|
|
|
A reply to Peter Hitchens
British MR readers may know that Peter Hitchens has been dishing it out lately to the BNP, posting on his blog on 24th February, 25th February and 3rd March. The three posts have attracted 544 comments thus far, the great proponderance from BNP supporters. Hitchens’ second post was less temperate than his first, and the third less temperate again. That one was titled, charmingly, “A message to the mug punters, other dupes and self-indulgent fantasists fooled by the BNP - please stop trying to bore me into submission”. This fully merited a response. Hitchens has dallied with bits and pieces of truth all his journalistic life. But he has some serious stopping points in his mentation and he cannot or will not venture beyond them. Three in particular sing out of those latest postings on the BNP. One is a stubborn identification of the party leadership as “forever Nazis”. Another is the irreproachable virtue of the Jews (his mother, a suicide, was part-Jewish). The third, with which I commence the following response, is the overt expression of racial interests in politics - he really hates that word “blood”. The response I’ve written is not as eloquent nor as comprehensive as I would have wished. The Daily Mail has an unstated character limit, and I wound up having to prune the original quite a bit to get it to post. Anyhow, whilst one acknowledges the extreme unlikelihood of Peter furnishing us with a reply, it would be very good to see him explain his position from an ethical perspective ... or attack ours. Here we are ... ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Note: Not for publication, but sent as a comment because I don’t have your email address. Dear Peter, I am replying to three of your sticking points on nationalism. 1. You dislike the reification of “blood”. Well, ethno-nationalism is the politics of genetic interest, not culture. In each land where it is found it serves only the native people. That is why nationalists speak of blood. And they speak of soil because, as the guarantor of racial continuity, homeland is a powerful genetic interest. A people who lose control of their homeland also lose control of their physical survival. You seem to think that the BNP is somehow “bad” for having an explicitly racial constitution. But everywhere in the world, true nationalism (ie, not the civic variety of the SNP) IS racial. One would be extremely naive to expect the constitution of a party in Britain dedicated to the survival of native British people in a time of race-replacement to welcome the race-replacers. Essentially, you are saying that it is wrong for native Britons to pursue their survival politically. That cannot be so. After all, we grant this right to Jews. We grant it to archaic Third World tribes (see the September 2007 UN GA approval of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). It is a universal human right, and we demand it too. 2. The one alien people the BNP welcomes is the Jews, so the Jewish Question, which plainly upsets you, does not arise within the party. There remains, however, a Question about the well-known, remarkably uniform and inflexible Jewish antipathy to the rights and interests of the host. This works itself out in various political and cultural forms, most of which are widely understand to have a “disproportionately Jewish involvement”. Yet we observe a profound silence on the matter, and ruthlessly attack anyone who transgresses against it. Meanwhile, the list of Jewish-authored and/or Jewish promulgated political and cultural products operating in the West just goes on growing. It includes:- Classical Marxism Is one really an immoral person and a “Nazi” for noticing that everything on this impressive list tends towards the denial of European peoplehood or the degradation of European culture? You mentioned the Holocaust. Many people do. Constantly. The Holocaust narrative is the keystone of Jewish activism. It fuels victimology, which is so central to Jewish group identity and cohesion. It is still the key argument for the existence of Israel. It generates billions of dollars in reparations - new claims are rolling in even now. Its political exploitation through the movies, for example, and school curricula poisons national feeling among peoples of European descent, be they German, English, French … it makes no difference. These are supremely important gains to Jews. It takes an obedient, naïve, or “captured” European intellect to discount them. Jewry does not discount them. Nor should we. 3. You aim a wide spectrum of insults at your more nationalistic readers, which is pretty poor. But then you say “the really comical, pitiable ones are those who advance the idea that the BNP has changed fundamentally”. There are concerns about the intellectual and moral quality of some members of the leadership. But these people are not future leaders. In time, others will step forward. Give them the moral space in which to do so. Do not conflate the reclamation of our homeland and our racial sovereignty with NS. I know you think the left is correct about racism. It is not. The left is racist. Race-replacing European peoples is the ultimate racism. I am posting this note to the blog for which I write. Any reply you care to make, either through your blog or by email, will also be published there. Kind regards, GW Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:12 | # Tons of great letters supportive of the BNP in all three Hitchens threads! Those comments threads are worth the browse. 3
Posted by Bert Rustle on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:52 | # http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j1ykg 08 Mar 2009, 19:00 on BBC Radio 5 live Jonathan Maitland examines the influence of the networking group Common Purpose. http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/jonathanmaitland.shtml Secret society?
“Common Purpose” has been described as a politically correct version of freemasonry. Prominent supporters include the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Cressida Dick, BBC Business Editor Robert Peston and numerous top public sector officials. We investigate whether there is any substance to the rumours about its hidden influence and agenda. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:58 | # Tons of great letters supportive of the BNP in all three Hitchens threads! Yes, it is the quality as much as the quantity of the response that obviously provoked Hitchens’ ire. The three “sticking points” in his mind are familiar to anyone who debates with conventionalists of the left or right. They are, respectively, developments of the “racial purity” plaint, Jewish sanctity and the immanence of Nazism. They are Pavlovian responses to an encounter with nationalism. All one can do is to avoid inflaming such inchoate rubbish while at the same time challenging it. 5
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:31 | # Guessedworker, You might want to go back through some of Hitchens articles in regards to Britain’s relationship to the EU. In those articles he has no problem with identifying the “We” or “Us” from the “Them”. And if his defense is that he is speaking of a cultural context that does not abstain him from “discriminating” against other people who he feels no qualms about identifying as being distinct from “We”. Discrimination is discrimination whether it is cultural, political, racial etc… So if you appeal to it in one setting, you must abide by it in another. Or as we say here in the backcountry, What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This 2006 article for example http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-407864/Forget-Romanians-Brussels-real-danger.html It reads,
Have you ever seen such bigoted and hateful language!!!! I nearly fainted from selfrighteous grief….. 6
Posted by Bill on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:59 | # This is a piece from the Mail on Sunday. To-day 8 March 2009. The Mail on Sunday have been running a series taken from Chris Mullen’s diary, today’s take is on Mullins becoming a Under Secretary for State in the Foreign Office. “Now, in the last part of his candid diaries, he tells how, despite his previous unhappy experience he accepted Tony Blair’s offer to become an Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office. But had he ‘booked a third-class berth on the Titanic’?” What is this to do with Hitchens? Read on and I think you will see why I have posted this cameo of the liberal elite at work, especially in perceived matters of racism. To me Hitchens is an enigma, he’s a man torn, religion I suspect. 7
Posted by Sabreman on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:24 | # The reason the Far-Left, including Hitchens, are becoming unhinged can be found in the following articles….. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/at-end-of-road.html http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/thinking-unthinkable.html http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/undercurrents.html http://cumbrianpatriotbnp.blogspot.com/2009/03/crunching-numbers.html Bill…... “To me Hitchens is an enigma, he’s a man torn, religion I suspect.” IMHO, Hitchens is just the Establishment’s version of a Carnival Barker. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:30 | # In the log entry’s list of harmful Jewish social and/or intellectual influences and movements GW omitted the Frankfurt School’s pathologizing of perfectly normal, healthy, inoffensive, unthreatening Euro feelings of group identity and of what normally, harmlessly flows therefrom (unless that was meant to be included under “critical theory,” but it wouldn’t hurt to have given it its own place on that list). Incidentally, while we’re on that subject, look how busy the Jews are shoring up their own sense of, and protection of, group identity even as they shamelessly trash our own in a war waged on all fronts: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-JPPPI.html (One more comment if I may on the Jewish topic, and this sort of “in agreement with” with one of Peter Hitchens’s positions: In the second or third of his three log entries Hitchens states, responding to some readers’ comments, that he isn’t at all Jewish. I see no reason not to accept that. His brother made an oaf of himself for a brief period years back, galavanting around sort of in a dreamy swoon proclaiming he was Jewish, after he found out at age 30 or so that he had a Jewish grandmother. It was extremely embarrassing, or ought to have been (maybe nothing embarrasses Christopher): neither of the Hitchenses can be looked at as Jewish. In fact, it borders on the ridiculous to so view them. I bring this up simply because calling Peter Hitchens Jewish when he isn’t only weakens us. There are enough actual Jews out there being disgusting hypocrites for us to name and call to account for their hypocrisy, disgustingness, Eurochristian-hatred, and genocide-advocacy. Hitchens, not being Jewish, isn’t vulnerable on that particular score. Neither is his brother — or at any rate, not on that score ......... ) 9
Posted by Michael on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:07 | # Good comment from the EUReferendum site: Much as some may throw around insults such as ‘nazi’ when describing the BNP, the reality is that if the BNP were to come to power and implement its policies as stated on its website then Britain will still exist. If the NuLab/NuCon establishment implements its policies to fulfilment, then Britain will cease to exist in any form recognisable to my generation (my year of birth 1961). I am not willing to let the establishment bring my nation to its end so I shall vote BNP. This is the way perfectly sane, normal people talk about their political preferences.* No need for verbiage, no high-brow ideology, no apologies or defensiveness or whatnot, just a clear concise statement making their case for the BNP. And it’s sensible. You don’t have to waste pages of text explaining why you have the right to live. And voters needn’t expend precious oxygen clearing their throat in order to make the case for national survival. It’s taken as given by the overwhelming mass of nations on earth, except for a couple of dozen Western nations. In fact, our Elites are the deviants, the exception here - THEY are the ones who are totally out of synch with normality, not the BNP. So why don’t the Elites step back in line with the vast majority of people around the world (including other Elites) and choose national survival? What would they have to lose by that? Is there something blocking this choice? *I have read Asian nationalists from the 1940s and 50s explaining (in remarkably similar terms to present-day BNP supporters) why they supported their indigenous radical nationalist/communist parties. It’s always put in very simple and powerful terms, like - “before, we had nothing under X, whereas now we have something under Y; hence we support Y”. That’s it. No more is needed. So is the case with BNP supporters today. The Elite can come up with all the dazzling, sophisticated arguments for race-replacement, genocide, war-crimes, slavery and starvation under the sun - indeed much of the mainstream media in the US and Britain is dedicated to precisely that, dreaming up “arguments” why whole countries should be wiped off the map - but eventually ordinary people will blow it all off and speak right to their interests, to the point where they and the Establishment are just talking past each other. At that level of conciousness, when people begin to argue uncompromisingly on the basis of their interests, rather than cowtowing to so-called human “rights” or their alleged historical duty to go out of existence, they will have nothing more to say to their leaders until they are replaced. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:27 | # There are people who can’t look at race because if your eyes aren’t strong enough it burns them. If your nerves aren’t steady enough it wracks them. Peter Hitchens may be one such. It’s hard. Looking at race is hard. You have to understand a lot of things at the same time, including a lot of things in science, you have to get a lot of things right, you have to have a sure moral sense, you have to know right from wrong. All this has to come together in one interlocking mental/moral grasp. But when the motivation is knowing that your race’s extinction or survival hangs in the balance, you do it. You forge ahead. You devote the time and energy to acquiring an understanding, and then staking out a position and not wavering. The stuff you’re made of forbids aught else, perhaps — if it’s the right stuff, the kind that stands being put into the crucible and tried. That’s the difference. We’re all being put in the crucible now, we, Hitchens, everyone, and tried. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:31 | # Outstanding comment by Michael, above. Thank you for that excellent statement, comrade! 12
Posted by Michael on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:32 | # Hitchens is suffering from cognitive dissonance. I don’t think he’s malevolent. He probably knows what will be required to save Britain from extinction (read the BNP platform - an end to mass incompatible immigration, and a voluntary repatriation package for resident aliens - that’s pretty much all we’ll need). He just doesn’t want to admit what currently appears to be a radical notion - that indigenous Britons do not have any interest in being destroyed, and would be doing nothing “immoral” if they sought to resist destruction. It sounds “extreme”, but it isn’t really. In fact, the way things are going, I think it will eventually be considered to be the centrist position. The BNP are basically the moderate revolutionaries whom the Elite should be cutting a generous deal with as early as possible, given what we know about revolutionary history. The BNP are not even as radical as the Girondins were, let alone the Jacobins or the still more extreme Enrages. They are probably about as “hardline” as the reformist clergy, the moderate aristocrats and the very centrist-conservative bourgeois constitutional monarchists of the 1788-9 period. If the Elite don’t give way on the fundamentals, and soon, then each wave of agitators that progressively replaces the moderates (and each other) will be uglier and uglier still, to the extent where all bets are off, not only with regards to the standing institutions of “Britain”, but also the lives and estates of the Elite’s members themselves. So yes, National Survival might be a hard pill to swallow for the Elite, even coupled WITH legal amnesty as the sweetner for stepping down or at least loosening their grip. But if they don’t take their medicine, quickly, then what will they do when they are offered the “once in a lifetime deal” of National Survival + Confiscation of Assets? Or, after that, National Survival + Exile? How about Execution? How long will it take them to realise that while one part of the deal is non-negotiable, the other will become progressively less open to negotiation the longer they try to hold out? Again, history suggests that you always attend to the genuine grievances, early (and no, the endless handwringing in the Guardian about how to “address the fears” of the “white working class” while continuing to dispossess them don’t count), while you are still in a position to do so, otherwise you can expect to be overthrown if you are lucky. As to whether you have years or merely months to open negotiations before the tumbrils start to roll, I’m afraid “history” has no definitive answer. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:51 | # Another absolutely excellent comment by Michael!!! Good job!!! Every word a bullseye!!! 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:40 | # I just remembered something that would explain what Hitchens is on about, at least in part: didn’t he marry a Jewish girl? If memory serves, that was how his brother Christopher first learned their grandmother was Jewish: she divulged it to him on the occasion of Peter’s announcement of his engagement. (Also “if memory serves,” his brother had been aware for some time, and it had been only Christopher who’d been out of the loop, but that kind of thing, though odd, happens in part-Jewish families — it happened in my own.) For 99.999999999999999% of Jews, any organization seeking to preserve white racial/ethnocultural integrity in the face of incompatible immigration (or in the face of whatever other threat is out there menacing it) is absolutely beyond the pale, the epitiome of pure irredeemable evil and that is no exaggeration: Jews look at all such organizations in that way, are absolutely horrified by them, refuse to hear anything about them, will never compromise with them in any way whatsoever, etc., and this attitude on the part of the Jews has nothing to do with “prior history of overt anti-Semitism” supposedly shown by the group, as they claim in the BNP’s case, although the Jews will use that, whether real or trumped-up, as an excuse for their inflexible attitude because they’re slightly embarrassed to admit the nature of that attitude without some “justfication.” In fact, as is plain everywhere you look, any such organization that has zero — zero — “prior history of overt anti-Semitism” will be regarded by the Jews the exact same way, with the exact same degree of pure uncompromising horror, as ones that (whether supposedly or genuinely) do have a “prior history.” So it’s not hard to imagine, if I’m remembering right that Hitchens’s wife is Jewish, that his irrational venom here on display is a manifestation of his wife’s deep concern and alarm, coupled with a resolve to “defend his wife,” so to speak, from (probably mainly what his wife sees as, or her family see as) “monstrous anti-Semites.” That no one in the BNP is threatening Jews or his wife, he won’t see because she won’t and he’s naturally loyal to her. That right there may explain the whole damned thing. 15
Posted by Armor on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:54 | #
Please stop talking nonsense. — 2009. legal amnesty as the sweetner for stepping down 16
Posted by Armor on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:05 | #
except if the organization is led by Michael Hart and L.Auster? 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:16 | #
No, not even then, Armor — they’re merely the other 0.0000000000000001% that was always out there alongside the 99.9999999999999999999% that we’re talking about. Goes to show, it’s true that the Jews aren’t monolithic on race-replacement, as such voices as Ian Jobling’s and JJR’s often point out ................ No, there’s no denying it, 99.9999999999999% isn’t 100%, no one can argue with that .................. 18
Posted by Nora Helmer on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:29 | # Great response to Hitchens, GW! I just left this comment over on the 3rd of his articles there. Don’t know if it’ll be posted, but here’s what I had to say (in response to a response Hitchens made to a commenter): Peter said: “...as if people from different ethnic groups could not be assimilated if we chose to assimilate them.” No, it is not obvious that peoples from different ethnic groups can be assimilated into other societies that are very different from the ones they come from. The reason being is that biology matters, not just culture. Cultural traditions, in fact, come from our biological natures (where do they come from otherwise—out of thin air?). You are ignoring biology like most modern thinkers do. Different human populations are biologically different from one another, to greater or lesser degrees (see “The 10,000 Year Explosion”). Take, for example, the different proportions of the various types (alleles) of the Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) in different human populations (see the Wikipedia entry on Monoamine oxidase A). Certain versions of the MAOA gene have been found to correlate with persons (and, indeed, other animals) having an aggressive, in-your-face, even violent personality. Thirty-three percent (33%) of non-Hispanic Whites have been found to have this “aggressive gene” whereas 61% of Pacific Islanders have it. (Knowing this, consider for a minute why it could possibly be that native New Zealanders have Haka dances, a la the All Blacks, whereas English people have Morris Dancing.) Given that, there’s no way that, as a group, Pacific Islanders (and I’m talking about a significant number here) chosen at random would ever be able to be assimilated into British culture. (Some individual Pacific Islanders certainly might—but we’re talking about populations here.) Perhaps they might adopt many British traditions and mannerisms—eat sausage rolls or whatever—but British culture, too, would necessarily be changed in the process since you would have changed the proportion of this “aggressive gene” in British society. You need to wake up to human biology in order to understand what the basis of human society really is—and what drives the changes therein. 20
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:04 | # My favorite from lemmings is “it’s obvious you lot are conducting a coordinated attack here.” One always sees that response when they’re outnumbered. It’s a natural response; they’re used to drastically outnumbering us, and it makes them nervous when the shoe’s on the other foot. This is mostly because liberalism is status-jockeying; hard to jockey for status when the rules have changed, because the mob isn’t on your side. Well, bloody well mount a counter-attack! If all decent people agree with you, it shouldn’t be too hard. Trouble is, when there’s no money or status involved, liberals lose interest. If you can’t climb the social ladder, or at least pretend to well enough to satisfy the evolved mechanism in your brain, what’s the point? There’s nothing altruistic about liberalism anymore, so you won’t find as many people carrying its water altruistically any more. On the other hand, you see scads of grass-roots support for ethnic nationalism, in fact pretty much all of it is grass-roots. Stormfront is the second-biggest political forum on the net (the biggest if you consider that FreeRepublic isn’t really a forum). Obviously this is mostly to do with the fact that there’s no outlet for ethnic nationalism offline, at least not in America, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s almost totally grass-roots.
Did Hitchens mention that assimilation is a two-way street? If not, what a daft thing to say. Sounds rather Borg-like. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:29 | # Peter Hitchens’s wife is Jewish. From the Wikipedia article on Christopher:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Ethnic_identity ) From a piece by Christopher Hitchens originally published in the Forward Magazine, January, 2001:
( http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/hitch-on-part-jewish-question.html ) 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:31 | # I think we can all assume that explains the venom until shown otherwise. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:52 | # Hitchens, like most other English, maintains a sense of moral superiority. Expulsion won’t fly because that is what the Nazis did, and as we have so often heard, the Nazis were consummate evil and the Germans morally depraved. 24
Posted by Armor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:02 | # Loriver, The idea that we might be best off discarding the idea of morality sounds funny when said like that. But I knew there was a deeper philosophical meaning, as you mentioned “moral anti-realism” and “Joyce and Mackie”. I just gave you a phony rebuke (sorry!) as a way to introduce my silly and totally immoral suggestion of using alligators against traitors. Personally, I don’t have a philosophical or intellectual approach. If someone wants a moral justification for my existence, I will ask him why only the whites are asked to provide justifications, and not any other race. It is clear to me that the desire of the race-replacers to destroy the white race has nothing to do with concern for morality, on the contrary. The only reason we could hesitate to expel non-whites is that it will be inconvenient and a hassle for them, to have to relocate among their own people. It will save our existence, but it will be inconvenient for them. Well, I don’t see any moral problem here. If they won’t go home willingly so that the Whites can survive collectively, we must tell them to leave anyway. If morality comes down to the idea that we must avoid useless suffering for humanity, then it would make more sense to replace Africans and Mexicans with white people than the other way. The more Africans anywhere, the more suffering. The more Mexicans, the more noise and traffic accidents. By contrast, Europeans have little reason to commit suicide. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:12 | #
Good point. LOL 26
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:34 | # Desmond is, I’m sure, correct about the moral superiority pretensions of Hitchens’ type of Englishman. This attitude was, for generations, dinned into students at the alma mater of part-Jew Hitchens, viz., Oxford University’s Balliol College. That institution served,inter alia, as the ‘final polishing centre’ for future colonial administrators and a telling piece of verse was penned by students about the Master of Balliol, polymath Benjamin Jowitt : My name is Jowitt, I’m Master of this College, 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:57 | # Desmond: Expulsion won’t fly because that is what the Nazis did, and as we have so often heard, the Nazis were consummate evil and the Germans morally depraved. I’ve said for years that the manner in which a people treats its Jews is the mark of its civilisation. I’ve also said that the solution to the problem is to accord Jews reciprocal treatment. Now, I know you have a subtle mind, Desmond, and you can readily work out that this is a formula for a just separation. Loriver, That’s an interesting argument. I haven’t read The Myth of Morality by Richard Joyce. It sounds like an intriguing challenge to the evolutionary understanding of morality. Obviously, the Salterian approach is that, as an adaption to living in groups, morality is strictly a product of the evolutionary process. Moral behaviour becomes utilitarian - it enhances fitness gain - or it isn’t moral at all in any objective sense. So outgroup-altruism in the race-replacement scenario is plainly not moral from that perspective. How would Joyce react to that? Nora, I second Fred’s sentiments. On which of the three Hitchens threads did you post that comment? I note that no new comments have been added there today. Svi, It’s time you started posting here again. Michael, The function of philosophy is to birth the entire daily noumenal output of the civilisation. Included within that are the ravings of politicians, nationalist or otherwise. 28
Posted by Nora Helmer on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:07 | # GW: On which of the three Hitchens threads did you post that comment? I note that no new comments have been added there today. I posted it on the 03 March article—“A message to the mug punters…blah, blah, blah”. I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to get posted, though. (sigh) And, no, there haven’t been any new comments added since I was there earlier this evening. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:29 | #
But Al, with only one thirty-second Jewish ancestry (see where I boldened the text in my comment of 8:29 PM) can he be considered “part-Jewish”?? That seems a bit of a stretch, forgive me if I’m wrong. Why in the world he prances around saying he’s Jewish seems a mystery, and that was even going by the mistaken impression he was a quarter-Hebrew. But one thirty-second and raised as a Christian like every other Englishman to boot??? The man is strange to claim that, it must be said. This revelation by Peter of the true dilution of his, Christopher’s, claimed “Jewish ancestry” should lay the matter to rest once and for all: the man is not Jewish or “part-Jewish” however much he relishes saying he is one or the other. He’s an ordinary, if slightly “off,” Englishman. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:35 | # Forgive me, Nora, you’re an exceptional woman to see biological race as you do. Women generally don’t, though of course there are delightful — and very rare — exceptions. (By “delightful” I have in mind Melba Peachtoast of course, in case anyone was wondering, although Nora here certainly seems just as thoroughly delightful.) 31
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:48 | # Fred, Balliol isnt well-known for accepting ‘ordinary’ Englishmen. My grandfather’s brother, a Scot, graduated from Glasgow University with a Classics Double First, applied to join the ICS (Indian Civil Service) and, upon being accepted, was sent to Balliol for polishing. There he encountered the intellectual diametrical opposite of ordinary. I take your point about Hitchens’ Jewishness (or lack thereof) though. One part in thirty two is a goodly dilution. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:01 | # Al, I meant “ordinary” in the sense of “Church of England” and “raised identifying as a Christian Englishman,” like every other Englishman. It was the wrong word to use there, I now see, and thanks for the correction. Hitchens is intelligent, for sure. In the common-sense department he’s sorely lacking, as all will agree I have no doubt. Likewise in the morals department. I don’t envy him his intellect because he is so severely deficient in sense and ordinary wisdom I almost feel sorry for the guy. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:08 | # (I referred to Christopher just above, not Peter — although as we’ve just seen, Peter has his own deficiencies.) (By the way, Al — about all these extraordinary intellects turned out by Balliol College, none of them has cared to tackle the forced race-replacement régime in any way, public, private, whatever? It’s the biggest crisis of the past ten thousand years, after all. If they’re completely blind to it, the average commenter here at MR.com is at least one notch above them in brains, I’d say. Maybe they’ve got the accent down just right, and know the proper technique for taking a glass of sherry with the college tutor or what-have-you, but in the sheer brains department, and knowing what’s really important out there, how extraordinary can they be, really? Not very, would be my guess.) 34
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:36 | # The race-replacement problem is a fairly recent one for Balliol men, Fred. The college was founded in 1263. My fellow Scot, John Buchan, was a Balliol man and he held some rather trenchant opinions on Jews, a people who, if properly studied, could surely trigger the race-replacement instincts of a corpse. http://conservativehistory.blogspot.com/2008/07/was-john-buchan-anti-semite.html 35
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:04 | # We, who often impress upon others the crucial nature of IQ in human affairs, all know how wrong-headed and susceptible to hare-brained egalitarian theories the pointy-craniumed intellectual elite can be, Fred. In the final analysis, however, the only true, practical application of intelligence is the ability to survive. 36
Posted by Hitchens the Jew on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:11 | # Hitchens has the neurosis-laden Woody Allen phenotype going. He’s fat. He’s balding. His hair is Semitic wool. He’s on the whole visibly un-Aryan looking, or just a pathetic specimen. 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:26 | # Let’s go with “just a pathetic specimen” then because, as you can see, the supposed “Jewish ancestry” simply isn’t there. He made it up. Why? Who knows? As for his often disheveled look, he freely admits to being a heavy drinker (formerly a heavy smoker too; he’s kicked that). And morally the man is a mess — don’t those types sometimes come across as disheveled? 39
Posted by jrackell on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:04 | # talking of race replacement, but the only other white person in that picture besides Hitchens is the lady in the background, but then on closer inspection she turns out to be a mannequin. I guess race replacement is pretty much complete on that street/town/borough. Hitchens looks like he was photoshopped into that picture and wasn’t really there either. And the mannequin was probably made in China too. 40
Posted by Hitchens the Jew on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:44 | # I detected the Jewish strain in Hitchens immediately. Some part-Jews and even allegedly pure Jews can pass for Aryan, but not Hitchens. 41
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:26 | #
There is no is/ought distinction. It’s a myth. The linchpin of morality is reciprocity, and we are obligated NOT to extend to others moral considerations that they do not extend to us. 42
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:34 | #
Then you will need to ignore philosophy and study biology, which is where one learns about morality. Morality exists to mediate the competing self-interests of lower-level organisms to enable them to work collectively as a group, as an adaptive unit at a higher level of organization.
No, the justification lies in the notion that the point of morality is to further self-interest. We learn this not from Salter but from David Sloan Wilson. 43
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:34 | # The highest form of morality is, surely, concern for the welfare of our own race. It is obvious that we are acting in an immoral fashion when we sabotage our children’s genetic future by the care and feeding of Congoids and other EGI health hazards. This may seem brutal, especially to the votaries of old Jesus, but if we are not willing to become extinct we must forgo the all-too-common sentimental fantasies of ‘intercultural tolerance’ which have infected the minds of so many of our brethern. 44
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:12 | #
True, however, in the UK case expulsion soon falls into Nazi territory, morally speaking. Robert Locke’s transfer plan:
By #3, it’s already Nazi territory. 45
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:54 | # Singapore enters ‘Nazi’ territory every day as its laws provide for corporal punishment to be administered to illegal immigrants or even legal entrants who overstay their visas. Of course, that sensible island state has already gone beyond the advanced liberal Pale, by first imprisoning then deporting illegals, so caning them prior to departure surely cannot earn Singapore any further obloquy. 46
Posted by Michael on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:09 | # It will be interesting to see how the Establishment reacts to the growing success of the BNP. Will they try to ban them? Co-opt them? What do the MR commenters think about this? 47
Posted by Bert Rustle on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:47 | # Michael on March 09, 2009, 09:09 wrote ... It will be interesting to see how the Establishment reacts to the growing success of the BNP. ... Jury Team – restoring democracy and accountability to politics ... Sir Paul Judge is following in the steps of Sir James Goldsmith in founding a new political party with the simple objective of promoting independent thought and open governance. ... Further discussion at According to http://www.juryteam.org/downloads/endoftheparty_chapter3.pdf ... 5. The Nomination Form ... In order to ensure that no fascist or similarly extreme people can be considered for selection, the form also requires all candidates to confirm that they agree not to support any policies discriminating on the basis of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, disability or religious or other belief. ... As far as I having a MEP elected, this principally excludes those who largely approve of the British National Party Manifesto. If they desire electoral success for themselves, rather than electoral failure for others, this appears nonsensical, as ‘Most Britons actually support BNP policies’ I would hazard a guess that the highest profile JuryTeam candidates will be overly represented in those constituencies where the British National Party are most likely to be elected. I would further hazard a guess that JuryTeam will be heralded by the Drive-By Media as the real alternative to the Establishment Party and that they will be associated with some of: Jon Gaunt, Richard Littlejohn, Peter Hitchens, ... 48
Posted by Michael on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:34 | # But this new party doesn’t make any sense. In First Past the Post British elections it will only split the vote between the “antis” and help the BNP. In Proportional Rep Euro elections it might dilute the BNP vote slightly. But how many BNP voters are really going to defect to Just Another Establishment Party. The UKIP made much more sense as an Establishment foil (if indeed that was its purpose). 49
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:23 | #
I’ll be Goddamned if that isn’t 100% true. Everything I admire or respect about Jews qua Jews is considered “anti-Semitism,” LOL. GW, thanks (and thanks to anyone with a kind word, I often forget to return them, an oversight I’ll try to avoid in future), but I don’t really have anything post-worthy to say. If I do I won’t be shy. 50
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:25 | # Nora hit the spot. She followed up her post copied above with this reply to a race-denier on the same thread:-
Two detractors popped up, so I have posted this (which hasn’t appeared yet):-
51
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:29 | #
Are we talking about the naturalistic fallacy here? Because I don’t see that as a myth. I don’t see it as having much to do with morality, either. It has its uses - just because Jewish domination is, doesn’t mean it ought to be. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:30 | # Hitchen put up a post today explaining that he is travelling for a couple of weeks but would be posting on the evils of the BNP nonetheless. I commented as follows (yet to appear on site):-
53
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:54 | #
Per Bo Sears (I think, I know it was someone from RD), try replacing race-traitor with “Uncle Tom,” assuming it has any currency on your side of the pond. It’s left-speak, so it has a better chance of flying under their radar, and, as importantly, of stinging. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:55 | # GW: “Liberalism is exhausted, and the Leviathanesque security state that is replacing it will offer you no fuzzy “centre-right” ground on which to operate. The lines will be drawn starkly, the choices will be clear.” There are only two paths that lay before our people: 1) An abject surrender to self-abasement as all that we are, and everything that we have built, slowly withers away. 2) Instauration based in heroic struggle and self-sacrifice that leads us to reclaim everything that has been stolen from us. - North America, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Russian Siberia and Southern Africa must be reclaimed for our race. - A pan-White alliance between all White nations must be forged for cooperation in guarding: the genetic integrity and traditional cultures of the diverse European peoples; an environmentally sustainable future in our reconquered living space and globally. - The Jewish Question must be resolved; Jews will need an auxiliary homeland for the reason that Israel is not large enough to accommodate all their numbers, perhaps in Africa or South America. Nothing less than Final Victory! (Chew on that, Hitchens.) 55
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:03 | #
If ethnic nationalists start to make headway, yes, the establishment will absolutely try to co-opt them. If they can’t ban them. But banning would be counter-productive in the long run. In the long run, they’ll try to co-opt, as slowly as possible because their interests are obviously better served by having no restrictions whatsoever on their greed. They’ll try faux change first, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll reluctantly try the real thing. There’s no way in hell “they” will ever let themselves be dethroned by a competing ideology. People “change” (implies they ever had one to begin with) ideologies easily. 56
Posted by Bert Rustle on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:45 | # Michael on March 09, 2009, 04:34 PM wrote ... this new party doesn’t make any sense. ... Presently the only home for a protest vote against the Establishment Party is the BNP. JuryTeam provides a new alternative and if it is lionised by the Drive-By Media whilst the BNP is vilified it may well take protest votes from the latter. Michael on March 09, 2009, 04:34 PM wrote <I>... how many BNP voters are really going to defect to Just Another Establishment Party. ...<I> In my opinion the JuryTeam target is the burgeoning protest vote rather than the established BNP vote. 57
Posted by exPF on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:45 | # Judging by the look of this man, I wouldn’t trust him to dispatch any problems we had, unless that problem had a chocolately-center. In which case, everyone be careful! Show him chocolate and this man will morph into Adolf Hitler, and totally discard the moral stances hes laid claim to in so many newspaper articles. This mans only allegiance is to Cadbury and their ilk. England means nothing to him, but for a Cadbury chocolate egg, he will risk his own life and the lives of others. 58
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:51 | #
LOL! 60
Posted by Bert Rustle on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:05 | # Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP appears weekly on the Tommy Boyd internet radio show http://playradiouk.com/showtime.php#playTwo at 22:00 UK time each Monday. There is often some American participation via +441243 556060, Skype:- play.radio.uk, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 61
Posted by Nora Helmer on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:28 | # GW on March 09, 2009, 05:25 PM: Two detractors popped up, so I have posted this (which hasn’t appeared yet). Ha! I just responded to those same two commenters as well—Universe & Hulya. I hope both your and my comments go through. I was surprised that my first one went through! Here’s what I had to say this time (God, do I hate that Lewontin’s Fallacy! It’s soooo stupid once you give it half a second’s thought.): @ The Universe | 09 March 2009 at 01:42 PM: “YOU are talking about ‘populations’, not Peter Hitchens, he was talking about PEOPLE.” I am talking about populations because that is the issue at hand. When we have, for example, as of the 2001 Census, 1,053,411 people of Indian descent, 747,285 people of Pakistani descent, and for that matter, 691,232 people of White Irish descent (figures from Wikipedia) living in the UK, we are clearly talking about populations, not merely some ‘people’. And the crux of the matter is that pretty much none of these people were individually vetted before they came to the UK. Nowadays with the EU, any EU citizen or resident can just wander in as we all well know (not to mention people entering illegally)—whether or not they might be assimilable. Not many non-EU immigrants are individually vetted either. Certainly people who come via family reunification or by seeking asylum are not checked for their assimilability. No. What has happened is that the UK has, and is still, taking in a pretty much random selection of groups of people from different populations across the globe. We may very well, then, be getting a representative, cross-section sample of those populations. If we go back to my Pacific Islander example then—say the UK were to take a large number of Pacific Islanders as immigrants to this country without vetting them individually to see if they might fit in to UK society. In other words, if we just took in a random selection of Pacific Islanders (as we do with all other immigrant groups today). Well, then, just about 60% of them would have the “aggressive gene” I mentioned in my previous post. That would be inevitable. How assimilable would such a group be in a society that has only 30% of that gene? Logically, UK society as a whole would wind up being more aggressive than previously. (And what about the thousands of other genes that affect behaviour?!) My primary point is that assimibility is not just a question of culture as Mr. Hitchens erroneously supposes—it is a question of biology (from whence culture emanates in any case). The question then remains: what sort of samples of people are we getting from other societies? I don’t know. But no one in government seems to be thinking about it at all. The question needs to be raised. But first, folks need to wake up to the importance of biology. Biology is not everything, but it is crucially significant.
In answer to your first three questions: yes, yes and yes. However, that there is more genetic variability between individual Britons versus a Briton and a Japanese person is irrelevant to this issue. Specifically, the nonsensical rebuttal you have made is known as Lewontin’s Fallacy (or Lewontin’s Folly, as I prefer to call it). Google it to find out exactly how you err. Hulya Yadsan-Appleby said: “Perhaps you can tell us why you think your speculations are valuable.” I haven’t speculated at all. Merely presented a few facts. 62
Posted by Nora Helmer on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:42 | # Fred Scrooby: Forgive me, Nora, you’re an exceptional woman to see biological race as you do. Women generally don’t…. Nothing to forgive, Fred. Alas, alack, you are right. Most women don’t want to think about people in biological terms—and probably very many just wouldn’t be able to. (Yes, I am hard on my sex.) I am an odd fish, I know! Another woman that thinks somewhat along these lines, I believe, is Vanishing American. That’s about the only other odd gal that comes to my mind. 63
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:01 | # TO GW and NORA: Good job over at the Hitchmaster’s site. I wish I had the patience required to advance our agenda in manner that you are able to but I’m unable to tolerate their kind for too long. I’m still in what is called the “cage stage” of my racial awakening. 64
Posted by q on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:46 | # Most women don’t want to think about people in biological terms—and probably very many just wouldn’t be able to. Black women certainly haven’t a problem with that! 65
Posted by exPF on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:57 | # Good work, Loriver. Your angle of attack is quite interesting and deserves some followthrough, and further illustration. I have been trying for the longest time to come to grips with the “morality” which modern society foists upon us - it seems such a vast, contradictory, yet often self-consistent thing. Yet we know its power to constrict action and thought is vast. I was never able to produce an argument which I thought would actually find purchase - nothing I said can escape the sense of its own arbitariness, even the assertion that evolutionarily stable strategies are a prerequisite for continued group existence and therefore the foundation on which any morality as a group strategy has to be founded. In reply to this, there is the question: why must we survive? Why must we do anything to fend off our own death? And liberals will literally argue these points - that perhaps Western man should just die off. In the face of that kind of limitless acceptance of all possibilities, which looks also like a pervasive lack of will and vision, and the denial that anyone else could have these - what does one assert? I never knew the practical face of liberalism to be anything other than namby-pamby “pleasantism” fueled with other peoples’ monies: but considered in this light liberals appear to be the equivalent of a moral black hole - denying that the world has appreciable form, or that any strict meaning could be constructed or any vision imposed, and were these visions possible, their means would be too unpleasant for us to countenance them. they seem to make “niceness” the only constant of human life, the only good worth preserving, and the only thing to which value can really be attached. 66
Posted by The Hitchens, Honorary Jews on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:07 | # Scrooby, it doesn’t matter if Hitchens is only partially or minutely Jewish in a biological sense. Jews believe that some Gentiles are born with “Jewish souls,” and Hitchens surely fits the bill in this respect: “I’m fairly globalized: My father was Anglo-Celtic; my first wife is Greek; my second wife’s family came from Odessa or thereabouts, and I have a godchild in Zimbabwe. In practical terms, you are reading a guide for the perplexed, written by an anti-Zionist atheist of whose progeny one is wholly Jewish while two are Anglo-Cypriot.” - http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2009/02/hitch-on-part-jewish-question.html He is a rootless cosmopolitan, race-replacing liberal through and through, which makes him Jewish in spirit and soul. 67
Posted by anglophil on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:48 | # THE Jews had in very early times a knowledge of that law of nature which demands purity of blood. We read that Abraham sent to the land of his fathers in order to find there the wife for his son. The Jews had marriage regulations which prevented promiscuous intermarriages, and frequently they expelled from the Jewish society the offspring of the Abramitic stock which they considered illegitimate, as the Ishmaelites and the Edomites. When the Jews settled in Palestine, they found it inhabited by a population great in numbers. Notwithstanding their numerical inferiority, the Jews maintained their individuality. It was their pride of race that prevented their disappearance. The wonderful instincts of the Israelites led them to evolve a religion which had race purity as its central idea. In the year 70 A. D. Titus took Jerusalem. The city was levelled with the ground. The extinction of their commonwealth the Jews met with an even more intensified exclusiveness. And this exclusiveness they carried with them into the diaspora. Their race they retained pure wherever they went. In Rome, in Egypt, in Syria, among the Goths as well as among the other German tribes, in England, in Russia, in Germany, in Spain, they refused to dilute and vitiate their blood, and The history of the Jews testifies to the tremendous importance of race. Their knowledge of the physiological law that promiscuous crossing degrades, deteriorates, mongrelizes the participants, enabled them to develop - in spite of most bitter persecution, in the face of the greatest of obstacles - from a small Eastern tribe into one of the great nations of the earth. The good-will of the native population they secure nowhere, on account of the jealousy and hatred entertained against them as a race of quality. The Jews have brought forth poets, writers, artists, scientists, financiers, and philanthropists. Why do the Jews succeed? Because they deserve to succeed. They belong to a great race, and they kept and do keep that race pure. The greatest mongrelizing machine of antiquity, the empire called the Roman, did not succeed in mongrelizing them. America will not be able to destroy them. The Jews have overcome well-nigh insurmountable obstacles; they are succeeding everywhere, because they have been and do remain true to themselves, that is, true to their race instincts. They demonstrate to the world that the blood that courses in the veins of the individual is more sacred than gold, silver, territory, flag, and country. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:29 | # Anglophil’s comment just above was 95% very true. Among its few minor mistakes or misleading statements was this:
When elements among the host population begin to see the Jews as that population’s oppressor it’s never “on account of jealousy” — or, at least never since the age when men went into battle with cow horns sticking out of their helmets. It’s because the Jews visit outrages on the host population. Why don’t Jews stop doing that? Because they can’t. They seem to have an inborn hatred of the host wherever they dwell — you can see it plainly here in the U.S., the place that’s treated them the best they’ve ever been treated anywhere by their own admission yet they hate, absolutely LOATHE, the host population here as everywhere they’ve ever lived and ardently want to destroy it, absolutely cannot wait to extinguish it — and they seem also to have an inborn sadistic streak, an inborn love of harming others and destroying what belongs to others. They’re inborn haters and inborn sadists. 69
Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:30 | # “, I meant “ordinary” in the sense of “Church of England” and “raised identifying as a Christian Englishman,” like every other Englishman.”
Well, gents, when you recapture Britain, throw out all non-Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, and other non-English, can you PLEASE make the Isles a home for repatriation of Whites who are ALSO wanting to ‘come home.’ I’d like to finish my days in a country NOT a third-world hellhole, or a Bolshevik state, or a Judaized polyglot cesspool of immorality and lies….in short, NOT the USA at present…. or what she is fast becoming. I didn’t vote for the Obamanation, and the Negro is NOT ‘my brother.’ End of story, Fin. 70
Posted by Kabloona (it's Inuit for white man) on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:27 | # GUSSEDWORKER – I didn’t know the BNP welcomed Jews but I’m not surprised. Griffin’s record in nationalist politics is not good, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find him linked to the security services. A policy of asking which mosquitoes do the biting before draining a swamp rather confirms it. In an interview with David Aaronovitch Griffin even cites the out-of-Africa lie as grounds for the ‘british’ [sic] (I write as an English nationalist) accepting ‘reasonable numbers’ of immigrants. He will betray us. I am certain of that. Indeed I said as much to veteran nationalist John Bean but, swept up in the euphoria of nominal electoral success, and sensing triumph after so many long tears of fruitless struggle, he too refused to listen. NORA HELMER – You’ll find the origins of Morris in sword dancing, which still survives in the North East of England, as does the bagpipe (neither scottish [sic] nor irish [sic] in origin I may add, but popular throughout Europe at one time), an instrument the earliest written scottish records refer to as ‘Inglis’ (English). I have to say the English Morris Ring is just one of a long line of invertebrate Anglo cultural organizations. The English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS) welcomes Indian culture. Fortunately there will always be enough lamp-posts and enough rope to go round for these degenerates. DESMOND JONES – How do you know what most English people are like? Granted it isn’t hard to feel superior to snivelling, malodorous welchers [sic] (I’m going by your surname), whose only contribution to civilization has been a useful word for cheating, but you sense this yourself or you would not feel compelled to make asinine remarks. Anyway Hitchens isn’t English. If his maternal grandmother was Jewish he’s a Jew. Jewish blood is about 5% negro. Ashkenazis are largely eur-asian. FR. JOHN – You may not have voted to Obamacize but isn’t it typical that England ends up caring for his dear old Mum on the NHS? Yes, the old girl lives in southern England. We don’t deserve to be so lucky….. I had a run-in with Hitchens a years few ago. It was on a private website run by his supporters. I asked questions, he ducked them. When pressed on why the sacrifice of his own people seemed to be the price of a Christian conscience he went crackers and launched into a bout of name-calling and evasion - the very tactics he professes to despise. I believe Hitchens’ ‘controversial’ opinions only see the light of day because he’s at one with the establishment on the single most important topic of all, the one he refuses adamantly to discuss – blood. There was more froth and indignation when I offered stats for the numbers of aliens currently swamping ENGLISH towns and cities (a Scottish government at Whitehall closed all asylum offices north of the border in 2004 – unannounced of course - thereby legalizing what had been the standard if unofficial procedure up there for some time of sending applicants to England because they ‘hadn’t the facilities to process claims’). Hitchens dismissed the figures as ‘hysteria’. When I asked why a man who boasts of how clearly he thinks through his opinions makes no attempt to discuss repatriation given the fate that awaits the English even if they stopped all immigration tomorrow he replied that he ‘had no views on the matter’, one of the more obvious lies he has told (he tells quite a few). Hitchens’ rhetoric about the need for civilized debate sits uneasily with someone who detests being challenged. As a matter of fact I shouldn’t be at all surprised if we eventually discover he’s another on the intelligence services’ payroll – ours or, more likely, Mossad. He wouldn’t be the first journalist recruited (think Chapman Pincher, think Ian Fleming). He’d be an attractive proposition after all now he’s taken to describing himself openly as a Zionist and a fan of Jewish-controlled Wikipedia (recently described by him as the most important knowledge base in the world). (Should anyone think me overly suspicious I would only urge they examine enemy strategy, which is always to control BOTH sides of an argument – hence shell organizations, false fronts (UKIP for example, rumored to be an MI5 operation, ‘right-wing’ newspapers like the Mail….and online forums like this one. Their purpose is the same - to act as safety-valves for collective discontent.) 71
Posted by Hulya Yadsan-Appleby on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:42 | # Dear Peter, Are you not disturbed for having inspired such a foul discussion? How do you bear it intellectually and spiritually? Can you really not do better than this? Why do you waste your intelligence and depth on such petty issues? What kind of achievement did this discussion produce? Why the world should care about the petty politics of a small country? I used to read your articles because they were intelligent and I thought you were making some points that were true independently of cultures and nations. However you failed (again and again) to relate your points to the world we live in. Why is that? Would it be too radical for you to do so? Why can’t you go all the way? Kind regards, Hulya Post a comment:
Next entry: Hoffman says: Remove visa limits!
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:35 | #
They’re scared-stiff at the thought of the gains the BNP is reliably expected to make in the upcoming elections and are desperately trying to scuttle any such gains ahead of time. But it won’t work. More and more people are waking up and the awakened simply refuse to be lulled back to sleep again, certainly not by means of the mendacious platitudes this man is spouting. Fooled once, they won’t fall for it again — that’s certain, so he can save his breath.
I am surprised by the vehemence and, frankly, the lowness of these attacks on the BNP by Hitchens, attacks which even a perfectly neutral observer must agree are, in their substance, unmerited (I of course am anything but neutral, being a full-bore BNP supporter — but even a completely neutral reader must go through not a few double-takes on reading some of this venom and wonder what’s provoking it to squirt out of Hitchens’s fangs).
I had always respected this man but he’s now exposed himself forever as an intellectual non-entity and a moral zero. This man can’t think, as is now clear. His brain is stuck on the “Standard Liberal Boilerplate” setting on the dial.
This individual can henceforth be totally disregarded, something like the way John Zmirak now is totally disregarded. Don’t even read his output, you’ll be wasting time better spent elsewhere.
The main thing is, don’t be bogged down by men like this who are going nowhere but backwards. The future doesn’t lie back there where Hitchens wants to go, beckoning us to follow like doomed Captain Ahab stuck to the side of the whale. The future lies in another direction, on another horizon, that way, over there, where one can see the sun will rise because day starts already to break in that sky, there toward the BNP and likeminded men. There’s the point we’re aiming at, that’s the course we’ve set, not Hitchens’s backwards course, and there’s the destination we are determined to arrive at, finally home at last, all the way home, safe and sound.
We’ve had quite enough of lies.