If you have twenty-five minutes to spare over the next couple of days, please take a look at this BBC i-player replay of yesterday morning’s The Big Questions.  I don’t watch much TV, and the Sunday religious hour is not required viewing.  But when I read Simon Darby’s blog this morning I had to take a look at the cause of his ire.

The Big Questions is a pretty poor quality studio-audience product.  It sits in the BBC’s Ethics and Religion genre, meaning “difficult issues” are supposed to be debated.  The debating point this time was: does the BNP have the right to be heard?  Apparently, by no means a no-brainer for the democratic and freedom-loving people of Birmingham.

We are all very used to the media nose-holding that goes on when the BNP is debated.  But the behaviour on display here, particularly from the three panellists and the host Nicky Campbell, goes far beyond that.  In fact, beyond anything I have seen before and into the realms of Salem.  Here is what Simon Darby had to say about it:-

Before I review today’s The Big Questions, which you can see by clicking on the image below, I want to tell you something that you will not know. Originally this debate had been set up behind my back with two local BNP councillors. Knowing that this was just going to be an ambush orchestrated by the wise-cracking wannabe left-wing comedian and TV presenter Nicky Campbell, I immediately pulled the plug on it.

Not that our two guys they had lined up would have been a push over, it simply wasn’t fair to put them through what was tantamount to a criminal trial. Talking to the two girls from the show, who I will not name, even at a late stage they were begging me to go ahead with the original plan trying to convince me that the programme would need local politicians in order to work. However, I was adamant that if it was going ahead at all it would not be loaded against us and as a consequence Andrew [Brons] and Rev West found themselves in the hot seats.

Fittingly, on a day when the Sunday papers were quite literally dripping with hate, lies and hysteria towards the BNP, this programme, at least initially, typified the mood. I found myself at first angry, frustrated and towards the end enormously proud of our representatives. Throughout their childish, emotive and almost ritual baiting they kept their dignity and made their points concisely and articulately.

Hate, lies and, now, hysteria sums it up.  It all has the ring of a morbid psychological condition about it.  It is plain that for all who speak the BNP has been built up as some spectre of immanent evil.  Even with war psychosis at its height I doubt if my parents’ generation experienced such feelings about genuine National Socialists.  But these folks have lost all touch with reality.  One wonders in the case of the whites whether it is a consequence of sublimated anger, as David Hamilton maintains.  Are they merely striking out to ward off their own exposure?

The panellists, by the way, are Benjamin Zephaniah, a Rastafarian dub poet and, apparently, a great man, Louise Bagshawe, an author and Conservative Party candidate at the next election, and Jonathan Bartley, who runs the Ekklesia think tank and who is a pacifist and advocate for “the full participation of gay and lesbian people in the church as an outworking of the Christian gospel”.

One is bound to ask who, in 2009, still doesn’t know that “diversity” “enriches” no one?  Who doesn’t know that blacks fail educationally a little too often, or that the danger of violence is always heightened amid black populations?  Who doesn’t know that Jews are powerful and extremely self-interested?

Well, officially everybody.  And after all, the official version is the only version that counts.

Officially, we live, all of us, in the land of the blind.  The great prepronderance of those around us accept that they are supposed to be blind, and fight off awkward enquiries with a mortified urgency.  But such willingness to put out one’s own eyes is based in fear, of course.  The most fearful are also the most sincerely convinced.  There are those who take as their own the descriptions of the world given them by others.  They believe truth to be lies, and the blindingly obvious to be immoral.  They are not free to think, for they do not begin thinking from the right, but from anything but the right.

Today, The Independent produced a hate-scribble titled “Racist rants of elected BNP man, Andrew Brons, revealed”.

In 1983, when he was in his late twenties, Andrew Brons edited the National Front’s general election manifesto that called for a global apartheid to prevent the “extinction” of whites everywhere.

The Let Britain Live! manifesto was prepared by the party’s policy department, chaired by Brons. It outlined a series of hugely controversial positions ...

These are the “hugely controversial positions” that Mr Brons and the NF advocated.

1. The NF rejects the whole concept of multiracialism.  The NF believes the gradual dismantlement of the apartheid system since the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1976 to be retrograde.  The alternative to apartheid, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the White man.

2. The NF recognises inherent racial differences in Man.  The races of Man are profoundly unequal in their characteristics, potential and abilities.  Europeans have a greater cognitive ability than non-whites.

3. The UK has been swamped by racially incompatible Afro-Asians.

4. Black muggings of White people, especially elderly ladies, occurs regularly.

5. The eruptions in Bristol in 1980 and Brixton in 1981 were just two examples of the “cultural enrichment” promised to us by the multiracialists.

6. One ethnic, national and religious group whose power and influence has undoubtedly increased has been the Jews.

7. A number of predominantly Zionist organisations control government.

8. It can be no mere coincidence that the number of people of Jewish ethnic origin to be found in internationalist and multiracialist schools of thought and organisations of action is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population.

Shock horror, it’s all here.  The drastic effects of immigration on the native British, the issues of black violence and criminality, black IQ, the Israel lobby and the wider Jewish Question ... these are the holy of holies of thought police everywhere.  In a free land of free-speakers they should be the litmus test for the health of the polity.  But this ain’t a free land, and by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.

Yet despite all this, there is that feeling of fragility to the whole enterprise.  The moment when the image of a Marxised life arose in radical opposition to life itself was a long time ago now.  No one loves thought control.  Nothing so man-made and so damned offensive can last forever.  Official discourse is already vitiated and devalued.  It has become too embarrassing and too cognitively dissonant for politicians to “celebrate diversity”.  It is inevitable that, united in their inability to swallow the customary forms of lying and living in lying, people will rediscover their fearlessness and their freedom.

The only question is when.

By Dr KR Bolton

Eric Margolis of Canada is one of the most experienced of journalists, with a rare insight into geo-politics. He is an opponent of US global adventurism, and writes for many reputable Canadian newspapers. He has been a lecturer in military history and is widely travelled, a real veteran in international journalism.

Margolis is not afraid to air controversial opinions, albeit ones backed up by deep insights, first-hand experiences, and perspectives of history normally lacking in journalism. On his blogsite Margolis tackled the question of World War II after the comments of Pres. Obama in France marking the Normandy invasion. Writing in a column for 8 June, Margolis states in part:

“METZ, FRANCE June 08, 2009

“President Barack Obama’s visit to Normandy to commemorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day makes us think about the entire course of World War II, and the lingering propaganda or myths that still becloud it …

“World War II was not a good and evil struggle between `western democracies’ and `totalitarian powers,’ as we are still wrongly taught.

“It was a world conflict over land and resources pitting the British Empire which controlled 25% of the entire globe, the French Empire, Dutch Empire, and Belgian Empire, and, later, the US imperium (Philippines, Pacific possessions, Cuba, Central America), against the Italian and Japanese empires.  The Soviet Union was an empire unto itself …”

When I wrote a few years back “An Open Letter to the War Generation” in response to an unsolicited letter that was sent to me, I expressed a largely cynical view of WWII, its origins, purposes and outcomes. Similar opinions have been expressed in addition to Margolis, by Pat Buchanan, and even by the pre-eminent WWII historian Prof. A J P Taylor in his “Origins of the Second World War”.

My “Open Letter” which was aimed at trying to get a veteran to THINK about how they’d been betrayed (in keeping with the opinions I used to hear from NZ vets who were the mainstay of the New Zealand Right when I was a lad first getting interested in politics) was taken up by Australian Dr Toben, an alleged ‘holocaust denier’, and placed at one time of his website for the Adelaide Institute. With much ado, several oddities from the Left, who have the ear of journalists in trying to carve a cheap and easy career for themselves as ‘anti-Nazi crusaders’, have paraded this article – which they never attempt to critique historically – as proof that I am a neo-Nazi etc. In particular Mat Henderson from Australia, whose favourite sport he states is ‘body surfing into fat kids and making them cry’, who has a phobia about ‘fat chicks’ (sic) and who had a really sicko fantasy about Alexander Downer that I’ll not describe here, has referred to this “Open Letter” as proof of my ‘neo-Nazism’. Another oddity, self-described ‘stupid drunk’ Trotskyite Dr Scott Hamilton of Auckland, who has graduated from smearing and threatening fellow communists with trying to establish a name for himself as an ‘expert’ on the pervasive neo-Nazi threat in NZ (like fellow sociologist Dr Paul Spoonley a few decades previously) has stated on such a basis that I work “closely with Toben” (sic); reminiscent of the semiliterate nonsense about me on Wikipedia, which among other things states that I am “a [sic’] associate of the Adelaide Institute.”

Are the likes of Mat Henderson, and Dr Scott Hamilton,– his having a doctorate perhaps again attesting to the poor standards of tertiary education? – now going to rant that Eric Margolis, whom I understand is of Jewish descent, is a ‘neo-Nazi’, a ‘holocaust denier’ etc.? Well, on second thoughts, yes… they probably would… but at least I’d be in good company.

by David Hamilton

I wrote an article sixteen months ago on how the establishment dehumanises people who threaten their privileged lives.  The ruling ideological caste have no answer to our arguments. So they use not only character assassination but also encourage physical violence against their critics.  They do not like having their corruption exposed.

It is usually done indirectly so they can keep up the appearance of respectability.  But evil Peter Hain, who did so much to bring about famine and genocide in Zimbabwe and South Africa respectively, never apologizes.  He, presumably, is delighted with what his career of advocating confrontation has achieved.  He is trying to do the same here and make himself rich at the same time by corruptly trousering £130 grand:

“It is vital that everyone now isolates and confronts the BNP and works with United Against Fascism to defeat them.”

Everyone can see how it works.  He dehumanises Nick Griffin and his party by calling them “racists” and “fascists”.  The gang of Unite Against Fascism thugs attack their hate objects and get to feel perfectly fine about harming them?

The Mirror of 10/6/09 twisted the truth to present victims of politically motivated violence to be the perpetrators.  What sick, corrupt liars are their journos.

But minutes later they were sent packing by 60 placard-waving protesters chanting: “Nazi scum off our streets.”...then ... Protester Harry Dare was punched in the back by a fleeing far-right supporter. Mr Dare said: “I’m not seriously hurt but I was hit and it was unprovoked. I didn’‘t use violence against them. I just told them they were fascists and we didn’t want them anywhere near Parliament.”

In fact, no demonstrators are allowed anywhere near Parliament.  On this occasion, though, the police stood over the road watching.  There is always a high visibility policing in and around Parliament Square, and many carry machine guns.  They’ve got High Definition CCTV cameras all over the streets that can tell the time on someone’s wristwatch.  This demo will have been recorded and monitored from many angles, and the Police nearby would have been immediately informed.  I suggest we all complain to the Metropolitan police.

READ MORE...

An interesting debate has sprung up on the BNP election thread, And the winner is ....  I’ve moved the relavent comments here at the request of one of our esteemed commenters.

The debate was/is a response to the notion that the existential threat all European peoples face in the West today is completely new in historical terms, and calls forth new restorative ideas.  In an intellectually free and creative age ... an age not labouring under the weight of the 20th century ... radical thinkers would respond with towering expositions of the European life.  The existential threat would be countered with a flood of vivifying ideologies tailored to the times, and the best and most inspiring of them to all times.

The 20th century fascist ideologies would be properly understood as vigorous but really quite narrow responses to the threats of their time, enlivened in the case of the German model by some rough and ready social darwinism.  They would not be seen as a solution for all times, or for ours.  For now, the revolutionary wave which fascism resisted has washed over us, and the sickly decadence which National Socialism bled out of German society has penetrated us.  Those lines have been breached, and the battle has been carried forward to the final redoubt of our very existence.  A few decades from now we shall be on the Westwall and in Berlin.  We shall be on Senlac Field, and in Stalingrad ... everywhere that men have known their very being is on the line.

It is the clarification of that first verb “to be” which matters now.  Our people must know what it means to be “us” - as a part of subsistent Nature, as men and as Europeans.  They must know what is and is not true of us and in us, and they must know we have the right “to be” ... the right to live sovereign and free, and the right to live with ourselves and with no others, if that is what we choose.

That is my prescription.  It has, so far as I am aware, not been expounded in the past, probably because no man ever thought that we Europeans would ever find ourselves where we are today.  But here we are, nonetheless, and we have no time - none at all - to waste on philosophical distractions which answer the wrong question.

Below the fold are the comments from the “winner” thread.  I hope I’ve not left out any substantive ones.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

Often, in doing my research for an article like this, I find it is almost impossible to believe what I am reading.  I am reminded that we are fortunate.  We have attained a perceptive grasp and know how to read between the lines.  But if you talk to the average punter in the pub, in the shops or on the bus, you will find that they know little about what is really going on.  They just know what they have been told by the media.

There is an awakening going on, very gradually.  But the media are still dictating opinion for the mass of people in the soggy centre.  The control is very great.

Everyone talks of the gutter press, and of their lies and deceit.  But people still form their opinions on what the press tells them.  The propagandist nature of that is apparent in the dumbing-down that we see in the coverage of politics and areas that the elites want to control, while the analysis on the sports pages of, say, football tactics, or analysis of football managers and their styles, is thoughtful, informative stuff.  It assumes a great deal of both the intelligence and knowledge of the reader.  The political coverage, however, treats him as an empty vessel to be filled with filled with foreign thoughts.

How do the establishment and their media deal with people who form their own conclusions from life, and see through the lies told by the media?  They ignore our perceptions and argue to the man.  They insult the speaker. Why don’t they calmly and reasonably explain why we are wrong?  Because our views are natural and traditional and instinctive.  They cannot face what they also think deep down, so they project on to us.  Those in charge, the “caste”, are the same as us deep down but don’t have to express it because they have good lives in nice areas and exclusive jobs; underneath, they have the same instincts as us and, though cushioned, feel the same shocks.  What they do when they feel unease sneaking in is to repress the doubt, and when dark thoughts bubble to the surface they force them to the back of their minds.  This tension is barely perceived as it is projected on to us.  They see what they cannot face in us, and that is why they never give a reasoned explanation to us.  All the press hate the BNP with a passion.  When I read their hate I look for sensible points in case there is a real expose, but it is always lies.

READ MORE...

by Donald Miller

The collapse of the Obama spending machine has a long way to go yet, especially with regard to pilfering the earnings and savings of European Americans. There are many ways Obama & Bernanke can confiscate your income and wealth to establish a multiracial nation.

GREAT GOLD CONFISCATION

To understand some of this, it may be necessary for you to review the history of the great gold confiscation of 1933:

The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933
From: President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To: The United States Congress
Dated: 5 April, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 6102

Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled

An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes~’,

in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists,

I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section to do hereby prohibit the hoarding gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of the order:

Section 1. For the purpose of this regulation, the term ‘hoarding” means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following ...

RAPID INFLATION NOT SUITABLE

There are fundamentally only three ways to repay the Obama-Bernanke indebtedness—I disregard massive inflation because it would take too long to be effective and, if it happened too quickly, we’d begin to understand the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) really well and up close:

The Weimar Republic had some of the most serious economic problems ever experienced by any Western democracy in history. Rampant hyperinflation, massive unemployment and a large drop in living standards were primary factors. In 1923–1929 there was a short period of economic recovery, but the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a worldwide recession. Germany was particularly affected because it depended heavily on American loans. In 1926, about 2 million Germans were unemployed - this rose to around 6 million in 1932. Many blamed the Weimar Republic. This was made apparent when political parties on both right and left wanting to disband the Republic altogether made any democratic majority in Parliament impossible.

READ MORE...