|
|
|
Griffin on the JQ Nick Griffin broke his long silence on the Jewish Question today with a lengthy article you can read here. He seems to have been goaded into action by criticism from American WN’s, presumably occasioned at the Amren Conference at which he was a speaker. He makes an interesting case - the right case for Britain, no doubt. In it he pays some respect, at least, to ethnic genetic interests, which is the first time I have heard these three promising words from any leading BNP official. He acknowledges the well-known negative aspects of the Jewish philosophical contribution to Western politics. He stresses very few potential positives to be got from engagement with Jews, so I wouldn’t necessarily put him in the “Taylor camp”. The attraction seems to be conflict avoidance ... don’t start a war on two fronts. One of them, against Jewry, you can never win. And losing that will lose you the other war as well - the war you must win. My only real criticism of this article is that he directs his fire at obvious and easy targets but declines the most serious and interesting. Conspiracy theorists and “activists of German descent” come in for most of it. I am not sure how much he gains by bearding these guys while leaving the MacDonald thesis unaddressed. He acknowledges that highly intelligent Ashkenazics take leading roles in every political-philosophical argument, not merely those of the left. This is true, and he cites TBC and the great Richard Hernnstein, for example. But, Hernnstein was still acting out of his perceived ethnic interests, a factor which Griffin prefers not to mention. So, if Jewish activism in toto is indeed doggedly ethnocentric and as such a survival strategy, as MacDonald contends, then what possible change can be effected through rapprochement? The answer seems simply to be “None but it does not matter - it is realpolitik.” Comments:2
Posted by Matra on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:22 | # A very good article. Griffin must not have had a very good time at the American Renaissance meeting. KM:
Liberal economic policies are not as popular in Britain as in the US. Besides economics won’t be motivating too many voters interested in preserving their nation. Especially not in a nation where Gordon Brown is occasionally described as a genius. 3
Posted by Amalek on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:26 | # Three points: (1) Could any of the three leaders of the main UK parties have written so tightly argued, well referenced and genuinely stimulating a piece, even with a gaggle of ghosts to assist them? (2) The most striking passage is the one in which Griffin implies a similarity of outlook between Islamism and neoconnerie as missionary universalisms. I have thought for some time that, contrary to the Modernity fans’ assertions, in the sphere of advocacy it is Islam—a late deformation of monotheistic semitic religion—that has forged ahead… so much so that it has 600 times as many adherents as Judaism. The response from secularised, Yahweh-less Jewry, very belatedly, has been to drop clannish survival strategies and start its own outward-reaching recruitment drives: not for circumcision and Friday night family suppers, but for all the horrible post-1789 heresies that we are now beset by in the mass market of opinion and ‘lifestyle’. There are few trendy, soul-destroying idiocies for which Jews have not been the vector of contamination. Some of these outreachers are ‘right wing’, most are still ‘left’. But whether progressive or neocon, they are, as Griffin says, at one with radical Muslims in wanting to force the whole world into one way of thinking and behaving, regulated by a caste of lawgivers. We patriots reject such uniformity and refuse to adjudicate on how good or bad some foreigner’s way of doing things is, caring only that he does not interfere with us. We may be caught in the crossfire of a semitic civil war of culture no less than we are sucked into their battles in the Middle East. (3) The weakest part of Griffin’s article is his dismissal of the idea that Jewish survivalism might encompass simultaneous major (‘left’) and minor (‘right’, ‘conservative’) infiltrations in order to govern the terms and limits of gentile debate. He fails here because he lapses into crediting the conspiracy straw man he has earlier ridiculed. You need not suppose that a cabal of learned elders ever met to plot the Jewish hegemony over debate; it is enough to accept that (a) hypertrophied verbal-ability IQ made emancipated, semi-assimilated Jews specially anxious to get into that debate; and (b) they are afraid that if they stay away from either side (assuming, too crudely, that there are only two sides) an irresistible enemy will seize control and turn majority feeling against them. Divide and conquer, or risk another pogrom. Narcissism and paranoia have been bred into Jews for thousands of years, and it is neither remarkable nor sinister that they should instinctively play a double game amid a large, potentially provokable majority. That so many of yesteryear’s red-diaper Jews found it easy to re-emerge as born-again fauxcons should make Griffin ponder. (In Israel, where Jews are the majority, there is much more freedom for them to criticise each other than their leaders in the Diaspora deem it prudent to allow.) As for Karl Magnus: I do not know why he is so dismissive of Kevin MacDonald, whose trilogy seems to me a superbly expansive and sustained tour de force of synthetic scholarship *and* argument, a rare combination. If MacDonald languishes at ‘an academically negligible college’, rather than in halls of Ivy (or CCNY!), that may be the best back-handed compliment to the unease his discoveries have provoked. 4
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:33 | # I have thought for some time that, contrary to the Modernity fans’ assertions, in the sphere of advocacy it is Islam—a late deformation of monotheistic semitic religion—that has forged ahead… so much so that it has 600 times as many adherents as Judaism. There are 12 billion Muslims? 5
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:46 | # Here’s what I take away from this exchange: Nick Griffin is engaging in a somewhat reasonable argument for avoiding getting too cosey with Islam. Similar advice would have been well to give to the Goths with respect to Jews in their mutual dislike of Rome and a few other similar fights in history. It is, however, a deadly mistake to confuse realms of activity. KarlMagnus, for example, can’t tell the difference between science and politics when he lites into Kevin MacDonald. If we can’t speak plainly and forthrightly about things then we can’t do science. It is reasonable to criticize people who confuse politics with science and hence do a disservice to both but it does no one any good to criticize someone’s science by judging it by political standards. There are some recent advances in the understanding of what went wrong with Jewish evolution that are profoundly important and need to be understood by everyone concerned with the JQ—Jews and “anti-Semites” alike. Kevin MacDonald has contributed to that understanding. If this understanding is that models of pathogen evolution are appropriately applied to Jewish evolution, then its easy to understand how politicians might dislike the open discussion of these insights. It is nevertheless important that people talk openly and plainly when trying to make intelligible this mysterious world. 6
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:36 | # I have several questions/comments directly specifically for the author of this post, Guessedworker: 1. To what importance to you give to EGI and to the fact that people like Griffin may start to focus on that concept? Of what importance is EGI to Majority Rights? 2. Besides of course Salter himself, identify individuals who have invested time and effort in promoting and defending Salter’s concept in the years since it was first made public in 2002? 3. Relate point 2 to point 1. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:28 | # Good questions. Frank Salter has given us a Rosetta Stone by which we can interpret our individual and group behaviours as evolutionarily adaptive or not, ie tending to the preservation and furtherence of us as an ethny or not. This has far-reaching implications for each of us, since we can live with our eyes open to, for example, the maladaptive prescriptions of liberalism and multiculturalism. Hitherto, I am unaware of any White Nationalist “leader” in the English-speaking world incorporating the Salterian imperative into his political and philosophical advocacy. That may be because Salter has not been read or because he has not been understood, or it may be because, currently, he is difficult to infuse into the standard WN rhetoric. Either way, the problem needs to be addressed. Rushtonism is now a commonplace in WN, and will be clinched by genomics. But it provides only a rather negative view of why we should preserve ourselves as a people. That’s a hard sell in an altruistic world. But Salter provides natural, positive reasons at the level of self-interest. That’s a new game. Exactly how it can factor into the WN platform in such a way that it can be communicated to the “average man” I do not know. I suppose one just has to begin talking about it and from its perspective, and let familiarisation do the rest. So when Nick Griffin simply says the words “ethnic genetic interests” I have some hope that he has reached the same conclusion. As for MR, I feel we have been honoured to be provided an insight into this important subject by, basically, one blogger. Our function is to kick things around and let our readers, who by definition are intelligent and questioning people, come to their determination. I hope we, and the blogger concerned, will be able to go on doing that, because the job is a long one. 8
Posted by Calvin on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:31 | # If a robber sets a dog on you, first strangle the dog and then strangle the robber. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:38 | # slinker, I should add that there is one WN leader, of course, who has done more anyone else to popularise Salterism - and that’s Jared Taylor. 10
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:48 | # ” I hope we, and the blogger concerned, will be able to go on doing that, because the job is a long one.” LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way, what you say about Taylor is essentially true and he must be given credit there, *but* he was initially dismissive of the importance of EGI, and had to be convinced of it over time. Rewriting history may be a bit difficult because Taylor’s original “it’s not really that important” was printed in American Renaissance several years ago. In the “history” of EGI he is an extremely important factor, but not the catalyst for popularizing the concept, nor its primary public defender. 11
Posted by l'Etat on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:53 | # But “EGI” is not a new concept, only a new term. Darwin should receive 75% of the credit, Hamilton 23%, Salter 1.5%, and Harpending .5%. Hiedler, for instance, certainly understood “EGI”. 12
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:29 | # The reason Salter deserves the credit is because he took what was a vaguely understood concept, vigourously formulated it into a set of principles, along with Harpending made an initial attempt to quantitate it, *and* then attempted to put in into the context of both politics and ethics. Obviously, the concept flows naturally from previous work on heredity and sociobiology (Darwin by the way could not comment on genetic interests as he know nothing of the units of heredity), but that does not in any way diminish Salter’s monumental achievement of recognition, synthesis, and explanation. Salter credits Hamilton, but Hamilton never followed through on his realization that kinship and inclusive fitness extends beyond the family. Hamilton opened the door, Salter walked through the door and told us what was inside. Therefore, he deserves the bulk of the credit. Which is sort of not completely relevant to the point - if you wish to replace “EGI” with “Salterism”, then the point is the popularization of Salterism - Salterism being the relevant set of ideas for racial nationalism. 13
Posted by Amalek on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:16 | # Sorry about the ‘600 times as many’ slip, Mr Tillman. It was 2am and my calculator was tiring. A few more morning-after thoughts of a more practical, political kind: Irrespective of whether Griffin is not just a put-up job by the security services, and whether his current trials for ‘hate speech’ are a deception strategy, this article is brave as well as cogent and eloquent. However, as a practical politician with a potential wave to ride, Griffin necessarily guards his tongue somewhat. He is still living in the aftermath (and given his electoral successes, the afterglow) of exorcising the crass worshippers of strange foreign cults and anti-Judaeo-Bolshevik parodies of patriotism, the Tyndalls and [removed]. For decades that the locust ate, these pinchbeck demagogues made loyalty to one’s own people and country into a byword for clownish, thuggish folly. Hence Griffin must ‘suck up’ to Zionist Jewry at least to the extent of becoming the enemy’s enemy of Islam, the other semitic menace to British cohesion and confidence. And purely in vote-getting terms, Muslim impertinence and mischief should be the BNP’s priority for the time being—especially since we John and Joan Bulls have never become as captivated by the sophistries of secular Jews as the poor benighted Moronican sheeple and their corrupt leaders. Certainly Jewish apparatchiks such as the ones currently trying to run Mayor Livingstone out of town can be a nuisance. But the Whines and Janners and Moonmans have plenty of critics—among the passive, Anglophiliac Jewish majority as much as anywhere—and we British labour less under the bite-your-tongue reflex which Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Alex Cockburn and a few doughty souls have only begun to expose over there. Besides, Jews are 0.2% of us but 2% of America. Worse, the USA’s ‘propositional nation’ nonsense leaves it much wider open to subversive, destructive influences than a constitutional monarchy with common law, organically evolved for a millennium and still—God willing—monoracial at heart. Against the backdrop of Muslim mischief, the question has come up again: how could a minority among Jews of toxic freethinkers gnaw away at the biological and moral foundations of their hosts’ societies so harmfully? But in estimating the harm, we may give too much credence to their priestly affectations of superiority—teaching us ‘Universal Enlightenment Values’ and all that—and not consider how much damage the termites do to their ain folk. Political Zionism has led one-third of Jewry into an indefensible ghetto, while the Diaspora majority which rejected the siren song of aliyah is busily marrying out, trashing its own faith and traditions, bringing up children who know almost nothing of their heritage… in a word, extirpating the Jewish presence unconsciously but perhaps no less effectively than trains rolling eastward from the old shtetls and Jewish quarters of Europe in the 1940s. Only a pious, politically and culturally hermetic fraction of Jewry seems certain to live through the destruction of values the lost souls have unleashed. Recovered faith and hope in one’s own race and nation, as a quietist patriot, entails not letting one’s flesh creep too much. As Reggie Perrin’s boss might have said: we Christian English did not get where we are today by being led around by the nose by a band of moneywise, casuistical gypsies. As with Alice, the moment may soon be nigh when we say ‘Who cares for you? You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’ and the semitic Wonderlands of collective submission to Moloch or Allah disappear like dreams in the night. 14
Posted by l'Etat on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:18 | # Salter walked through the door and told us what was inside Objectively speaking, Salter merely plugged values from Cavalli-Sforza’s data into Hamilton’s work. Thus, he increased the accessibility of the concept, rather than make any theoretical breakthrough of his own. Application of Darwinism (or what you term “Salterism”) to political science is not exactly new either. 15
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:09 | # True enough, Salter’s work was not a “theoretical breakthrough.” In a real sense, what he is saying, in a quantitative fashion, is what right-thinking people “knew” all along, in a “gut” sense. Nevertheless, before Salter, the issue was just laying there without any sort of rigorous, systematic analysis. Likewise, the main theses of Kevin MacDonald are not anything shocking to a student of history, or merely a keen observer of modern America, but MacDonald deserves credit for synthesizing the material. That “someone else” may have “plugged in” genetic data into Hamilton, and that “someone else” may have interpreted Jewish history in light of group strategies doesn’t change the fact that “someone else” didn’t do it. Salter and MacDonald did. For concepts as fundamental to life as EGI, it is difficult to make a “theoretical breakthrough”; knowledge is added in increments. As James Bowery has stated, JW Holliday’s realization that higher-order genetic structure is a genetic interest is an important expansion of Salter’s work. Careful delineation of interests inherent in non-functional genes is another question, as is the separation of kinship and adaptive genetic interests. These are not “theoretical breakthroughs” as the initial larger breakthroughs were already done, e.g, by Hamilton. It doesn’t change the fact that the knowledge already sitting around was not accomplishing anything until Salter realized how it fit together. You can argue that Stan Ulam did not make any “theoretical breakthrough” either in his realization of how various components of nuclear physics and matter compression fit together to make a staged H-bomb possible. Nevertheless, before Ulam, everyone including Teller, were scratching their heads and putting forth unworkable models. Salter has put forward an integrated workable model of EGI and biopolitics. Of course, looking at his footnotes and his references, he has integrated an enormous amount of previous work. But *he* is the one who did it. It would have been nice if “On Genetic Interests” was written by Hamilton 30 years earlier - at least theoretically without the detailed Cavalli-Sforza data - but he didn’t do it. 16
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:18 | # Or, the issue of Hamilton can be dealt with by: “The work of Frank Salter - a practically relevant synthesis of the breakthroughs of Hamilton coupled to modern genetic data - is of vital practical significance to nationalism, by making the concept of EGI accessible to people in a more easily understood form.” Having thus redefined the issue as “the work of Frank Salter”, the matter can proceed. Now, if some think that “the work of Frank Salter” is unimportant, that’s another issue that has been addressed elsewhere. My comments to Guessedworker were predicated on the belief that “the work of Frank Salter” is important, a belief that many, including Guessedworker, share. No one is attempting to minimize the contributions of Hamilton; reading Salter’s book, his indebtedness to Hamilton is clear and stated. 17
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:39 | # JW Holliday’s realization that higher-order genetic structure is a genetic interest is an important expansion of Salter’s work. I introduced the blog to this concept here: 18
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:09 | # Concept introduced:
Subsequent references: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/sweden/
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/how_important_is_culture/ Moreover, White nationalism is fundamentally a defensive phenomenon in reaction to an attack on “white” culture, “white” people, and “white” genetic structures.
19
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:22 | # Again here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/http_majorityrightscom_indexphp/
20
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:04 | # Ben, I agree that you introduced the concept of higher-order genetic structures to the blog. I was referring more specifically to the idea that higher order genetic structure (i.e., combinations of gene frequences) needs to be incorporated (quantitatively) into Salter’s ideas on EGI, particularly with respect to mating. In his first post, I believe JW commented that Salter’s technique of just looking at gene frequencies in isolation was insufficient, that an Englishmen mating with a Bantu is not going to recoup genetic interest by doubling the number of children produced, because the higher order structure is lost (and replaced by another, as represented, e.g., by the LD prouduced by admixture). There needs to be a method of actually *quantitating* these interests, which could probably be done, at least initially in crude form, by population geneticists using the proper algorithms on genetic assay data. At the very least, in future editions of his book, Salter needs to at least mention this, in that he may be *underestimating* the scope of genetic interests. In any case, my apologies for forgetting your contributions on this issue; the oversight was not intentional. 21
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:11 | # Griffin: He shoots down excuses, finishing with: “...blame several generations of self-appointed leaders and self-publicists who have consistently let down their dedicated, loyal, generous, good-hearted followers by one shatteringly bad judgement call after another.” That’s the most accurate and useful part of Griffin’s essay. 22
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:25 | # Ben Tillman, thanks for the information. I’ve edited <a >Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy from Hamilton’s Rule</a> to give you credit for the first appearance of the seed of the new theory here at MR. 23
Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:15 | # As oppossed to angry, I would describe this article as distinctly feminine. 24
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:20 | # When I discussed the issue of a “drive to pass on our genes” with Razib at another site he objected on the grounds that:
He seems to be asserting here that there is a sex instinct but no reproductive instinct. This is an even more fundamental objection to the possibility of EGI than focusing on the reproduction of atomised genes rather than genetic structures. I don’t know if Razib’s view is supported within the biological sciences, but I am personally sceptical of his claim. First, most of us have experienced a reproductive instinct which is not the same as the sex instinct (the drive to become a father is not the same as the response we have to a sexually attractive woman). Second, the sex instinct can only explain why women get pregnant. It doesn’t explain why the men who impregnate women might hang around to make sure the offspring survive and are raised adequately to further continue the genetic line. It seems to me that humans could not have developed as we did into higher order creatures with sophisticated forms of socialisation unless there was both a sex instinct and a reproductive instinct. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:32 | # Perhaps if Razib spent more time at home in Bangladesh he would experience a spiritual connection to girls of his own racial type. This is something which isn’t to be got too often from girls of other races - towards whom “f*** and run” may seem invitingly possible and even appropriate to a would-be Bangladeshi Lothario. 26
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:37 | # Mark, previous debates on this blog vs. GNXPers helped clarify the difference between descriptive and prescriptive arguments. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Razib is right and you are wrong (not that I believe that, but let us assume it). That doesn’t change the fact that reproduction is adaptive. Human cultural and technological evolution has out-paced genetic-behavioral evolution. The mating instinct, which Razib so eloquently describes with the “f” word, serves all animals except man well, since these do not use contraceptives, and served man in the environment of evolutionary adaption - in which our behaviors evolved - since contraceptives did not exist then. If humans *had* evolved in the presence of large scale contraceptive use, in which the desire to “f**k” was uncoupled from reproduction, then overt reproductive instincts independent of “f**king” would have evolved. Humans evolved an attraction for sweet and fatty foods because such was adaptive before the modern age made access to such foods a health hazard in affluent countries. Humans evolved something else in the EEA - a large brain with an intellect to match. This should be used to discern that not all evolved behaviors are currently adaptive, and not all currently adaptive behaviors have evolved. 27
Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:02 | # Phil, GW, slinker - excellent responses, thanks. 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:41 | # The USA is, after all, the country whose ‘far-right’ leadership has consistently failed even to establish a viable national organisation. Is there a viable NO in any part of the anglosphere; Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the UK? Notwithstanding the efforts of NG, the BNP is a joke, a farce. Barely solvent and unable to garner any more than 2-3% of the national vote, even after the London bombings, it floats like a piece of excrement atop an ice cube in a toilet bowl. It pales in comparison to its European contemparies and NG fails, at least in this piece, to answer why? The Danish People’s Party, the Austrian Freedom Party or the National Front have no nutzis or conspiroids in their midst? Why can Haider garner 27% of the Austrian vote and Griffin gather bupkis in the UK? There’s some other factor at play. 29
Posted by Steve Edwards` on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:46 | # “Is there a viable NO in any part of the anglosphere; Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the UK?” It’s something that I can’t comprehend, either. Maybe Fred’s right - 250 to 300 million Anglos and de-facto world domination might cloud your perspective on the fundamentals. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:34 | # Don’t write off Griffin and his boys too quickly. They are coming up the hard way, building an organisation from scratch and at council ward level. It will take time. But they are most certainly professionalising - compare their approach to the internet with the mainstream parties. Labour is morally and intellectually discredited and costly, and that won’t change. The Tories are Blairite. The media is a little less monolithic in its “No platform for the BNP” approach. Vibrancy is as vibrancy does, and it don’t go unnoticed, pal. It is becoming understood that our cities are going to go majority non-native quite soon, starting with Leicester. Griffin himself reckons it will be three decades before the social chaos and collapse is sufficient to deliver power. I said a couple of years ago that I thought culture politics would disintegrate by 2025 or thereabouts. Man will still not be free by liberal lights, but Englishmen may yet search for the means to be so by the BNP’s. The local authority polls in early May will be good test of the BNP’s progress, particularly since Labour has just been horribly damaged at national level by the peerages row - it is Labour wards where the BNP is pressing. Good luck to them, I say. 31
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:47 | # At least part of the difference between Britain and Austria is probably due to PR. The BNP could get 27% of the vote and theoretically still not get any representation, unlike in Austria. People vote for a party they think will win, however illogical that seems in analysis. 32
Posted by Matra on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:01 | # Peter Hitchens on new or non-establishment parties:
Hitchens believes the Tories are closer to collapse than Labour. Canada’s Tories, the Progressive Conservatives, collapsed in 1993 when they went from a governing majority to only 2 seats. A conservative Western based party, Reform, came from nowhere (I think they’d only one seat prior to the ‘93 election) to being the main opposition in English Canada with 52 seats. To many of us at the time it seemed like the Progressive Conservatives were dead and the future was looking bright. But they recovered slowly and eventually merged with the remnants of Reform (which never could overcome Canada’s regionalism). Today the ruling Conservative party with ex-Reformer Stephen Harper as PM might as well be the old Progressive Conservatives for all the use they are. So should the British Tories have a similar collapse don’t just write them off: kill them off! 33
Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:31 | # I wonder if the BNP would have any problem giving plutonium to Israel? Of course, they wouldn’t’ have to tell the voters. It could all be done under the table. Besides, the Jews are just too powerful, opposing them is just so distasteful - you know that “ant-semitism thing won’t get you invited to a tea party with the Queen; And after all one might appear to be angry! Better just be nice to the Jews, hope they like us, after all the Arabs are so nastly - and besides most of them don’t have any plutonium. 35
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:54 | # KM, Keep on with the low-cholesterol diet, we wouldnt want to lose you. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:47 | # BBC News reports today that the BNP lost a council seat in a by-election in Keighley West ward. The sitting counciloor was Angela Clark, who provoked the election by standing down last month. I note, however, that the 2003 Council Election result for Keighley West was as follows:- Barry Kenneth Thorne, Labour, 1123 (elected) Total number of votes cast: 3247 Yesterday’s vote produced this result:- Angela Sinfield, Labour, 1819 (elected) Total number of votes cast: 3870 (but could be higher if any independents ran but were not mentioned in the BBC article). The total vote increased by 623 (plus any invisible independents). Labour’s vote increased by 696. This demonstrates, above all, how desperate Labour is to prevent the BNP winning elections. On a one-off election it has the muscle power to mobilise its vote, which appears to be what is behind this result. 37
Posted by JB on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:35 | # karlmagnus:
But are there respectable and reputable institutions of higher education left somewhere in North America ? Small academically negligible colleges probably offer degrees in social sciences that might be worth something since they are less likely to have politicized multicultural politically correct programs unlike Yale, Harvard, Princeton, McGill, etc. McGill now offer a Sexual Diversity Studies Minor, which is fitting for a university that has gender-neutral washrooms for the gender challenged students. There will probably be a mosque built somewhere on the campus in the not too distant future, next to statues of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and near a Raelian Sex Temple and a Holocaust Memorial Center.
38
Posted by JB on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:16 | # karlmagnus:
Is Mr.Hutchinson referring to John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and their report The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy ? A shorter version of their report can be read here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html full text here: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
As Steve Sailer wrote on his weblog:
How come jews like Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser who were among those who wrote a report for Netanyahu explaining that for Israel to obtain long term security Iraq and Syria would have to knocked down, ended up in the higher echelons of the Bush administration ? In a normal America the media would have pointed out the conflict of interests. It’s very easy to conspire when you have the media on your side covering up your actions by pointing its spotlights anywhere but in your direction, underlining and hyping all sorts of irrelevant things and occasionally defending your reputation from the truth with emotional nonsense. For example a few days ago on a MSNBC program the host asked David Duke if he felt vindicated now that “Harvard agrees with him” about AIPAC and its effect on the foreign policy of the USA, i.e. You See! You See! They’re saying the same things that neo-nazi David Duke is saying!. 41
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:45 | # In case anyone was worried, the feared deluge of Anti-Semitic legislation coming from the US Congress will be blocked by the strong will of the new majority leader. As we all know the US Congress is a frightfully anti-Israeli and Jewophobic body: Breaking News 42
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:03 | # “Yes those two gentleman as well. But the very fact that we are having to scratch around so hard says something doesn’t it?” True. Post a comment:
Next entry: Doudou Diéne at the Battle of Khartoon
|
|
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) |
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:06 | #
So there appears to be no room anywhere in the world for any policy that excludes Jews from any society—no matter how small. Is that the gist?