse trainers and quoted Gandhi. He promised “compassionate conservatism” and talked about sharing the proceeds of growth. Politics, for him and his camarilla, was about “achieving progressive ends through conservative means,” whatever that meant. He bicycled around London and preached about the environment. He changed the party logo from a flaming torch of liberty to a green-and-blue tree. He lauded gay marriage and sneered at the “headbangers” on his right. [WHAT AN ARSEHOLE!]

There were grumbles from the old guard. Peter Hitchens (brother of the even more famous Christopher) accused Cameron of having “mopped up the last-remaining puddles of moral, social and cultural conservatism.” Lord Saatchi, the advertising guru and former Conservative Party chairman, called Cameron’s entourage the “say anything to get elected” Tories. But most British right-wingers—a practical more than an ideological bunch—were cheered by the thought that, finally, the Conservative Party had found a winner. Cameron bested his rival David Davis, a more robustly right-wing type, took his party by storm, or at least by the neck, and instantly established himself as a popular public figure.

THERE WAS ANOTHER ASPECT of Cameron that everyone understood: he was privileged—not an aristocrat, exactly, but upper-middle class enough to be seen by almost every voter as “posh.” An Old Etonian and Oxford man who mingled among a circle of similarly smart and successful friends—the “Notting Hill set”—he seemed almost typecast from one of those soppy Richard Curtis comedy films such as Love Actually, in which English toffs roam around London being self-deprecating and charming.

Experts suggested that Cameron’s elite background meant he would never hold mass appeal. They were wrong. In the middle of the last decade, Britain was feeling affluent and strangely unburdened by notions of class. Cameron’s poshness was a good joke, and it infuriated committed socialists, but the public didn’t feel put off. Indeed, the media, even on the left, were infatuated by Cameron’s glamour. Successful journalists in Britain tend to have liberal values and come from the richer parts of London, so even if they despised Tories they could at least identify with Cameron—someone who came from money but tried to be enlightened. The Cameroons—Cameron’s immediate circle—had tailored their message specifically to placate the BBC and the Guardian, Britain’s most important lefty institutions. Meanwhile, the new-look Tory combination of enthusiasm for free markets and progressive social attitudes—mixed with social pedigree—made the party attractive again to the power brokers at News International, Rupert Murdoch’s empire, who had fallen for Tony Blair in the 1990s. This particular alliance turned out to be acutely toxic—following the great phone-hacking scandal—but in the last decade it was still considered invaluable in politics. The Sun, Britain’s most-read tabloid, embraced the Cameron project, as did the Times.

When, in 2007, Blair stepped down to be replaced by the more robustly left-wing figure of Gordon Brown, Cameron’s stock rose further still. The self-appointed “heir to Blair,” Cameron appeared destined to capture the center back from New Labour. He was the good guy in British politics; Brown was a thug.

But then disaster struck in the form of the global financial crash. Cameron found himself stranded: having maneuvered the Tories to the middle, he found that the atom of Blairite centrism—with its faith in the unifying power of neoliberal and global economics—had started to split. People were scared and wanted something more than platitudes and spin from their politicians. Brown veered left, virtually nationalizing the bankrupt banking system and presenting himself as a megastatist hero of the future. Cameron could not be seen to support Brown’s dangerous overhaul of the economy, but he also didn’t want to be viewed as unpatriotic during a crisis. He floundered, while “Super Gordon” enjoyed a bizarre political revival. Suddenly, too, the posh factor counted against Cameron: nobody wanted an Old Etonian in charge at a time of real emergency.

The “Brown bounce” didn’t last. It did, however, expose a real weakness in Cameron’s position. He needed to reassure voters that he stood for something more than his own personal advancement and that he had deep answers to the big questions posed by the crash. He needed “the vision thing,” as George H. W. Bush called it. Cameron had always said that his “progressive conservatism” had intellectual roots, but now, with the 2010 general election looming and the global crisis ongoing, he had an urgent PR need to spell it out. Encouraged by Steve Hilton, his director of strategy, and Oliver Letwin, the shadow cabinet policy coordinator, Cameron began talking about Edmund Burke and the importance of “little platoons” in civil society. He had a curious flirtation with the political philosopher Philip Blond, a “new localist” who believed that the financial crisis had created an opportunity to revive the neglected tradition of “red Toryism.” “British conservatism,” wrote Blond in a much-discussed essay in Prospect, “must not . . . repeat the American error of preaching ‘morals plus the market’ while ignoring the fact that economic liberalism has often been a cover for monopoly capitalism and is therefore just as socially damaging as left-wing statism.” At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Cameron expressed his concern that “someone working in the local branch of a global corporation can feel like little more than flotsam in some vast international sea of business.” Elsewhere, he seized on a report by Demos, the London-based think tank, about the value of stable families, those littlest platoons. “Parenting is the coalface of creating character,” he said, in a deep voice, to some applause.

ALL THIS HIGH-MINDED WAFFLE came to a head in the Conservative Party’s election manifesto in 2010, which laid out the party’s vision for the “Big Society”—a Brave New Even Greater Britain in which the state would empower individuals or small groups to make life better for everyone. The central government would act as the enabler of “social entrepreneurship,” cutting away red tape and pushing the petty bureaucracies aside to enable true localism to prosper.

It was much too grandiose an idea for British politics, and duly backfired. The concept sounded suspiciously intellectual to common sense–loving Tories—it didn’t help that the Big Society’s acronym was “BS”—and the public could not process the idea that the nasty party wanted to be nice, actually. Critics on the left smelled a Tory rat: those cruel right-wingers were at it again, they said, scrapping vital public services and dressing it up as benevolence. Polly Toynbee, the influential Guardian columnist, called the Big Society a “big fat lie.” Under pressure from his more hands-on shadow ministers, Cameron promptly ditched the BS and started campaigning again on practical policies. But the damage had been done: soon after their Big Society manifesto was published, the Conservatives’ poll ratings dipped, and they did not recover sufficiently to win an outright majority. Today, Cameron still uses the words “Big Society” from time to time as a feel-good line in the odd speech—in his 2013 Christmas message, for instance—but it’s hardly a model for reforming the nation. He would never again make the mistake of trying to be too profound.

The general election of May 6, 2010, resulted in a hung Parliament. The Conservatives had only a small majority. To form a proper government, they would have to enter into coalition with the Liberal Democrats. For a few days, however, uncertainty ruled. The loathed Gordon Brown did not leave Downing Street. It looked, for a day or two, as if the left-leaning Liberal Democrats might enter into coalition with Labour instead of the Conservatives. A charm offensive was needed: here Cameron came into his element. He quickly forged a close bond with the Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg—another privately educated man (Westminster) with whom Cameron has more in common than he does with many Tories. As Labour sulked, Cameron and his negotiators offered the most generous terms to their prospective government partners. Sure enough, on May 12, Cameron and Clegg appeared together in the Downing Street Rose Garden to announce their political marriage to the world. Cameron was prime minister, at last, and Clegg would be his deputy. It looked, at least for a few hours, like a triumph.

THAT WAS THEN. Ever since, Tory policy decisions usually have involved resistance—often in public—from the Lib Dems, Britain’s most leftward-leaning political party. Cameron insists that his administration has proved itself resilient—“it does what it says on the tin,” he said, quoting a well-known varnish commercial—and it’s true that the “Lib-Con” union has survived its first term in reasonable condition, in large part thanks to the working relationship between Cameron and Clegg. But often the two men have been tugged apart by their respective bases. Cynics may say that Cameron has been able to use the Lib Dems as an excuse to be less and less conservative. But sharing power has both narrowed and broadened the prime minister’s political scope. On some issues, Cameron and Clegg have been able to sing from the same liberal hymn sheet—for instance, in legalizing gay marriage last year. But, in exchange for supporting the Tories, the Lib Dems have been eager to present themselves as the coalition’s progressive force, holding back the rabid right-wingers. This has proved tricky for Cameron, precisely because it is exactly the image of himself that he liked to project. Governing in a coalition has forced him to be less left-liberal, especially because these days he faces an insurgent challenge from the right in the form of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Ferociously Euroskeptic and led by the charismatic Nigel Farage, the UKIP has been attracting ever-larger numbers of disaffected Tory traditionalists. As a result, Cameron has repeatedly felt compelled to reassure grassroots supporters that, au fond, he remains one of them. So Dave the once-proud environmentalist has found himself being quoted as saying that he wants to “cut the green crap”—though aides deny that phrase was ever uttered. And Dave the Tory leader who once told his party to stop “banging on about Europe” has found himself committed to an “in/out” referendum as to Britain’s future within the European Union. He particularly infuriated Clegg, an outright eurofederalist, by effectively vetoing an EU treaty change on the grounds of protecting Britain’s national interest.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 May 2014 10:42 | #

cntd.

The constraints of coalition have not, however, prevented Cameron’s government from attempting radical public-sector reform on a number of fronts. The coalition has attempted to revolutionize state education (inspired in part by the U.S. model of charter schools), revamp the administration of the National Health Service (NHS), overhaul the dysfunctional welfare system, and—most of all—tackle Britain’s economic crisis and its immense debt problem. For these reasons, at the end of 2013, the Daily Telegraph’s Peter Oborne called the prime minister “the great reformer.” “Mr. Cameron,” he wrote, “has had to cope with economic crisis, a mutinous Tory party, a coalition government and a fractious media. But in his first three years in office he has already a more solid record of domestic achievement than Tony Blair can boast over a full decade.”

Is it possible that behind the superficial front Cameron really is a great conservative pragmatist? Again, it’s hard to say. Effective domestic reform is, as Oborne says, hard and unglamorous work, only recognized in the long term. But there is a lingering suspicion that Cameron’s enthusiasm for announcing big policy ideas is not matched by a willingness to go through the heavier, less exciting slog of implementing them. The coalition’s reforms have in fact been something of a mixed bag so far. On schools, thanks to his energetic minister for education, Michael Gove, Cameron has made progress. But only 174 so-called free schools have opened in the last three years, and Britain’s slide down the international education rankings continues. The effort to reshape the welfare system has great public support, but has been ruined by bureaucratic mistakes. The ambitious shake-up of the NHS has been reduced to a step-by-step managerial effort. And while the economy is showing clear signs of improvement, the “green shoots” are growing off ever-vaster levels of government borrowing. For all the talk of austerity and cuts, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has actually increased state spending in real terms: In 2009–2010, public-sector current expenditure, adjusted to 2011–2012 prices, was £634.2 billion. By 2012–2013, it was reportedly around £647.1 billion.

At the same time, Cameron’s reputation as a good man has been undermined by the never-ending phone-hacking scandal. The story began as a series of revelations that Rupert Murdoch–owned newspapers had been illegally intercepting celebrity voicemails. By 2011, after incessant pushing by the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times, whose own motives are not hard to fathom, it had transformed into a wide-ranging exposé of the entire political-media matrix through which Britain is run. Cameron was compromised first by the fact that his director of communications, the tabloid man Andy Coulson, had resigned in 2007 as editor of the News of the World following the first round of hacking reports. Cameron’s decision to appoint Coulson only seven months later—and stand by him as the allegations intensified—raised serious doubts about his judgment. Coulson finally stepped down in January 2011, but the problem would not go away. Cameron subsequently established an official inquiry into “the culture, practices and ethics of the press,” presumably in a bid to make himself look above reproach, but the decision caused him acute embarrassment when his turn came to answer questions. The lead counsel, Robert Jay, humiliated the prime minister by reading out a series of flirtatious text messages between him and Coulson’s successor at the News of the World, the red-haired Rebekah Brooks, who lived near him and was a close friend. Nothing else could have so perfectly encapsulated the cozy complicity of the political and media elite. In one cringe-inducing message, Cameron thanked Brooks for letting him ride one of her family’s horses (“fast, unpredictable and hard to control but fun”). In another, the day before one of his major speeches, she told him: “I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we’re definitely in this together! Speech of your life! Yes he Cam!” In the last decade, Cameron’s successful wooing of News International had made him look like a worthy prime-minister-in-waiting. In the more anxious 2010s, it made him look grubby and not a little absurd.

LIKE SO MANY LEADERS struggling at home, Cameron has found solace in adventure overseas. He always promised that he was no neoconservative: in a speech delivered on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he had warmed many a realist heart by distinguishing between his liberal conservatism and the more hawkish variety. “We will serve neither our own, nor America’s, nor the world’s interests if we are seen as America’s unconditional associate in every endeavor,” he said. Democracy, he added, “cannot be imposed from outside. . . . Liberty grows from the ground—it cannot be dropped from the air by an unmanned drone.”

Yet Cameron’s instinctive liberalism—his impulse to be the good guy—also makes him a natural interventionist on humanitarian grounds, and in the civil war in Libya, he saw a conflict worth fighting. Cameron’s friends today insist that he was a reluctant warrior. His priority, like President Barack Obama’s, was to heal the economy and fix a broken society at home. The last thing he wanted was an expensive and energy-sapping military engagement. But as Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces rounded on Benghazi, and a terrible slaughter looked imminent, Cameron performed a volte-face and became a passionate advocate for intervention. It was Cameron—probably even more than the bellicose French president Nicolas Sarkozy—who applied the most external pressure on President Obama to intervene. (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with Susan Rice and Samantha Power, did the twisting of Obama’s arm at home.)

We shouldn’t scoff at the thought that a prime minister wished above all to save lives. It would be naive, however, to suggest that political gain was not among Cameron’s motivations. The allied effort in Libya came at a time when coalition relations were at a low ebb. Far from being an unwanted distraction, Libya was a welcome one. Clegg, like Cameron, was no conventional hawk, but he too decided military action was the right course. Is it too cynical to say that the two men, exhausted after squabbling over issues such as university fees and social security, were pleased to have discovered an excellent adventure, a grand humanitarian mission, like gay marriage, upon which they could embark together?

Cameron, for his part, must have enjoyed playing the statesman on the global stage after a challenging few months, especially since it turned out that the military campaign was relatively quick, casualty free (for Britain at least) and successful in the short term. The drama of war excited the prime minister, too. According to the journalist Matthew D’Ancona, author of In It Together: The Inside Story of the Coalition Government, Cameron’s experience in Libya, in the words of one of his friends, was “the moment when Dave said to himself—‘wait a moment—I have the levers of power.’”

No matter whether Libya was a real foreign-policy success or not, the Cameroons were eager to claim the conflict as a big win for their man. He had saved the day. As another unnamed government source told D’Ancona, “Whenever things get bad, and the press is saying what a rubbish government we are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a risk.”

Cameron was so enthused by his Libya experience, in fact, that he soon adopted a gung-ho approach to the next major Arab conflict of Western interest. Spurred on by his wife Samantha, who in March 2013 had toured the country with the organization Save the Children, Cameron pushed hard for intervention against Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war. Last August, he came back from holiday determined to act militarily following another round of reports that the Syrian president’s forces had used chemical weapons. The world could not “stand idly by” (that phrase again) as a dictator massacred his people, though, like Secretary of State John Kerry, Cameron utterly failed to spell out what the objectives of a strike would be.

As it turned out, the war effort flopped. In a rare flex of legislative muscle, Parliament bridled at the prospect of yet another intervention in the Middle East and narrowly rejected a vote sanctioning the use of force. It helped set the stage for President Obama’s own retreat from his red line, as the U.S. Congress, too, looked as though it would not serve as a rubber stamp for war, as it had before the Iraq imbroglio. And so Cameron the never-say-die human-rights warrior almost instantly reverted to Cameron the sober realist: “It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.” He performed the metamorphosis so smoothly that some of his sharpest critics were left applauding his humility in the face of defeat.

One day, we may look back on Cameron as a heroic figure who only went to war reluctantly for the noblest causes, while at the same time pulling off massive political, economic and cultural reforms at home. But Cameron’s obvious impulsivity in foreign affairs suggests a far different verdict—a meretricious figure who would rush to war for the sake of his own conscience, or just some good headlines.

POLITICS MUST BE PERSONAL for Cameron, and it is PR. He has filled his government with his chums and he is loyal to them. One of the refreshing features of Cameron’s government has been that he gives his ministers autonomy within their various departments. He has moved away from the highly centralized “sofa cabinet” system of Tony Blair. But it is also often said that Cameron has a lazy streak. As long as he is winning the headline war against Labour, he doesn’t want to be bothered with the nitty-gritty of government battles. At first this claim seems incredible—a successful politician can’t possibly be idle. But Cameron does pride himself on being laid-back, focused on the bigger picture. He reportedly calls Fridays “thinking days” (which presumably means “not working days”) and can frequently be seen with his feet on his desk, drinking a beer.

In that sense, he is a typical Old Etonian: Britain’s most famous public school has a reputation for turning out supremely self-confident leaders who don’t sweat the small stuff. They have social inferiors to do that for them. Cameron’s critics also accuse him of “government by essay crisis”—a reference to his Oxford education. When things seem to be going well, he can be complacent; it takes a crisis to sting him into action.

One of Cameron’s nicknames is Flashman, the bully character in Tom Brown’s School Days who was turned into a great literary antihero by George MacDonald Fraser. He has a reputation for being rude, or, as the journalist Damian Thompson puts it: “He exhibits the calculated rudeness of people with very nice manners.” Cameron certainly has a temper. His opponents on the Labour front benches enjoy referring to the “crimson tide”—what the shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt described as “that half hour journey, every Question Time, during which the Prime Minister’s face turns from beatific calm to unedifying fury.” At the same time, however, he is an inveterate charmer, more than capable of buttering up his enemies if it provides him with an advantage.

As the 2015 general election approaches, Cameron is shifting shape yet again. He has brought in the Australian political strategist Lynton Crosby, a no-nonsense right-winger, to toughen up his image. At the same time, he has hired Barack Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina, a lifelong Democrat. Just as Obama did in 2012, Cameron is now urging the electorate to let him “finish the job” by awarding him a second term. But the public does not seem willing to comply. The latest polls suggest that the Labour Party remains favored to win in 2015. If Cameron is ousted, he might try once more to imitate Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, setting up foundations and being a sort of global spokesman for hire. Or he could go back to the gilded life of the British toff: a good country house and some decent claret shared among a tight circle of influential and discreet friends. Who is the real David Cameron? We’ll probably never know, and he may not either.

Freddy Gray is managing editor of the Spectator.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 14 May 2014 08:34 | #

Calling any intellectual Englishmen (or Welshmen, Scotsmen, Ulstermen et al):

I recently got a magazine solicitation for the London Review of Books. I’m a long time subscriber to the New York Review of Books. I’ve gotten these before. This one is $30 for 1 year (24 issues). Seems pretty cheap to me.

Question: Is the LRB of a high intellectual quality (as they advertise)? I know they’re leftist (as with the NYRB), but are they good? I’ve read a number of their reviews online, but I still can’t tell. Often what I want to read is not available to non-subscribers.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:51 | #

Telling it as it is 20 years too late.  What did we gain by being on the defensive eh?  Sweet FA.

Nick Griffin: Holocaust ‘exploited’ to stifle immigration debate

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/bnp/10829555/Nick-Griffin-Holocaust-is-a-moral-club.html

Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 May 2014 10:18 | #

@37 The BBC version of events.

Looks like we ain’t seen nutt’n yet.

UKIP immigration policy based on race - BNP’s Nick Griffin

UKIP is against “white immigration” from eastern Europe but in favour of “immigration from the Third World”, BNP leader Nick Griffin has claimed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27406316

Posted by Bill on Wed, 14 May 2014 10:36 | #

In both the Telegraph and BBC’s accompanying pictures of Nick Griffin is a far cry from the usual pictorial efforts when depicting the BNP leader.

The standard fare for years has been to use the most hideous portrayal of Nick Griffin when accompanying BNP articles, but here the photos are of a different Nick Griffin, a serious Nick Griffin, a responsible thoughtful Mr Griffin, and dare I say, a budding grandee Mr Griffin.

What’s going on here?

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 May 2014 07:52 | #

Having just skim read an article at Alt Right I immediately formed a question in my mind.

The Article is IS ETHNIC REPLACEMENT ‘UNDEMOCRATIC’?

http://alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/is-ethnic-displacement-undemocratic.html#more

I can’t get my head around the basic tenet this question calls for - we were never asked - the article says.

What sane assasin would ask its victim if it wanted its throat cut.  Is it me?

However that was just an aside issue.  Here’s my intended question. Is Darwinian fitness now redundant in a world of atomised humans?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 May 2014 08:35 | #

Is Darwinian fitness now redundant in a world of atomised humans?

Well, Bill, the answer to your question is that environmental pressure never goes away.  But in response to it European Man invented technology which super-charged his survival.  East Asians even managed to survive, if not prosper exactly, in permanent ice-worlds.  Now, the European technology is being free-ridden by peoples who do not possess the same creativity.  Some may be able to maintain an existence with it.  But it’s worth asking if Africans, left to themselves, could possibly survive in a cold-climate region.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 May 2014 11:31 | #

GW @ 41

Let me try and set up my ducks in a row.

Darwin talks about species and sub species within the group (eg. birds)  which hive off into sub species for whatever reason.  Man exists only in the one human form and doesn’t evolve into sub species, but does evolve into culture, race? or even nation states.

Liberal man has engineered the human specie into an atomised social condition, I cannot think of (off the top of my head) of any other such living creature that exists in this condition)  Cue, list of avalanche of such species.

Commutarianism is much spoken of as the ideal model for society these days, which as I understand it is humans living in harmonious social enclaves all contributing to the greater good.  Which incidentally sounds very much like what I lived through in the 1950’s.  Funny that, Blue labour yearning for a return to the 1950’s.  Hilarious!

This is at odds with the liberal/neoliberal? notion of an atomised society, which seems to throw up just one more inconsistency in the madhouse.

Anyhow I digress, back to Darwin.  An atomised human society surely cannot gravitate and coalesce into a competing Darwinian group for world hegemony, it can only decline into reverse and be overtaken and consigned to oblivion.

I remember years ago commenting that liberalism is a culture of suicide, an ideal world without humans.

GW.  Are you saying that European man, and East Asian man, are evolved sub- species in our present day world?  Sounds like you’re conflating sub species with race, or are they the same thing?

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 15 May 2014 11:39 | #

We are doomed.

I think too much is being made out of Race as an intellectual matter. The issue is simple, really. Most other groups are behaviorally and cognitively (and thus economically/professionally) inferior, and our leaders coercively integrating us with them is causing no end of problems for us, as well as leading ultimately and ineluctably to our biological extinction. We don’t want Diversity imposed on us. We want back our lands. The quality of white existence deteriorates in tandem with the increased presence of nonwhites.

That is the crux of the matter. Forget all this idle Darwinian and/or philosophical speculation. Where does it get us to ‘complexify’ something fundamentally simple? The really tough and useful questions pertain to the political strategy for awakening our race-blind fellow whites, and then for saving our race.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 May 2014 12:49 | #

An atomized society is an ideal environment in which a pro-immigration/pro-growth economic model thrives. The question is: Did the ruling class intentionally create such an environment so as to allow the aggressive sociopaths to become oligarchs? or did that environment arbitrarily evolve in which the aggressive sociopaths took advantage and became, or are in the process of becoming, oligarchs?

Either way, does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power in exchange for such “trivial matters” as preventing the white race from going extinct?

Enter political correctness and anti-racism. PC and AR were created and designed as a tool to keep the dissenters of the current economic model and multiculturalism in line. In addition to the MSM, there are legions of PC police and PC police wannabes more than eager to work towards making sure PC and AR prevail.

Can Paul Weston or Nigel Farage continue to exist (literally) in such a stacked-deck environment?  Will Nigel Farage’s success cause his demise? as in being assassinated?

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 May 2014 13:38 | #

White Privilege Conference 2014 Part 1 of 4: Racism Was Invented In The American Colonies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpvFnL6dOk

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 May 2014 14:43 | #

Leon,

Go to this thread:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephenkb/100271524/ukip-and-its-racist-supporters-this-is-what-happens-when-small-parties-grow-too-fast/#disqus_thread

... an article on “UKIP’s racism” by a black journalist who works at the DT as a moderator (yes, I think we now know where the hyper-censorship on the site originates).

Now scroll down maybe thirty comments to the longish conversation between a certain Habitat12 and joebooker.  Note the endless contortions of the latter as he tries to maintain his prized status as someone critical of immigration but far too moral to do very much about it (beside deport Moslems, of course).

This is what we are up against.  Such people cannot process the idea that liberal “compassion” and “empathy” have to go out of the window if our people are to survive.  They simply cannot make do without their faux-morality.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 May 2014 15:17 | #

This is what we are up against.  Such people cannot process the idea that liberal “compassion” and “empathy” have to go out of the window if our people are to survive.

What we are up against are people whose thinking is overridden by emotion. They comprise the masses. OTOH we are driven by reason and logic. Facts and evidence matter to us. Facts and evidence matter not to liberal do-gooders. They don’t care how disastrous the outcome of their illogical endeavors; the only thing that matters to them is their good intensions. As it stands now, we are vastly outnumbered.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 May 2014 15:47 | #

There’s the Ilana Mercer, “White psychology’s suicidal tendency”, meme again.

Not that Christianity disrupts logical thinking and assertive concern for self interest in this life or anything.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 May 2014 16:11 | #

@46 & 47

This is what we are up against.  Such people cannot process the idea that liberal “compassion” and “empathy” have to go out of the window if our people are to survive.

Jonathan Bowden says nationalism has to step over such matters, smash through it and onwards.  I think he (Bowden) intimated if nationalism couldn’t hack it (carry it out) then it was curtains.  If it comes to blows, people will, in the end, do whatever it takes.

I think he’s right.  It needs someone like Farage to pave the way, like Paul Weston in his video, call their bluff, I’m a racist so what! next question please? Make them look stupid.

I made a comment @ 39 where BNP’s nick Griffin appears to be being wooed by the BBC, almost as if he is being groomed for rehabilitation, why would Nick Griffin diss Farage and UKIP to curry favour with the BBC?

Looks like Griffin will do anything to gain airtime on the BBC.  The BBC will obviously push the envelope to stir up discord within the nationalists ranks.  There’s a goodly few PHD’s in the dirty tricks department at the BBC, I’m beginning to think they wrote the manual.

I’m resolved not to follow this EU election blow by blow, on the media, I don’t know why other than I cannot stomach the ease with which the media lie and fool the people.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 May 2014 18:29 | #

As usual with the DT, anti-white racist censorship has kicked in.  Everything has been blitzed.  This creature just can’t stand pro-white discourse.  Damian Thompson must be informed!

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 May 2014 19:53 | #

Having followed GW’s Telegraph link @ 46 I was taken aback by the quality of the little I read, as I had to adjourn for tea.

I commented recently the Telegraph threads were barely worth reading such was the paucity of serious comment, today I have not only scanned down the linked thread but also another fresh article off the assembly line by Peter Oborne….

British politics is broken - and only Nigel Farage is profiting  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10830882/British-politics-is-broken-and-only-Nigel-Farage-is-profiting.html

There’s also a headline suggesting there be a party political summit debate in the Telegraph for a Cameron-Clegg- Miliband debate in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

Party leaders urged to take part in historic online debate

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10830882/British-politics-is-broken-and-only-Nigel-Farage-is-profiting.html

The political class are in meltdown panic at the unfathomable runaway success Farage and his party are exhibiting, it is palpable, the whole of the media circus has swung into ‘Get Farage’ mode, including no other than one Nick Griffin of the BNP.

Is this hate Farage genuine or is it carefully choreographed tag team wrestling?  It’s a pretty convincing show of being frit, and so it should be because there is something definitely in wind for the media’s mood of complacency is losing its mojo.  It is almost as though there is at long last a collective awakening throughout the land, especially to those in the media who see their unchallenged supremacy coming to an abrupt end.

The eyes of the western world is upon Europe and the EU elections, searching for clues as to where next, quickly to be followed in 2015 as to what effect the EU election has had on British politics.

The political landscape will look very different at the end of 2014 to what it was at the beginning, as to what it will look like at the end of 2015 is in the lap of the gods.

I’ve been impatiently waiting all these years for the moment when our people raise from their television sets and cry to the heavens, ‘Oh my God what have we done’?  I am having to pinch myself that this could actually be that moment.

The acceleration of the changing mood is breath taking, even a few weeks ago there were no signs of such a breakthrough, the EU elections next week and the following 2015 British General Election are ordained by fate to be a referendum on Britain’s survival and the part that mass immigration will play.

As Blair once uttered, the kaleidoscope has been shaken - the pieces are in flux. 

Posted by Bill on Thu, 15 May 2014 20:05 | #

2nd link @ 51 should be…

Party leaders urged to take part in historic online debate

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/10833885/Party-leaders-urged-to-take-part-in-historic-online-debate.html

Posted by wobbly on Thu, 15 May 2014 22:51 | #

Either way, does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power in exchange for such “trivial matters” as preventing the white race from going extinct?

They always do. They are driven to concentrate wealth - mostly out of evolved paranoia - but an economy can’t function if wealth is too concentrated so round and round it goes in a cycle.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 May 2014 23:53 | #

They always do.

No, they don’t always do. My point is this time it’s different. Their policy of massive immigration is leading to race-replacement. This time the “cycle” is leading to permanence. That’s the difference.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 16 May 2014 04:58 | #

The ‘cycle’ is always permanent.

When Boston Irish Mayor James Michael Curley was finally swept into power in 1914 by a critical mass of Irish immigrants and their descendants, he made no attempt to make peace with the old Bostonians, but openly gloated: 

  ‘The day of the Puritan has passed. The Anglo-Saxon is a joke, a newer and better America is here. The New England of the Puritans and the Boston of rum, codfish and slaves are as dead as Julius Caesar.’

It makes no difference whether Irish or Pole, it’s still race replacement.

Posted by wobbly on Fri, 16 May 2014 04:59 | #

Your original point.

does anyone think the oligarchs are going to give up their wealth and power

My answer to that is they always (involuntarily) give up their wealth and power by destroying the basis of their wealth and power. They always cut the branch they’re sitting on.

#

Separate to that is whether or not in the process of losing their wealth and power this time - as they always do - they will have done enough damage to permanently destroy the host population.

I agree that part is different this time.

Although that’s now new historically either: you can follow their progress through history by following the chain of once impressive ex civilizations starting with Saba that became African admixed and stagnant.

Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 16 May 2014 11:45 | #

Time to fill the “low-information voter” with the “right” kind of information:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Any thoughts?

Posted by wobbly on Fri, 16 May 2014 16:59 | #

Any thoughts?

They’re all estimates. No-one knows the true numbers.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 16 May 2014 20:06 | #

Dan Hodges at the Telegraph. 16/5/2014

Nigel Farage has just appeared on the James O’Brien show, and it’s one of the most amazing radio interviews I’ve ever heard.

Nigel Farage was comprehensively taken to the cleaners in this interview, why doe he think taking on these people he’s going to get a fair shake of the dice.  Farage should steer clear of leftist motor mouths like O’Brian, perhaps there’s a salutary lesson to be learned here.

Hodges was right when he compares this interview with Nick griffin’s debacle on BBC’s News Night, but he is wrong however when he states Farage’s fate will be the same as Nick Griffins.

There is something totally bizarre happening in this election, unprecedented I should think.  No matter what insults and allegations, personal and financial misdoings, even accusations of the most heinous crime in the leftist book, fail to make any dent in Farage’s fortunes, on the contrary, Teflon Nigel sails sublimely on.

Not only are the slings and arrows having no effect on UKIP’s fortunes but are having a totally opposite effect as they boomerang back to the accusers.  The left are getting their own sh*t back.

I’ve always thought the left have a blind spot and nowhere is it more apparent than in this current campaign, they are incapable of putting themselves in UKIP’s supporters shoes, it is incomprehensible to the left that such rhetoric will not paralyse UKIP like a cross being bared to a vampire.  The idea that no-one could possibly not agree with them never enters their head.

Jonathan Bowden would have loved this interview, it validates all he says about stepping over the guilt trap and smashing forward and onwards, leaving your gaping opponent in the rear view mirror.

Farage should learn from this interview, he never got a word in about what he wanted to say, motor mouth threw so many punches Farage was reduced to shrivelling wreck.

He can’t afford to be seen repeating this performance very often or he will be toast

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 17 May 2014 12:24 | #

The struggle: Traditional conservatism vs “corporate conservatism.” If “corporate conservatism” prevails, white America is toast. I see little difference between what’s happening in the KWA to what’s taking place in the EU—especially England.

A Left-Right Convergence Against The Corporate Elite? It Could Happen!

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Last summer, in this capital of gridlock, a miracle occurred.

The American people rose as one and told the government of the United States not to drag us into another Middle East war in Syria.

Barack Obama was ready to launch air and missile strikes when a national uproar forced him to go to Congress for authorization. Congress seemed receptive until some Hill offices were swarmed by phone calls and emails coming in at a rate of 100-1 against war.

Middle America stopped the government from taking us into what even the president now concedes is “somebody else’s civil war.”

This triumphal coming together of left and right was a rarity in national politics. But Ralph Nader, in Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, believes that ad hoc alliances of left and right to achieve common goals can, should, and, indeed, shall be our political future.

To call this an optimistic book is serious understatement.

Certainly, left and right have come together before.

In Those Angry Days, Lynne Olson writes of how future presidents from opposing parties, Gerald Ford and John F. Kennedy, backed the America First Committee to keep us out of war in 1941, and how they were supported by the far-left Nation magazine as well as Colonel Robert McCormick’s right-wing Chicago Tribune.

Two decades ago, Ross Perot and this writer joined Ralph and the head of the AFL-CIO to stop NAFTA, a trade deal backed by America’s corporate elite and its army of mercenaries on Capitol Hill.

Congress voted with corporate America—against the country.

Result: 20 years of the largest trade deficits in U.S. history. Transnational corporations have prospered beyond the dreams of avarice, as Middle America has seen its wages frozen for a generation.

In 2002, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry joined John McCain and George W. Bush in backing war on Iraq. Teddy Kennedy and Bernie Sanders stood with Ron Paulc and the populist and libertarian right in opposing the war.

The Mises Institute and The American Conservative were as one with The Nation in opposing this unprovoked and unnecessary war.

The left-right coalition failed to stop the war, and we are living with the consequences in the Middle East, and in our veterans hospitals.

As America’s most indefatigable political activist since he wrote “Unsafe at Any Speed” in 1965, Ralph is calling for “convergences” of populist and libertarian conservatives and the left—for 25 goals.

Among these are many with an appeal to the traditionalist and libertarian right:
•Break up “Too Big to Fail” banks. Further direct democracy through use of the initiative, referendum and recall.
•End unconstitutional wars by enforcing Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to declare war.
•Revise trade agreements to protect U.S. sovereignty. End “fast track,” those congressional surrenders of constitutional authority to amend trade treaties negotiated by the executive.

From the subtitle, as well as text, of his most recent book, one may instantly identify whom it is Ralph sees as the main enemy. It is megabanks and transnational corporations without consciences whose highest loyalty is the bottom line, the kind of men Jefferson had in mind when he wrote: “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

Where such men see a $17 trillion economy, we see a country.

Undeniably, there has been a growing gap and a deepening alienation between traditional conservatives and those Ralph calls the “corporate conservatives.” And it is not only inside the conservative movement and the GOP that the rift is growing, but also Middle America.

For America never voted for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, mass immigration, amnesty, or more H-1Bs to come take the jobs of our workers. These votes have been forced upon members of Congress by leaders carrying out their assignments from corporate America and its PACs, which reward the compliant with campaign checks.

Both parties now feed at the same K Street and Wall Street troughs. Both have oligarchs contributing tens of millions to parties and politicians who do their bidding.

In 1964, a grassroots conservative movement captured the Republican Party and nominated Barry Goldwater. In 1972, a grassroots movement of leftist Democrats nominated George McGovern.

Neither movement would today survive the carpet-bombing of big money that would be called in if either came close to capturing a national party, let alone winning a national election.

Because they have principles and visions in conflict, left-right alliances inevitably fall out and fall apart. Because they are almost always on opposite sides of disputed barricades, it is difficult for both to set aside old wounds and grievances and come together.

A social, moral, and cultural divide that did not exist half a century ago makes it all the more difficult. But if the issue is keeping America out of unnecessary wars and restoring American sovereignty, surely common ground is not impossible to find.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 17 May 2014 12:59 | #

“Corporate conservatism” (aka “neoliberalism) is the “right” half of the elite which is parasitically enriching itself off America’s decline. A lot of these corporate guys are just as big race traitors as college professors. Let us memorialize who they are, if only for future purposes. I’ve long thought we ought to be doing a rightist analogue to leftist “shaming”. Why should some overpaid race traitor supporting the displacement of American workers not be subject to public censure?

That said, I’ll take “corporate conservatism” over Obamunism any day. After all, most of us can find work (and life) in an expanding economy. But economic stagnation breeds total misery.

Anyway, there is no hope for whites (at least outside of Old Europe) except White Zion. Even if enough white Americans awaken (and I see everything going in the opposite direction), what will we be able to do, now that our land has been colonized? Either internal secession, or White Zionist emigration.

Posted by wobbly on Sat, 17 May 2014 13:43 | #

@Thorn

Spot on.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 18 May 2014 09:17 | #

Over this weekend I had chance to have a chat with a long time associate and one time colleague, not exactly a friend you might say, but know sufficiently well to have a comfortable discussion about how to put the world to rights.  It was the hottest day so far this summer, Clive, (not his real name) was tending his manicured lawn stripped to the waist shorts and all.  I pass his house as I take my Saturday afternoon cycle ride.

Diversity is a million miles away as we look out over uninterrupted English countryside with its early verdant summer greens framed with clear blue sky as a staged backdrop.

After much pleasantry I eventually ask Clive who will he be voting for in the EU elections this coming week, the reply was the usual angst face, contorted, as he wrestled with what to him was obviously a thorny question, from then on I probed his thinking.

Clive is an old c/Conservative never voted otherwise.  He is a pleasant, intelligent chap and in recent months we have had several such chats across the garden fence. At the end of of our amicable exchanges I’m never really certain he’s taken on board or understood anything I’ve said.

Well, this conversation went the way of all others, and it was obvious he hadn’t taken on board or even understood what I was talking about, we parted company cheerily, I on my cycle and he knees bend tending his border.

And as times before, I lazily set off across the easy riding valley lanes and hedgerows, my thoughts mulling my conversation with Clive, I tried to figure out what it was about Clive (and others I know and talk to, some to the left, others to the right, but all solid small ‘c’ British conservatives).

I was puzzled as to the common thread that united them all in similar fashion, ostensibly agreeing with my sentiments but never convincingly.  (Yes it could be me).  I was never altogether convinced Clive and the others really took on board the points I was making,  The only conclusion that made any sense in the way they reacted was all of them could not believe that their trusted representatives could or would behave in such a manner.  The chaos, the corruption and treachery they were witnessing was (always) due to their politicians being totally useless.

Clive and his like will continue to invest their (shrinking) confidence in a corrupt system, never thinking it could be any different.  None that I’ve spoken to are capable of thinking outside of the box.

I always ask if they have access to a computer and they all have, but when I ask if they ever use it to investigate the causes of Britain’s plight, its always the same response, a look of amazement.  No they don’t.   

I wonder if they have any notion of cognisant dissonance?

Hmm,?

I might try it next time.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:44 | #

Europe’s Camp of the Saints moment.

Guardian 3/6/2014

Europe faces ‘colossal humanitarian catastrophe’ of refugees dying at sea.

There’s more to this article than meets the eye.

.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:16 | #

@ 64 Should have included….

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/europe-refugee-crisis-un-africa-processing-centres?commentpage=1

I hardly recognise the Guardian’s comment section, stuff that wouldn’t have seen the light of day not long back is now majority viewing.

Unintended consequences or intended?

I’ve read where the EU are gearing up plans to accept a further 50 million migrants from Africa.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/78180/50million-invited-to-Europe

Posted by Nation of Islam, group evolution strategy on Thu, 07 May 2015 08:11 | #

The Nation of Islam as an African-American Group Evolutionary Strategy - Andrew Joyce, May 6, 2015

For many years I’ve had a tempered respect for Black Nationalists. If our struggle is a difficult one, hampered at every turn by the hostile controllers of culture, theirs is perhaps an even greater labor. To start with, leading Black Nationalists have had to contend with the biological handicaps of their race — the most potent being a lower IQ and attending dispositions towards impulsive behaviors and criminality. On top of this, modern Black mainstream culture is even more spiritually and morally bankrupt than our own. Social problems accompanying this culture are acute. Blacks account for 30% of all abortions, but comprise just 14% of the population. The traditional family unit is next to non-existent in modern Black America. Just under half of Black men will never marry and those that do will marry White women at twice the rate of Black women marrying Black men — bringing destruction to the genetic distinction of both our races.

Black Nationalists have also had to contend with the fact that most of their co-ethnics enjoy living among Whites and receiving all the benefits that that entails. Black separatism is simply too unappealing to enter the Black mainstream. On top of this, Black Nationalists have also been subject to hysterical treatment from the ADL and SPLC — organizations that work over-time to prevent the emergence of non-Jewish nationalisms that dare to acknowledge racial realities or point out the Jewish role in the Great Game of modern ethnic warfare. Although Jewish hatred reserves a special place for European man, Black Nationalists have not been spared.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/05/the-nation-of-islam-as-an-african-american-group-evolutionary-strategy/

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:07 | #

Speaking of wedge issues, this is another wedge issue that is coming up just north of where Weston is, and which has been developing for a while now. There is the fact that the ‘gay rights’ issue has evolved to the stage where ‘gay rights’ are now associated with what they call ‘white privilege’, because Muslims don’t like gay people and so rubbing it in their faces is now considered to be a form of oppression directed against what they regard as a marginalised group.

Breitbart, ‘Swedish Nationalists Plan Gay Pride March Through Muslim Area: Left Is Outraged’, 23 Jul 2015: (emphasis)
[...] Organisers said there was no dress code, adding: “You could take the opportunity to tan your belly and legs in the sunny weather.”

However, angry left wing and gay rights activists have taken to Facebook, denouncing the planned pride march as “right wing”, “xenophobic” and “pure racism”.

A counter-demonstration is now planned, with organisers claiming Järva Pride “pits two oppressed groups against one another.”

Taxpayer-funded gay rights group RFSL has distanced itself from the pride march, accusing it of promoting racism and white privilege, while some activists are even calling for the organisers to be arrested for “hate speech”. [...]

Of course, it is difficult to understand how Muslims could be an oppressed or marginalised group, considering that they hold institutional power in a whole region of the world called ‘MENA’ (Middle East and North Africa), and have a large population of adherents as well as being one of the world’s largest and most overbearingly oppressive religions. A religion which asserts that all other gods are ‘false’, other than their own.

The fact that there is a situation where the liberal establishment is defending that religion in European lands, shows how far the Overton Window has been dragged.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:34 | #

It’s a good idea to use this as a wedge issue.

Queers are a very small part of our populations and clearly a practical place to make a concession (since their small presence is inevitable) when choosing a side to take in order to exploit a contradiction in liberalism and drive a wedge against Islam.

We can freak-out the Mulims, cause significant consternation in the liberal world view and crucially, wedge against “conservatives” altogether as they are, as you say, conserving liberalism and universalism, e.g., through Christianity.

Posted by Bone chilling warning by Paul Weston on Fri, 09 Mar 2018 02:00 | #

Bone chilling address of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee of America) by Paul Weston, in which he warns America not to look toward Europe as the homeland that will always be there -

“We in England look to Sweden in the way that America should be looking to Britain, because Sweden is literally a lost country ...we in England have maybe two decades before everything hits the wall” ...

“This denial of what Islam is, is going to be the downfall of Europe.”

“And because I’m English I’m going to have to talk to you very briefly before I wrap-up about what happened with the raping and grooming gangs that we have had for the last twenty years in Great Britain; but only finally made the news last year; and it was broken by a guy called Andrew Norfaulk, who is a Times journalist.

And the reason he knew about it, the police knew about it, the politicians knew about it, but none of them wanted to talk about it because that would cause some sort of ‘community un-cohesion’ ..and community tensions.

Now, I think it is much more likely that you will get community tensions when your local girls and sisters and daughters are being raped and groomed and tortured; and the police won’t talk about it. I think that is much more conducive to community tension than actually telling the truth about it when it could have been stopped way back in 1990.

And I don’t know what you know about the British National Party and Nick Griffin - who has some sins that I can’t forgive him for - but Nick Griffin actually came out and said many years ago, I think in 2004/5, he told the truth about these Muslim grooming gangs.

And the response of the British government was not to investigate, and not to look out for these girls; all of these girls, by-the-way, were in care - they were vulnerable young girls; and they’re not sixteen or eighteen; these girls went from seven to thirteen years of age - and as I’m talking about it now, the police would be called to a hotel, where thirteen Muslim men were in a room with a naked twelve year old girl under the table; and a very irate father outside the front of the hotel. And the police would arrest the father!

This is how bad it is.

I’ve rather gone off track but the Muslim grooming thing, I think, is really the icing on the cake in terms of what they are allowed to get away with; and what our reaction is politically from the politicians, from the police, the media - because they all colluded in covering-it-up - I was talking about Nick Griffin and - the Times journalist when he broke the story in 2014, said the reason they had sat on this story for so many years was because they did not want to give any ammunition to the nasty fascist, right-wing political organizations in Britain.

Which is absolutely disgusting.

I’m rambling, but my point really is that Britain is not yet lost.

We’re not far-off being lost - Sweden’s gone, Sweden is just a matter of five or ten years - Britain can still maybe do something about this.

But I don’t think it will be resolved peacefully.

I think probably we’ll be looking at a civil war scenario, in the same way that Yugoslavia broke-up in the 1990’s.  ..and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970’s.

I think this is the future of Europe generally speaking.

And I think that when it happens it will not be contained in the way that Yugoslavia was able to be contained.

It’s going to be cataclysmic.

Something that people cannot imagine, really, living in modern, democratic times.

But it’s coming.

And I will finish simply by saying, you all need to look at what’s happening in Britain and Sweden and Europe; and you all need to make sure that you retain your First Amendment Rights because unless we can talk about this, unless we can bring it out in the open, you in America will go the same way.

You need to stand up and look at what we’re doing and say this is never gong to happen here!”

Posted by The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws on Sun, 03 Feb 2019 18:19 | #

Hoover Institution, 1 Dec 2019:

The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws

All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent.  The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

[...]

The Soviet proposal would be targeted not just at Nazism but against agitation in favor of capitalism and liberal democracy.

Although Article 19 of the udhr does not contain a specific limitation clause, it is still possible to restrict freedom of expression pursuant to general limitation clauses contained in the udhr. Article 7 ensures equality before the law and protects specifically against incitement to discrimination, while Article 29 includes a general limitation clause according to which the rights in the udhr may be limited, inter alia, for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

The drafting of Article 7 started in the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities. The Soviet Union presented a proposal that included an obligation to prohibit “Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hostility or of national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, as well as any action establishing a privilege or a discrimination based on distinctions of race, nationality, or religion constitute a crime and shall be punishable under the law of the state.” The U.S. and Belgian experts vociferously opposed this proposal and sought to prevent a vote upon it. However, France came up with an extensive proposal requiring states to punish infringements of the principle of nondiscrimination. Ultimately Australia and China presented a draft compromise provision that sought to condemn only incitement to violence against minorities, which was adopted with ten votes and one abstention in the Sub-Commission.

Despite the adoption of this compromise, the Soviet delegate continued the fight for limiting freedom of expression in the Working Group of the Human Rights Commission. The Soviet delegate held a speech in which he declared that without a prohibition against hate speech “any Declaration would be useless.” This led to a reiteration of the above-mentioned Soviet proposal on Article 7, which was rejected, though very narrowly this time, with two votes to two, with two abstentions. During the second session of the Human Rights Commission, the Soviet delegate tried once more to submit the proposal, and this time the Belgian representative took it into consideration. He rejected the Soviet proposal but amended the current version of Article 7 with the phrase “and against any incitement to such discrimination,” which was adopted with a great majority.

However, in the third session of the Human Rights Commission, the British and Indian delegates jointly proposed to delete the prohibition against incitement to discrimination since “the United Kingdom, feeling morally bound to carry out the provision of the Declaration, would be obliged to pass laws which experience had shown were neither necessary nor desirable.”

Countries supporting the British/Indian stand included the U.S., while the French representative strongly favored a prohibition against incitement to discrimination. He was joined by, inter alia, the delegation from Yugoslavia, who felt that “incitement to discrimination should be explicitly forbidden.”

The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.

Posted by Adrean on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:09 | #

Adrean Arlott of Compulsory Diversity News to the Rescue

John Dlugosz: The people will decide what is relevant. The First Selectman has said, “I feel (Anna Zubkova) deceived us by omission and I feel misled. I’m pulling my support and telling my friends and family to do the same. The signs on my lawn are coming up. There’s a lot of good people who made a decision to support her without having all the information they needed.”

I believe ignoring evil–in one’s country, state, town, and certainly under one’s own roof–is unacceptable. Is hatred and fear-mongering and ignorance a family value? Read the content of the blog and it’s very clear Mr Freeman believes the world would be a better place if his beliefs were imposed on us all.

I choose to speak out against hatred and stand up to it, because I’ve suffered too. But I was brought up a Christian, and my family values are love and forgiveness, and having the courage to stand up to hatred and bigotry. Understanding and compassion will always overcome hatred and aggression. That’s a value this country was founded on. To my way of thinking, those who choose to turn a blind eye to evil are either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, I pity them. The good people of eastern Connecticut will decide what is relevant, and what they value in their leaders.

Peace.

Adrean Arlott: Dlugosz, Anna is running to be a probate judge. I don’t think the ability to sense evil is part of the job description. You say you are a Christian. Tell me, what was it like serving on the Salem Witch Trials? Sensing evil must have been a big part of that job. Was your buckle hat really as itchy as it looked?

Posted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:11 | #

Counter Currents, “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Rise of a Prophet”, 4 Feb 2019:

by Spencer J. Quinn

It’s striking how cherry-picking can hone the pen of a propagandist and disguise malice behind a veneer of reason. Jewish writer Cathy Young provides excellent examples of this all throughout her December 2018 Quillette article, “Solzhenitsyn: The Fall of a Prophet.” Published shortly after Solzhenitsyn’s 100th birthday, the article’s point, essentially, is to tarnish the reputation of a great man in order to steer discourse away from aspects of his work which the current zeitgeist finds problematic. Her shoddy, dishonest treatment of Solzhenitsyn resembles Soviet-styled political revisionism, and it stinks, frankly, of character assassination.