Majorityrights Central > Category: Political analysis

Run time 61 mins. File size 23.9MB.

Jim Giles interviewed James Bowery a couple of days ago on Radio Free Mississippi. The primary territory is the conflict between Jewish interests and the Enlightenment values of truth and freedom—conflict as exemplified by the hostility of Jews toward the laboratory of the states to found discourse on experimentation rather than argumentation. It is 1 hour 48 minutes.

A long and winding conversation, as much as an interview, with Alex Linder. One hour seventeen minutes long, in fact. File size 35.2MB.

How has the current Western political class come into being?

That’s the question posed to readers of that tribune of the libertines, Samizdata.net.  It’s a good question, but not a perfect one.  It could, I think, be improved by the addition of the following:-

And how has this Western political class been sustained in power?

That allows us to talk about the democratic process, its subversion by special interests and it hollowness in electoral terms.

Now, there is a certain congruency between Samizdata and MR readers.  Both are individualistic - the Samizdatista archly so, the MRer inadvertently.  Both, of course, disdain the political class as a body of men and women rigidly antipathetic to their respective primary interest.  The liberty junkies, therefore, wail as the creeping sands of the state envelop the liberties they cherish.  We, being human, spit on the soil and look to the horizon, thinking about our children and our land.

You can see what kind of fist the Samizdatistas made of answering their question here.  “Education” is a favourite resort.  Of course, none of the answers make any sense from the standpoint of a European people losing their land and their life in a politically ordered and defended genocide.  The Samizdatistas are historical dilletantes and mewling liberals who have conniptions at the slightest whisper of the word “race”, and a full-blown seizure at “Jew”.

Still, let’s see what we can put together by way of an answer to that question: how did our political class come to this estate, and what keeps them like it?

On Wednesday night the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze devoted 45 minutes to consideration of whether BNP members should be employed in public services.  7 minutes 40 seconds was given over to the (decidedly) cross-examination of Mr Lee John Barnes, who these days goes under the title of National Coordinator of the British National Party legal department.

His performance was nothing if not combative, and earned him and the party some level-headed and fair praise from one panel-member, Michael Portillo.  For breaking the BNP taboo, he will no doubt receive the due amount of contumely and criticism from former friends and colleagues.

The programme can be heard for the next few days here, with Barnes’ contribution starting at 11 min 56 sec.

Barnes answered (rebuffed, really) the less than neutral questions of panel members Melanie Phillips and Clifford Longley.  The first question, though, came from the programme’s presenter Michael Buerk:-

Michael Buerk: Do you accept that some people want limitation on who should be allowed to be BNP members is because your party is widely regarded as racist?

Lee Barnes: Erm, there’s a lot of people in society who are very ignorant of what our party stands for.  Our party isn’t racist.  Basically our party has a positon which is on immigration ... it’s on ... it’s ... primarily our focus is on space more than race, erm, and if you check most of our literature you will find that’s true. There’s isn’t a real racial issue in there anymore.  If anyone is in this country illegally or unlawfully we’re gonna ‘ave ‘em out regardless of race, colour, creed.

Spacist not racist!  Does anybody really believe that?  Probably not.  But, obviously, the party has not been able to defend itself against the charge of racism.  I’m not constrained by the minefields of the political world.  I’m interested in developing an argument that thoroughly nukes the “r” issue.

Towards the end of last week I spent three or four days picking up not one, not two but three Guardian bans while defending the BNP membership against the deracinated hanging judges of the Comment Is Free website.  That takes my CiF bans to sixteen, assuming I haven’t forgotten any of my earlier dramatis personnea.  Does it get me in the Guinness Book of Records?  Probably.  Shouldn’t I be ashamed of this obsessive desire to force innocent liberal backs to the wall?  Er ... erm ... aaah ... nope.  I’m just shameless like that.

Besides, this really only mildly obsessional effort is devoted to a perfectly noble cause: to test the intellectual quality and rhetorical strength of my current ideas against the best, generally, that the other side has to offer, and to refine them further in the light of that experience.  This, in other words, is a work in progress.

READ MORE...

I’m shooting the wind a bit here on the subject of financial muscle and political influence, so let me know if any of my assumptions are obviously wrong.

Here we go ...

One lesson that comes through loud and clear from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign is that small-scale individual funding can compete in the political market.  In excess of ninety-nine per cent of Paul’s funds has come from individuals.  Forty-seven per cent has been raised from contributions of $200 or less.

Now, as these things go, the appeal of a Presidential Campaign is high-voltage, short-term, eyes-on-the-prize stuff.  “The Ron Paul Revolution” has to motivate donors only as long as it motivates enough voters to keep Paul in the game.  However, while the race for the Republican Nomination obtains, both supporter categories have an inbuilt - though quite generous - limit in terms of numbers.  They are drawn from that fraction of the American voting public that can identify institutional politics, and deduce that it serves not them but the institutional interests who fund it.  That’s the nature of the Revolution.

My guess is that the IQ gateway for that deductive capacity lies somewhere between 105 and 110.  Given that voting is itself an IQ filter, maybe two-thirds of the white voting public could, theoretically, be expected to know why they supported Paul in the booth - should they do so.  (This is not to say that the votes of others who simply “like Ron Paul” or “agree with him on the war” aren’t just as welcome, but a Revolution has to be a bit more revolutionary than that.)

Paul may or may not travel far down the presidential road in 2008.  But in shining a light for his brand of strict Constitutionalism he has shone a light for anti-institutionalism.  And that, clearly, has some carry-over into the much weightier and vexing question of the future of white America.

Now let’s look at the scale of the challenge confronting race-conscious white intellectuals as they contemplate Ron Paul’s already surprising achievement.

READ MORE...

I see you are seriously worried now about losing the Scottish Parliamentary Election on 3rd May.  Very percipient.  Even if Scottish Labour is still the largest Party you will certainly lose your majority at Holyrood.  That will leave you depending on the LibDem’s electoral performance.  The SNP, of course, will make whoopey with the Conservatives.

Who, then, will have the numbers?

Well, happily your party is in decline - and it’s an historical decline, rooted in the poorly performing Scottish economy and a leader at Holyrood who is thoroughly despised.  The SNP is already neck-and-neck with you in the polls, and Alex Salmond is more popular than ever.  Your one ace might have been the 2004 boundary changes that saw you, Gordon, switch constituencies from the now defunct Dunfermline East.  And it’s true, they could hit the Tories very hard.  But, amazingly, the same projection reveals a potential cost to Scottish Labour of 10 seats.

All-in-all, it’s just too tight to call.  But let’s not let that stop us.

READ MORE...

ONE of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire.

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African “barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it.  These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights.  The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.

The warnings by Parry of what could threaten Britain over the next 30 years were delivered to senior officers and industry experts at a conference last week.

From a Sunday Times article headed, “Beware: the new goths are coming”.

I recall John Keegan writing many years ago that the British Army was one of the very few institutions remaining in this country imbued with a high moral ethos.  That analysis is borne out here, I think, for the rest of the armed forces by Rear Admiral Parry.

His warnings were contained in a speech delivered last week to the Royal United Services Institute in, of course, always vibrant and equal Central London.  He “heads the development, concepts and doctrine centre, set up in 1998 and based at Shrivenham, Wiltshire.  It has more than 50 staff and is being expanded to include extra analysts.”  It is tasked with blue skies thinking ... skies in which, self-evidently, there aren’t many politically correct boundaries.

He seems to have arrived at his model of social cataclysm in the West because he was asked to determine how global warming will impact on the future defence of the realm.  That’s a nice, wide doorway to all the immigration issues with which MR readers are familiar, and to his credit Parry walked through.

Of course there are shortcomings with the scope of his analysis.  He has to stop at the boundary of his remit, and merely commend the same politicians who have done all they can to pursue cultural and racial Marxism to somehow attend to the cataclysmic consequences.  A blue skies political thinker might have concluded that the feeble, selfish men who populate the green benches of the Commons (or, indeed, the rather comfortable-looking blue chairs of the House of Representatives) are thorough-going creatures of the liberal zeitgeist, and will never be capable of the moral stand that the times require.

The logical extention of Parry’s thinking takes us into what governance is likely as the gap between the official fantasies of advanced liberalism and reality yawns.  Leviathan is one dark possibility, and a military mind should really be sufficiently interested in that to explore his employer’s role therein.  But the recovery of native ethnocentrism, and its political expression, also constitute a possibility, if one that not even Rear Admiral Parry can mention in polite society yet.