|
|
|
Hearing Jonathan Bowden by Guessedworker Comments:2
Posted by Tom Rennick on Thu, 03 May 2012 21:07 | # Is there any substance at all that Bowden was taken out by a Mossad assassination squad because he was a threat to the most powerful men in the world? Was he - as some commenters have said - the most “brilliant” man who ever lived? Finally, what do you think of Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents criticizing Bowden as a no-talent writer whose prose was “unreadable”? Jonathan Bowden: overated hack writer and bad actor of amateur films or modern-day Renaissance Man as brilliant as Newton, Galileo, and Shakespears combined…? 4
Posted by Reed on Fri, 04 May 2012 02:40 | #
5
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 04 May 2012 09:16 | # Any Bowden articles you’d recommend or could link to? I really didn’t know anything about him. 6
Posted by Bill on Fri, 04 May 2012 10:40 | # Posted by Leon Haller on May 04, 2012, 04:16 AM
Jonathan Bowden’s (Podcast No.6) “Western Civilization Bites Back” 77Mins. http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/jonathan-bowdens-western-civilization-bites-back/#more-24229
7
Posted by uh on Fri, 04 May 2012 12:06 | # I saw Bowden deliver that in person a couple months ago in California. Was certainly riveting, and awakened me to the power of oratory. That is how a speech ought to be, and very justly deserves to be heard, reheard, and remembered in detail, as much as any mantra soundbite or snappy comeback. Unfortunately, one found the contrast between speaker and message just too great. The tattooed man at the event graced by Guessedworker may have been lumpen, but that word precisely occurred to me, seated directly across from Mr. Bowden at dinner — along with still unkinder words like ‘defeated’ and ‘nearly dead’; my guess was a cardiac event of some sort had much reduced his presence, though from this it seems he never had much beyond his speech-making. He sat in a prolonged slump, face down, muttering occasionally to someone to his right. After that speech, by the way, I rose to challenge the easy association of Political Correctness and Trotskyism / Soviet Communism. Strictly speaking, the former did not follow from the latter in any fashion, but for decades white nationalists — following desperate American conservatives! — have maintained that Trotsky alone, somehow, was responsible for this late-80s/90s American phenomenon. It might happen that J-Bot rushes in to screech about the Institut für Sozialforschung and call me a Khazar for challenging this w-n dogma, which will be seen for the desperate falsification of social history that it is. Anyhow, I asked Mr. Bowden if he’d ever heard of Magnus Hirschfeld, who literally wrote the book on ‘racism’, subsequently translated and published by a pair of British Communists. (By the way, I don’t say that this “caused” or was even instrumental in causing the “politically correct” environment; that would be monocausal or ad hoc fallacy.) So, he had not, and for a minute or two I argued that one ought to be more conscientious in locating the origins of this oppressive social environment which forces us into obscure restaurant anterooms to discuss our ongoing dispossession and decline. I also asked, more pointedly, for his sources for Trotsky’s invention of the term ‘racism’ — Had he seen this journal himself, in Russian? moreover, is it at all likely that a term dropped carelessly in a necessarily obscure Communist dissident rag would have come into such sway in the English-speaking world, and that against a more direct source such as Hirschfeld’s book of that very title?* He diplomatically agreed to research the matter and incorporate it into his discourse, no doubt just to shut me up. Later that day I caught him alone and congratulated him. Also thought it was cool he mentioned Henry Miller’s The Air-Conditioned Nightmare, one of my all-time favorite books. He was frumpy & British, but his thought was anything but stodgy.
8
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 04 May 2012 12:22 | #
You forgot his most important contribution his artistic legacy.
Thank god, British nationalism long deserved to be in the trash can of history. @Tom Rennick
Lol! More chance of David Icke being threatened over his Lizard conspiracy being a threat to the establishment than Bowden.
9
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 04 May 2012 13:48 | # uh
Literally no one has ever said Trotsky was solely or even mainly responsible for political correctness. What people say - 100% correctly - is that political correctness grew out of Critical Theory which was developed by the Frankfurt School of Marxists in Germany in the 1920s. The Marxists responsible for the ideas were chased out of Germany by the Nazis into the Anglosphere where they infected British and American univerities. The cancer spread from there from the 30s onwards. Political correctness does not stem from liberalism. Although liberalism might always have *a* political correctness the one we currently have has a *very* clear and direct line of descent from marxists in 1920s Germany and anyone saying different is being deliberately dishonest. I agree the point about Trotsky inventing the word “racism” - whether true or not - is a stupid point as “racism” aka human nature existed before the word and Trotsky wasn’t himself a cultural marxist and wasn’t involved in the creation of political correctness as a tool of cultural warfare.
10
Posted by John on Fri, 04 May 2012 13:48 | #
Neither Bowden, nor Haider, Boggs, JFK & Jr., Larry MacDonald, Huey Long, Paul Wellstone Jürgen Möllemann, Anna Lindh, Folke Bernadotte, Paul Wellstone, Lech Kaczyński et. al ad infinitum talked of Lizards running the world. 11
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Fri, 04 May 2012 15:44 | # It’s been awhile since I’ve posted. Just wanted to say that Bowden’s speeches were pretty addictive and far more interesting than most in the contemporary WN movement, of those I’ve heard. Horus the Avenger (despite his weird mispronunciations and constant delving into conspiracy theory, which turns some off) is the only one I can think of with nearly the gift of gab (and then only occasionally). Bowden set the bar high indeed, and now it is up to one of us to take that bar up further, as a baton. I was truly saddened to hear this news. 12
Posted by uh on Fri, 04 May 2012 15:57 | #
It’s the same assertion, names substituted. When Trotsky is taken off the table as chief bad guy, the ISF is substituted, here on cue — though I didn’t expect you to do it. Anyhow, neither can actually be substantiated, only repeated over and over om mani padme hum-fashion. Every group needs discrete “bad guys”, else it loses coherence against forces it cannot directly combat. I’ve read a lot of Critical Theory. Not in a decade, but before my brain shut down permanently, I read a lot of it — Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm, Loewenthal, Martin Jay, some others. Of all, the only in my opinion to have had a significant impact upon real people at and beyond his university was of course Marcuse, a bohemian type with his finger on the pulse of American counter-culture. That said, he didn’t create Chuck Berry, Black Sabbath, or Led Zeppelin. He didn’t ghost-write Fanon’s Wretched of The Earth (who owed everything to Merleau-Ponty & Sartre). This small circle of Marcuse, Sontag and Rieff didn’t create as if by fiat the “politically correct” society. Certainly not Adorno, who was a quite private and uncontroversial man. These people were not the first to oppose “the legacy of racism in America”. Were they “behind” the Civil Rights movement? Of course. Did they create the desire for equal rights “affirmed” by Kennedy and Johnson, or the conditions that necessitated a revision of racial parity? No, obviously, for they didn’t import slaves, keep them in bondage, fight a war ostensibly over their freedom, set them free, then enfranchise them, nor spur them to flee to the northern cities. Against all this broader social history the monocausal hypothesis fails completely.
That isn’t wrong. PC is certainly more a monster of feminism, especially Jewish feminism, than anything else, insomuch as it was “hatched” at all — certainly not by the ISF lot. Despite that, we shouldn’t syncopate the development of PC by pointing straight back to some central agent on whose shoulders we balance the conditions and events of decades. Executive Orders 10925 & 11246 inaugurated “the sixties”. These weren’t passed by yids. The “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” was convoked in ‘60, signed by ‘65, in “response to several antisemitic incidents around the world”, but by the UN General Assembly. My point is that this was very much in the air, not a project of ISF goons acting under the spell of Maestro Gramsci. Had that had a long-term effect? Certainly. Have you or has anyone accurate sifted the evidence, weighed the conditions against each other and come to a truly informed conclusion on the extent to which your eminences gris are “responsible” for “political correctness”? Fuck no, so please don’t imply anyone is being deliberately dishonest.
Ok, good enough for me. As seen above I don’t discount the role of “Cultural Marxism”, but historical conditions were rather more complex than this simplistic formula A (cultural Marxists/Jews)—-> B (reign of political correctness). It follows as much from the equalitarian underpinnings of American ideology and the lack of will of modern gentile politicians (Yankees like the Kennedys for example), and probably in so small part to the ascendance of the urban worldview in the American mind through media, as from concerted propaganda in the universities. The advent of Canadian affirmative action is a useful contrast. Jews played the usual role but had absolutely no connection with the ISF coterie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalie_Abella
13
Posted by Dirty Bull Droppings on Fri, 04 May 2012 16:34 | # O.T. Apparently the Labour Party has done extremely well in Britain’s current crop of local elections. 14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 04 May 2012 17:09 | # The BNP is finished as an electoral force
15
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 04 May 2012 17:55 | # @John
They wouldn’t be able to see them because of the energy frequency omitted from the moon that suppresses human consciousness that does not let us see the reptilian shape-shifters and other things. It is part of the Moon Matrix don’t y’know? Where is evidence that Jews or Mossad were behind these peoples deaths? What threat did Bowden pose to Mossad and the establishment speaking to some obese, brain dead, tattoo covered, beer guzzling English nationalists in pubs in London.
16
Posted by Lynn on Fri, 04 May 2012 20:00 | #
Did you ever attend any NR meetings, perchance? Of the twelve or so gatherings I went to over the years I never once saw a stereotypical tattooed ‘bonehead’, that effete betafags cowards like you and Thompson mention. The video below of an NR meeting, which pans the crowed, doesn’t show any either.
LGC 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 04 May 2012 20:45 | # Interesting comments from uh, best comment from Dirty Bull Droppings. Again, the question must be asked: what is wrong with whites? Have we been brainwashed by a Jewish-led conspiracy, as JRichards and his similarly foul-tempered, anti-intellectual acolytes seem to think? Or is all this constant loss of white power merely the playing out of an innate defect in the psychological makeup of our race, as I believe? I recall again my arguments for White Zion. No one ever disproves them. Dislikes, belittles or ignores - yes. But never disproves. WNs forget that even the unique conditions of interwar Germany could not produce a democratic NAZI majority. We are not (yet) fighting for our lives, and matters mostly may never reach that point. It is far more likely that whites will be colonized/miscegenated, than exterminated, out of existence (or by the time extermination arrives, the process of white extinction will be almost concluded). The brute fact is that the modal white mind is simply unable to process non-universalistic morality (I’m speaking loosely: I think the basic goals of an exclusively white preservationist WN (ie, as contrasted with an aggressive White Power WN) are perfectly congruent with Christian universalism), at least at present, though this refusal to face racial truth has, if anything, been hardening as well as growing more widespread since the 1960s, and thus suggests a fundamental and permanent change in modal ethical outlook, on par with the modern rejection of slavery, which, philosophically, is now nearly universal. To put it crudely, most whites would rather their race go extinct (especially if the extinction process is peaceful) than reacquire a traditional in/out group morality. Ultimately, it is irrelevant to what extent or even whether this contemporary state of affairs is due to intentional Jewish malignity. It is happening, and even if originally caused by Jews (a debatable proposition), the process is now self-reinforcing, such that ‘de-Judaization’ is no more likely than re-racial tribalization. Given the consistent psychological patterns of whites, as well as their mean distribution across white societies, it is extremely unlikely that any WN government will ever come to power anywhere. Maybe there will be an exception in one of the liberated provinces of the defunct USSR, though that possibility only exists because of the racial ‘backwardness’ of those regions. As they slowly become better integrated into European postmodernity, they, too, will lose their racial willpower, if they haven’t already: just being a nation of individualistic assholes, per modern Russia, is already proving inadequate to national, let alone racial, survival. Thus, the future, without something radical, is simply projected to be more of the present: additional immigration (sometimes more, sometimes less); slow but steadily rising miscegenation; ever-solidifying sociological, economic and political integration of nonwhites and acceptance of the basic principle of multiracialism for formerly white countries; and worsening totalitarian persecution of white dissidents. Nothing will stop this process because no white majority anywhere passionately wants to (as opposed to merely expressing vague apprehension about immigration, or a desire that nonwhites better integrate or behave themselves). Thus, absent unforeseen and unlikely ‘acts of God’, universal-national white minoritization (ie, the condition of whites in all sovereign polities) is virtually guaranteed. The process could arrive sooner, if immigration is increased, or later, if immigration is halted. But, without conscious, intentional action on the part of whites, eventually there will be only very small minorities of purebred whites left scattered across the planet (those who possess a genetic instinct, or culture/ideology, inoculating them against miscegenation), none of whom will enjoy racial-territorial sovereignty, and all of whom will thus be more or less powerless to ensure racial survival. We will be in the condition of pureblooded Amazonians: we might continue to exist in isolated communities for a while, but our days will clearly be numbered. White Zion, however improbable, remains the only realistic option for white perpetuity. By 2050, you will see that I’m still right (and alive, I hope, to say so!). 18
Posted by uh on Fri, 04 May 2012 21:08 | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami#Domestic_life.2C_clothing_and_diet 19
Posted by Geoff Davies on Fri, 04 May 2012 21:32 | # I hear what you mean about JB’s oratorical gift. 20
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 04 May 2012 21:44 | # @Lynn
I don’t live in England but I have seen a few NR videos posted on Youtube and this website in the past.
Let’s face it he was a member then affiliated with BNP circles whose idiotic members are like that idiot I posted above recruited from the British working class and are the poster child of the stereotypical low IQ fascist thugs that most people associate with the far right.
21
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 05 May 2012 06:24 | # <h3>The khazar pest again!</h3>
The powdered-feces-snorting miserable, desperate Kike pest Haller accuses me of thinking in terms of whites “brainwashed by a Jewish-led conspiracy”! The lying Khazar knows that this isn’t my belief, and he has read me saying that brainwashing is a fictitious phenomenon. The kike pest again attempts to demoralize. Very recently I pointed to the Khazar yet again promoting lies about white racial consciousness and ethnocentrism, to which the kike responded by urging a comments policy [to keep me out], and then when I exposed how the kike would be banned right away if itz proposed policies were implemented, he fell silent, and now the kike is back to repeating the yarn in a different discussion. Start here [and see how the kike pest responds]: The pestilence refers to his “arguments for White Zion.” The kike has no argument. He refused to network with anyone interested in starting a program along these lines, didn’t come up with the logistics, and never addressed how one could ward off attacks on white zion. It’s yet another instance of the parasite trying to lead the reader into a blind alley. This meddlesome pest needs to be dealt with. Someone should come up with a “Haller kike-pest degeneracy archive,” documenting the pest being repeatedly caught lying, trolling, de-railing, recycling the same debunked arguments. The degeneracy archive should be posted prominently, like the phora has exposed Haller’s brother-in-arms Hunter Wallace. Everytime this pest regurgitates his vomit, link to the archive or post excerpts from it. 22
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 05 May 2012 07:01 | #
They didn’t do well. Labour got 12% of the available vote. Both main parties continue to lose votes it’s a question of which one is winning the race to the bottom. In this case Labour had already hit their bedrock and now the Conservatives are hitting their bedrock too but as theConservative party’s bedrock is lower than Labour’s you get the illusion of Labour success. .
I think the experience of the BNP shows that nationalist electoral success under a FPTP system is very difficult because it requires the first 5% of dissenters to keep voting (even though they can’t win) for long enough to get the second 5% to turn out and then the combined 10% have to keep voting (despite no chance of winning) long enough for the third 5% of dissenters to turn out etc until you reach a tipping point where you can win. This is possible (very slowly) for parties like the Greens that don’t have such intense negative pressure and infiltration to cope with but very difficult for parties that do. It’s especially frustrating given how low the level of positive support for the mainstream parties is (finally) getting. I think any successful nationalist organisation in the heart of darkness (Britain, America etc) has to be auftragstaktikmensch i.e. decentralized local organisations loosely affiliated to a central body so the individual organisations can easily detach themselves from parts of the whole that get infiltrated and the whole can dissassociate from individual branchs that get infiltrated. A centralized party will either be infiltrated at the top level leading to deliberate sabotage at critical elections or the top level will get so paranoid they develop a bunker mentality and self-destruct. Whatever happens electoral appeal *cannot* be based on winning as eventually people will get disheartened. It has to be based on sending a message because too many people won’t vote if they don’t think it’s possible to win however there’s a (somewhat) larger number that could be persuaded on the basis of sending a message. You’ll only get to the people who’ll only turn out if they think you can win after enough people are consistently voting while not expecting to win. Apart from that i’m out of electoral ideas. .
JamesUK is a perfect example of one of the non-Jewish versions of outsider-hostility - in his case related to the Northern Ireland conflict and also an example of how that hostility doesn’t neccessarily have to relate to the original cause. The hostility develops separately and is then applied according to personality. .
It’s not the same assertion. Trotsky wasn’t a cultural marxist. However there is a clear, direct line from the cultural marxist Frankfurt school in the 1920s to Colombia University in New York and Birmingham in the UK from the 1930s onwards and you can trace their influence out from there - as KMac has done. They were overwhelmingly influential in taking over educational departments in universities and teacher training and instituting all the propaganda disguised as academic courses that grew out of sociology. The non-Jewish upper middle class left-liberal political caste we have today was mainly spawned out of those education and sociology (or sociology-derived) university courses. It’s still the case today. The core true believers in the political correct religion are teachers and social workers (again mostly non-Jewish). The single biggest success of the cultural marxists was in people like Boas, Gould and Lewontin successfully promoting and reifying the blank slate theory which is a total lie and which they knew was a total lie. The blank slate theory underpins the entire edifice of modern political correctness including feminism. Cultural marxism isn’t the sole cause as marxism and cultural marxism were and are in essence just one strand of outsider-hostility. The people attacking the German majority’s sexual morality in Weimar or the people making torture-porn movies in the US today aren’t cultural marxists. They were and are driven by outsider hostility but in a different form. The people who attacked the German majority’s artistic tradition in the 1920s and the people who attacked the western art tradition in Britain and America post WWII weren’t cultural marxists either - i guess some may have been both - they were and are people driven by outsider hostility in their individual way. The Freudians weren’t cultural marxists (mostly) but they were driven by outsider hostility to attack the majority culture in their individual way. However there is a direct clear line from the 1920s cultural marxists via education to the current form of political correctness and the blank slate theory is the one example i need to prove the point. Hmm…although now i think of it there is a tendency, including me until recently, to lump everything i.e. overt politics, sexual morality, drugs, art, Freud etc, all into cultural marxism so on reflection you may have 60% of a point. I guess it’s another example of the debate between organised tribal conspiracy versus disorganised and separate pieces of outsider-hostility. .
Ditto
23
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 05 May 2012 07:28 | #
Have you wondered why someone whose native language, judging from his comments, obviously isn’t English, appends UK to his username? What kind of people at MR try to misrepresent themselves in this manner? Hint: This person’s history of comments on Muslims, among other things, can only be coming from members of this one ethnic group that I’d leave you to figure out. 24
Posted by A Pensive Dirty Bull on Sat, 05 May 2012 08:04 | # I’m increasingly coming around to the idea that nationalists (and rcaists) in Britain should all vote for UKIP. 25
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 05 May 2012 10:50 | # J Richards Dirty Bull 26
Posted by Bill on Sat, 05 May 2012 11:05 | # So what now? The plates are looking decidedly wobbly. Political Britain is experiencing a defining moment, a defining moment of inevitability. My natural instincts envisaged such a moment long ago, trouble is I never expected it to take so long. Political Britain has arrived at such a moment and has hit the buffers of reality. Even without taking into account a myriad of similar worldly defining moments, the arrival of Britain’s expected impasse has begun to unravel the system, despite the media’s frantic heroic efforts to keep the Red team – Blue team plate spinning at all cost. Britain’s political system has entered deep crisis but the people don’t know it yet, though some do sense that something has gone dreadfully awry. The angst ridden political conversation in Britain since Cameron became prime minister is in direct response to the effects of liberal globalism and Cameron’s treacherous support of it, but most people fail to connect the dots. The Telegraph threads are testimony and are awash with such sentiments. All things political are being propped up by a demonic liberal media, but can they divert the deceit at the heart of British party politics? It could be that Britain is experiencing just another dysfunctional surge and things might return to some uneasy equilibrium, but this will not disguise the fact that British politics is in free-fall. Politicians claim Britain is now a multicultural society, to what degree this claim has attributed politics entering free- fall is not all that clear to me, I must admit though it must be considerable. Cameron’s Tories have, (only today) taken what the press describe as a hammering in local elections nationwide. The benefactors are the labour party (Red team here) who the pundits tell us only a short while ago was responsible for the worst economic crisis in living memory. Now, after only two years on the subs bench they are again being touted for the revolving door marked - business as usual. Does this sound familiar to those across the water? For how much longer can the revolving door of party politics remain credible, I’m astonished (no I’m not really) it’s lasted this long, it beggars belief that the media can keep it going indefinitely. The Labour party has long since ceased to be labour. Blair was quite up front when for the 1997 general election he renamed the Labour party New Labour. Then came the time for Cameron’s Blue team to head through the revolving door, but a confident (or misguided) Cameron never considered renaming his Blue team the New Conservative party. Either way, the public followed the pied piper media and delivered a Tory/Liberal globalist coalition. Fast forward two years to (today) and Cameron is on the ropes, wholesale core Tory voters have deserted the party they consider no longer espouses conservative values. Conservative cognitive dissonance is demanding all manner of change, the main one among them being a return to traditional values. At last the the unravelling is in plain view. Core conservative voters have sussed Cameron big time and are (allegedly) switching their allegiance to the panacea anti EU party UKIP. God luck with that one. The word is out the conservative party is a living corpse. As for the nation’s brief flirtation with the BNP, those who follow these things knew it would all end in tears. MR gave up on Griffin and his party a long time ago. Suffice it to say at this moment in time there is no no serious challenge to liberalism in Britain. So what now? It is my view Liberalism renders government of a homogeneous nation unworkable, it’s a no brainer. Atomisation of society as we have seen it take hold in Britain produces chaos and corruption, nothing works. This maybe an intended consequence of liberalism, but I cannot see how any government can function when all is pulling in different directions. Supposedly democratic Red team – Blue team politics cannot work within the electrified ring fence of a liberal world, we can see its dysfunction and contradictions before our eyes. Of course the masses haven’t figured it out yet and most are paralysed in the headlights, or indifferent or asleep. The antidote to liberal (multicultural) group chaos and corruption is cohesion in the shape of a whole free people moving forward together. This conversation is work in progress and snowballing, (we ain’t seen nutt’n yet) and will dominate from now on in, I am of the persuasion that the British are natural conservatives and are more in tune with the natural order of things, it’s not all good by any means but surely it beats the alternative on offer. Funny thing is both sides claim the same thing, you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. 27
Posted by Karl LaForce on Sat, 05 May 2012 19:17 | # Who has left from us? NON FUI, FUI, NON SUM, NON CURO 28
Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 05 May 2012 19:18 | # @JRichards
I attached the UK moniker after my name because another commentator on the MR at the time was also using the name james. I have mentioned before that I am Scottish.
What have I written about Muslims? What are the other things? @Wandrin
Northern Ireland? When have I made any remarks about the conflict between Ireland and England and why would you assume I care?
I am more pro-Eurasian and think Russian “nationalism” is the worst form of nationalism out there like those idiots on Stormfront that incorporates the worst aspects of British and other nationalist groups in Europe and the greatest threat to Eurasian development and integration.
29
Posted by HW on Sat, 05 May 2012 23:25 | # There is no point in setting up a “J Richards is a kook” archive because every utterance provides a new entertaining confirmation. 30
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 06 May 2012 06:51 | # JamesUK claims to be a Scotsman, but English is obviously not his native language. JamesUK has an interesting explanation for why he appends UK to his name, but it doesn’t fly in the case of a former commenter that went by martinUK, another person whose native language clearly wasn’t English, who wrote similar passages on Muslims, and didn’t capitalize the first letter of his user name (like jamesUK). JamesUK also has a peculiar memory. He knows what he didn’t write [on northern Ireland and being pro-Russian] but doesn’t know what he did write [on Muslims and the other things he has written]. I think he should take tips from Lister on how to lie better. The Khazar Lister claims to be a Scotsman. Where he resides and his nationality I don’t know, but at least Lister can pass himself off as a native English speaker. 31
Posted by A Discouraged Dirty Bull on Sun, 06 May 2012 08:14 | # As usual, this site ignores the important issues (like the recent UK elections), and the self-styled intellectual egg-heads witter on about trivial shit. 32
Posted by Geoff Davies on Sun, 06 May 2012 09:18 | # wandrin at post (. Do you have any references or sources for the Cultural Critique being the origin of Political Correctness? 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 May 2012 10:11 | #
But I do hope an Englishman here will report on the elections.
34
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 May 2012 10:27 | # Good GOD!!! I cannot believe this! I took a look at the picture of Ed Milliband and said that man does not look like an Englishman, or even a white man (Cameron and Clegg certainly do). Did some WIKI, and came up with this:
<blockquote></blockquote> What the hell? He’s a Jew??!! A Marxist Jew! What the hell is the matter with you people?! In the US this would be completely unremarkable. But how is it possible that in an officially CHRISTIAN NATION like Britain a Jew may become the PM someday soon? How many Jews are there in the UK? I thought the number was small compared to France, let alone the US. The idiot JRichards thinks I’m a “Khazar”, whatever that is, but I am outraged at this. My God the English are pushovers! No wonder your country is just about gone. And people think White Zion is “unrealistic”. Yes, nationalist revolution in the UK, right around the corner ... WZ is the only hope for our race. You’ll see. 35
Posted by icr on Sun, 06 May 2012 10:40 | #
Some defect in the collective English character. Even the NPD is largely made up of people who look normal and act in a normal manner. The intellectual level of the NPD is much higher too-though that could be mostly because German cops are brighter than English cops. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 May 2012 10:45 | # Ahh, England ...
Yes, WZ is too inorganic to appeal to such culturally ‘thick’ societies as England… White Zion - Last Hope of the Aryan!! 37
Posted by uh on Sun, 06 May 2012 11:15 | #
Patience. The theory is still in its “maggots come from garbage ‘cause that’s where we find them” phase. 38
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 06 May 2012 11:56 | # But how is it possible that in an officially CHRISTIAN NATION like Britain a Jew may become the PM someday soon? You mean how is it possible that it’ll happen again? Jew controlled most of Europe long before they controlled America Leon. They have a really special relationship with England. 39
Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 06 May 2012 12:43 | # @J Richards
What the hell are you talking about?
Who? Again what did I write about Muslims? Cite examples on the things I wrote that differ from other commentators on MR.
I didn’t write anything on Northern Ireland and what is it exactly that you find so objectionable on my writings on Muslims and other issues?
You’re not a new Jeff Durham character are you? J Richards: The Angry white English nationalist.
40
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 06 May 2012 16:13 | # J. Richards You’re right about most of your list but JamesUK is Scottish of Irish nationalist extraction hence his version of venomous outsider-hostility. (btw i’m not making a point about that conflict in general just using him as an example of the kind of outsider-hostility Jews have which always leads them to attempt to destroy the host population whether through gulags, cultural marxism or torture-porn). I don’t know why you don’t think he’s a native English speaker but i assume it’s something to do with him being aspie. For any non plague-rats reading - focus on the banks. Without that endless source of funds their ability to destroy everything good in the world would be greatly reduced. 41
Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 06 May 2012 17:06 | # Here is a photograph of J Richards and Wandarin attentively watching a Bowden speech @Wandrin
Lol! Amazing you know my family tree better than myself. For the record I have no family connection or interest in Ireland and have never even made a passing reference about Ireland.
You mean the City of London international British banking system.
43
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 May 2012 01:29 | # Wandrin, How do you know jamesUK has Aspergers syndrome? If ANYONE here has this:
it is your idiot friend JRichards. Also, when you parrot the line about banks, I assume you therefore support Ron Paul’s Austrian School derived monetary proposals - to abolish central and fractional reserve banking, and return to a 100% commodity reserves (probably gold) standard? The extent to which Jews can be said to control the banking establishments of the West is debatable. Is it like Hollywood - owned and controlled by them - or, say, the legal profession, in which they are simply disproportionately influential? And it depends also on which nation you’re discussing. WNs go nowhere in part because they don’t really understand the Jewish problem (KMac does, but if WNs read him closely, he is not as extreme as many of them in terms of what he thinks we should do to counteract Jewry). Between the white man’s innate ethicality; the Holocaust narrative; Jewish cognitive superiority and resulting professional dominance and epic wealth; Jewish ethnocentrism; a century or more of liberal/Left indoctrination; the growth and deepening of totalitarian state power over all areas of Western life; the decline of real, institutionally rooted Christianity (very much including in the US - evangelical and pentecostal Christianities are very theologically shallow) as a counterweight to Jewish supremacism; and the floodtides of nonwhite invaders always ready to resist violently any expressions of WN or even just white heritage or self-protection - it is simply impossible to “confront the Jew” head on. The intelligent strategy is a a ‘chamelionic’ one: whites must focus on building up our own communal consciousness, without over-incurring the enmity (or notice) of Jewry. We do this in twofold fashion. First, we must do what we can to raise the positive awareness of our own Western history, to build white or ethnic pride in our people. This is much less difficult than some seem to think. In the US, we just need to tell the real history of (Christian, European) America (and how much easier this is in European contexts!). Patriotic pride is a wonderful stand-in for racial pride - and everyone knows it, even if no one says it. Second, we need to engender racial fear about our people’s future unless immigration is halted. Stopping immigration is the most important practical issue, but it also is a ‘gateway’ issue to getting people to think about Who Is (and therefore Is Not) an American (Frenchman, etc). Working along these vectors will essentially isolate Jews - or expose their machinations (as when they overplayed their hand in trying to badmouth Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ). Jewish power exists only as a function of white weakness. If whites start to become re-tribalized, the JQ will gradually disappear - and without our ever having to go on tirades about the Holocaust, genetics, or similar issues that many whites (not only liberals) find uncomfortable. Really people, in dealing with the Jew, cunning is key. 44
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 07 May 2012 06:24 | # Leon
1) I’m good at reading people. .
Not at all. Ron Paul has a libertarian solution to the problem. I’m more inclined to a public institutional solution but as he is the only one attacking the root of one of the biggest problem he’s better than nothing. Personally i have no problem with fiat currencies or even theoretically with fractional reserve banking if suitable public institutions can be devised. The key point is that the control of the money supply underpins the entire economy and control of the money supply is currently in the hands of what is effectively a criminal mafia. .
Well you can look at the heads of the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve post-WWII to answer that question. Personally i don’t think most of them are much more than nominally Jewish but they are technically hence their willingness to spend a lot of money buying up politicians and media and funding organisations to make sure no one makes that connection publically. Those organisations then become a vehicle for non-bankster Jews (and others) to vent their outsider-hostility towards the majority population. I think at root they’re much more of an inter-connected collection of mafia families. .
Sure, outside of places like this. Places like this should be where people isolate the separate components that can be undermined head on without being explicit. However dealing with the relentless procession of anti-monocausal advocates with their own monocausal explanation which just so happens to promote the suicide meme over the genocide meme gets very tedious. What Jews don’t understand because their biology is different through inbreeding is that very outbred biological universalists find open public hypocrisy mentally painful (private, compartmentalized hypocrisy is ok) hence Jews being relentlessly hypocritical - in universalist terms - through “is it good for the Jews” morality, drives such people mad. People like that need to focus on one aspect of the problem rather than the whole for their own good. Anyway, control of the money supply over a long enough time span provides effectively limitless wealth with which to buy protection against the public noticing they’re the victims of a long-running financial fraud. The people currently running that fraud are mostly at least nominally Jewish. Without the wealth from that fraud being used to fund protection for the fraud Jews who can’t control their outsider-hostility would still be heading up lots of hostile cultural warfare organisations but without bankster funding they’d be more at the level of a better organised version of the Black Panther Party than the level of mega-funded ADL, SPLC, ABC, NBC, CBS etc. The outsider-hostility would still be there because it too is a function of biology (magnified in the Jewish case by their persecution culture) but it wouldn’t be so overwhelmingly powerful.
45
Posted by daniel on Mon, 07 May 2012 06:49 | # Bowden’s speeches were excellent - inspiring, energetic and a font of ideas. I agree with the consensus there and came to appreciate him belatedly (after he died, in fact) having been clued onto his speeches being his strong point. One thing I enjoyed in particular are his fantastic insights into the sickness of communist mentality. He describes in a highly articulate way some of these kinds I’ve had the misfortune to have known. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the Right is the way for us in White advocacy. Especially in the re-edited version that is not yet on line, I am satisfied with my Leftism as a code word essay where I argue why that is a preferable angle for us to take. One commentor said that my essays are not deep enough while he had admitted to not having read them. He added further to that absurdity by saying that he knows all that is in those essays which he has not read. It is not possible anyway as some of the ideas I derived myself and will not be found elsewhere. 46
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 07 May 2012 07:27 | # Geoff Davies
KMac’s books give more than enough evidence to prove the point conclusively the only question is what drives it, organised conspiracy or something more unconscious? http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/ For net searchs keywords the number of strands that spread out from that origin are so varied it gets bewildering so i’d simply focus on one of them to show the link The blank slate theory (race is a social construct etc) is the fake-rational foundation of the whole edifice - if there are different outcomes between black and white and black and white are the same apart from environmental forces then those differing outcomes must logically be due to discrimination, if there are different outcomes between male and female and male and female are the same apart from environmental influences then those differing outcomes must be due to discrimination etc.
47
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 07 May 2012 07:29 | #
I lost a bit of weight since then 48
Posted by daniel on Mon, 07 May 2012 08:55 | # The blank slate theory (race is a social construct etc) is the fake-rational foundation of the whole edifice Wandrin, do not fall into the trap of those how misuse social constructionism. Race is not a mere social construct and those who take that angle are absurd. However, to treat race as a real social construct is true enough and has significant advantages. Originally set forth as an anit-Caresian notion by the likes of Vico, if it is argued that race is a mere social construct, that would betray the point as much as an attempt at mere empiricism would. high level Jewish interests and disingenuous/ignorant Whites do not want us to be socially organized - though we should be.
49
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 07 May 2012 09:30 | # daniel
nod 50
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 May 2012 12:29 | # Ok, this is freaky. Monday morning, I can access MR, and some other sites, but there are dozens that my Safari browser can’t access right now, ones like Amazon and The Economist. Anyone else having these problems? 51
Posted by Armor on Mon, 07 May 2012 16:59 | # Wandrin: “the suicide meme” / “the genocide meme” Most people can’t believe that their own government wants to kill them. If they can’t believe it, they can’t be accused of agreeing with the policy! 52
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 May 2012 20:50 | # Frank Ellis on the origins of Political Correctness. He fingers Lenin. 53
Posted by uh on Tue, 08 May 2012 02:17 | #
WOOOOOHHH!!!! Slow down there, Dan! You’re really on fire with all this research!!!!!! Frank Ellis — didn’t see that coming! No way! Why, I bet Wandrin’s never even heard of Frank Ellis ......
54
Posted by uh on Tue, 08 May 2012 02:24 | #
UH OH!!!! Looks like MACROBIUS was being “deliberately dishonest” by asserting “political correctness” DID NOT come from Lenin or Trotsky, but the BRITISH LEFT ... And who translated Hirschfeld’s Der Rassmismus for an English audience?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Eden_Paul HOLY SHIT!!!!!! IT’S ANOTHER BRITISH SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!! IT’S LIKE THERE WAS THIS HUGE CONSPIRACY OF COMMUNISTS IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA WHO WERE ‘TROTSYKIST’ IN NAME ONLY ... BUT HEY I GUESS THERE’S A BETTER CHANCE OF MEMETIC TRANSFER FROM “OBSCURE RUSSIAN DISSIDENT JOURNALS” INTO AMERICAN DISCOURSE CIRCA 1990 THAN TRANSATLANTIC ENGLISH-SPEAKING SOCIALISTS LOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZZOZ Christ, YOU are the dishonest ones if you can’t see what is before your eyes here. Willfully fucking ignorant. 55
Posted by uh on Tue, 08 May 2012 02:32 | # Whatever though ... going to smoke some opium and chill to J-Bow’s “Credo” .... fuck yea .... lzoozoz it comes from coooooommmyanizzzmmm 57
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 08 May 2012 05:20 | # Armor
Yes, that’s the key to all of it. It’s a variation on the Big Lie. Most people can only tell small lies before they start feeling guilty so they can’t conceive of someone who can tell huge ones with no shame - so they don’t believe a big lie is a lie even if it is staring them in the face. Most people are only capable of small amounts of treachery before they feel shame so they can’t conceive of people who are capable of betrayal on such a huge scale with no shame at all - so because they can’t conceive it they can’t believe it even if it is staring them in the face. .
You’re doing the same thing you’re criticizing. That Trotsky may have been the first to use the word racism doesn’t make him the originator of political correctness. That person x was the first to use the phrase political correctness doesn’t make them the originator of political correctness as we know it. Firstly, political correctness as a *label* has always been mainly used as an insult by it’s opponents. Political correctness as the actual social force itself came out of the Marxist idea of being politically correct as opposed to correct which is a variant on social justice as opposed to justice i.e. justice is justice - social justice is a rationalization for injustice i.e. people should be treated equally becomes black people should be treated preferentially. It’s Marxist word games to rationalize their way out of the universalist morality they use as the initial wedge. Similarly something may be correct - either in the universalist moral terms used as a wedge or marxist doctrinal terms - but is it *politically* correct at that moment i.e. it might be doctrinally correct to attack social democrats but is it *politically* correct tactically right now. Political correctness as a phrase is just a term originally used by ex communists to taunt existing communists. It took root in the mainstream because it describes something people see in reality. The thing people see in reality has a direct route back to 1920s Germany with the blank slate theory being the only neccessary example.
58
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 08 May 2012 18:18 | # http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/08/men-guilty-abusing-girls-rochdale Just seen the head of the children’s charity Barnardo’s suggest this is simply the tip of a pernicious ice-berg and that race is a factor in these offences on Channel 4 news of all places (all the victims were vulnerable white children - guess the identity of the criminals?). Get these foreign degenerate scum out of our country ASAP - let them enjoy returning to the ‘delights’ of their real homelands. Diversity is literally perversity. 59
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 08 May 2012 19:50 | # Super LOL! The BNP actually have their own ventriloquist doll Billy Brit.
In the video he gets pissed at the end very much in the British tradition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q31H_6dhvYk I didn’t know Nick Griffin was Britain’s’ Jeff Durham. Billy Brit should meet Achmed the Dead Terrorist.
From now on I am calling J Richards and Wandrin Billy Brits. @Graham_Lister
Yet for some unexplained reason nationalist parties in Europe especially the BNP are unelectable. Gee I wonder why that is.
60
Posted by daniel on Tue, 08 May 2012 20:53 | # Which business interests/Banks provide the largest funding for the parties who succeed while being uncaring and antagonistic to native British Nationalist interests? Is there a way to circumscribe vital points, groups among them? Where might their weak points be? Generally speaking where might there be anecdotes and disincentives to these funding sources? Where might there be potential coalitions against these power alliances? Pardon my being unfamiliar with the British scene (never even been there), but I am curious as to these basics. As for the media, what motivation, funding and influence besides Jewish interests, is behind those who keep The BBC (and channel 4?) so politically correct? Wouldn’t a quasi leftist angle - a nativist union - be more accurate and popular to take? It seems to me that it could go forth as genuinely humanitarian…from grandmothers to even showing an ethnographic sympathy to these poor bewildered White kids manifesting skin heads. ...they are destroying our ancient peoples, why? Maybe we should start acting like the humanitarian good guys…yes indeed, concerned for our own. It could perhaps form coalitions with other nativist unions from other nations… I understand that the upper classes try to distinguish themselves from the working class by hypocritically pretending to be anti-racist. 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 May 2012 21:16 | # Take a page from Golden Dawn (or black America, which pushes this stuff to quite a degree, but only alternately succeeds and fails: the former, because of their innate racism, the latter, their innate criminality). Euro ethnonationalists should indeed take on positive community functions, like Big Brother activities (not Orwellian stuff, I mean mentoring young white kids), arranging sports clubs, dating services, neighborhood watches (very useful and important), things which can offer a way to bring whites together. Anything to get whites “de-integrated” is good. Ultimately, nationalist politics can’t only be political, as a lot of whites (as with all groups) just aren’t that interested in politics. 62
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 08 May 2012 22:05 | # Nothing against sensible community activism (no to ‘neo-Nazi’ techno raves thank you very much LJB). JamesUK and Daniel your points are inter-related - for anyone in the UK, particularly the educated middle-class, to be suspected of being racist is the quickest way to an almost catastrophic loss of personal status with very detrimental real-world consequences. Subsequently, generally the only people that embrace the BNP are those for whom that loss of status is not an issue - i.e. those already in a marginal sub-culture (football hooligans/skinheads), the retired, those in low status employment and those for whatever psychological reason reveal in antinomian posturing. So in general ‘low quality’ people abound (the cognitively below average and/or the psychologically unreliable). Seriously does the like of Griffin impress anyone? Would you let him run a proverbial whelk stall let alone the country? The question is this - given that over ‘old-school’ racism is a no-go in the UK can one be a non-racist ethno-communitarian both in rhetorical terms and analytical terms within a broader political outlook that can be attractive to both the middle classes and working classes? I sincerely believe that both these prospects are entirely possible and can be fashioned from within mainstream political theory, sociology and philosophy. But the arguments are and will have to be slightly more sophisticated than the cod Nietzschean tropes favoured by the late Mr. Bowden and other typical WN fare. Interacting with people of the ilk of the ‘Richards bot’ makes one wonder “why bother?” and then something like Asian sex-gangs hits the UK news and of course one realises that we must all do whatever we can and redouble our collective efforts to expose the profound folly of ‘diversity’ and formulate and then ruthlessly promulgate an attractive yet serious alternative. 63
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 08 May 2012 23:03 | # @Graham_Lister
The problem is not some external force controlling us like a pathetic bunch of mindless sheep like in the film They Live where we scapegoat Jews, liberals, Marxists, etc for all our actions as if we don’t have any freewill our thought of our own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lwlx3GnLGs We don’t live in a dictatorship where we cannot have political representation or right of assembly like in the former USSR or the Mid East. The problem is the parties themselves comprised of working class, anarchist racist thugs with shaven heads and bomber jackets whose only interests in the far right is the appeal of getting in fights, harassing minorities and purposely being as repulsive to society as possible. If the national parties in the former Soviet satellite states that ran in free elections after the fall of Communism based themselves on British or other western nationalist parties do you think they would have any respect or be able to govern a country? What self respecting person of minimal intelligence would be associated with such people except for the dregs of society?
Frankly I am surprised that Zionists interests have aligned themselves with the EDL.
64
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 May 2012 23:43 | #
Get real James. Zionists suffer no repercussions for their endorsement of the EDL. 65
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 09 May 2012 00:02 | # @Lurker
Ever heard of a man called Anders Breivik, his manifesto and an incident that happened in Norway on the 22nd July 2011?
66
Posted by Anon on Wed, 09 May 2012 04:26 | #
Indeed. Left wingers have the hegemony, so we must pretend to be left wing hippies for disguise. Openly presenting as a right wing nationalist is a complete waste of time. Those people have made zero progress, meanwhile Ken Livingstone openly attacks Jews and gets away with it. Nationalism really needs to morph into something totally different.
Very much so. This is my prefered choice of strategy, to present as some sort of limp wristed, left wing, emotional touchy feely type, who just wants to do the right thing. It drives left wingers/anti-racists absolutely bonkers, their brain cannot handle it because it’s something they’ve never seen before and weren’t expecting. It really presses their buttons.
Yes, never attack Jews directly. Much better to get some other race to do it for you. If we can find a way to make black people become a threat to the Jews, they will start demanding that all black people be deported. I like to think that a secret cabal of higher up white racists have conspired to make the Muslims in Europe become a threat to the Jews and so now some Jews are demanding the removal of Islam from Europe. So whatever you want to get rid of, make that thing become a “threat” to the Jews and they will destroy it for you. Learn how to manipulate and herd Jews. Want to get rid of blacks? Then make blacks become a threat to the Jews
How about luring white people into white advocacy under the promise of making money. They will support the white cause not particularly because they care about whites, but because they want to make money. Come up with a form of economic nationalism that is a money generator and people will suddenly be naturally drawn to it. I live in the hope that Kevin MacDonald will one day write a self help styled book titled “Secrets of the Rich, What the Jews Don’t Want You to Know and How to Make Loads of Money”, a book promising to reveal the secrets of Jewish wealth to all. If you want to be wealthy like them, just buy KMacs book and follow the steps he outlines. It would involve things like only ever spending money on your own ethnic group and never giving money to Jews. People would follow the book not because they care about whites, not because they hate Jews, but because they want to become rich. 67
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 06:18 | # Graham said, JamesUK and Daniel your points are inter-related - for anyone in the UK, particularly the educated middle-class, to be suspected of being racist is the quickest way to an almost catastrophic loss of personal status with very detrimental real-world consequences. I devised my own mantra to attack and undermine the concept of anti-racism directly. I have repeated this many times. In the the beginning, in days prior to internet support when I was very much alone in my racial advocacy, I would repeat it to myself, even. Here is my mantra: First, one version for the educated, middle class (for the upper classes, even) and otherwise intellectually snooty - Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people.
68
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 May 2012 11:00 | # Thats all very interesting James but how does it backfire on zionists? Unless its an admission that all those anti-jihadi types, EDL included, are themselves a jewish front. Something which many of us suspect. Is that what you are saying? 69
Posted by Disheartened Dirty Bull on Wed, 09 May 2012 12:19 | # Why can’t the people who run this silly website actually pontificate and comment about things that actually matter - like the Heywood ‘grooming case’ instead of talking pseudo-intellectual overblown crap all day and trying to prove to each other that they are ‘more intellectual than thou’. I give up. 70
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 12:52 | # Posted by Disheartened Dirty Bull on May 09, 2012, 07:19 AM | # Why can’t the people who run this silly website actually pontificate and comment about things that actually matter - like the Heywood ‘grooming case’ instead of talking pseudo-intellectual overblown crap all day and trying to prove to each other that they are ‘more intellectual than thou’. I give up. Disheartened Dirty Bull, nobody is stopping you from talking about the Heywood case. I am interested to hear yours or others thoughts stated in whatever register that you like. Interracial crime is a very important concern and the handling of its occurrence a very important subject matter in our defense. I know a bit more about other cases than this one. I have preferred to leave comment about that case to those who know the case and have intimate knowledge of the situation in the U.K. However, to discuss strategies for defending British and other Whites against anti-racism - it is, after all, the source of this interracial oppression and crime scourge - and what to do about it is no less relevant on a thread pertaining to Jonathan Bowden’s passing. Perhaps there are some comments which are not very relevant and useful - e.g., the first person to utter the word “racist” - but don’t take the “pseudo-intellectual” bit too far. That charge, of itself, has been destructive to our people. We are not entirely like Blacks and other muds who rely more on brawn than brains. Take what you like and leave the rest but please do tell what you think about the Heywood grooming case. I am not judging your erudition and I hope that others are not as well (though there are a few who are like that, unfortunately).
71
Posted by Bill on Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57 | #
If anti racism is prejudice what do you call the lefts stock in trade vitriol charge of racism? Non whites cannot be racist they are eternal victims, only whites can be racist. (eternal oppressors.) That’s why the BBC told me the Heywood case could not have been racially motivated. I do think Bull has a point. I think the intellectuals here could be far more productive to the cause in using their undoubted talents by explaining to visitors here the nuances of liberalism rather than debating angels on pins. This doesn’t stop them from duelling between themselves. There is still much to do, one glance at the Telegraph’s comment section tells us this. It was ever thus since I joined, I knew and could see what MR was all about, I had a simple choice, accept it or go elsewhere. Trouble was, there was very few alternatives, (if any) to rival MR in those days. Things here haven’t changed much, only the faces commenting come and go. GW is the master of this house and I’ve always deferred to that - and still do. I still think MR has missed a golden opportunity over the years to educate/inform possibly tens or hundreds of thousands who were crying out for help in understanding of what was happening around them. From the political correctness brand of tripe pumped out by the Mail’s Littlejohn to Auster’s laser-like surgery, most folk just don’t get it. Sure, they see and rail against the results of liberalism that surrounds them in their daily lives but in reality they cannot fathom the liberal mind. They shake their heads – it’s insanity gone mad! Why don’t our politicians do somthing? MR could easily say if you don’t reckon much to it here then try your luck elsewhere, we’re not stopping you. Who can argue with that? Mostly what I have learned about the rabbit hole that is liberalism I have had to find elsewhere. It’s impossible to say what contribution MR could have made over the years, in the numbers game of waking up, but MR are cool with that and retort that’s not we’re about. 72
Posted by icr on Wed, 09 May 2012 16:25 | # The left doesn’t suffer any negative consequences for being associated with people like these: 73
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 17:58 | # Bill said: Posted by Bill on May 09, 2012, 10:57 AM | # Anti-racism is prejudice If anti racism is prejudice what do you call the lefts stock in trade vitriol charge of racism? Their stock in trade charge of racism, (their anti-racism campaign) amounts to a prohibition of social classifications (taxonomies, if you prefer) and discrimination on their basis. Non whites cannot be racist they are eternal victims, only whites can be racist. (eternal oppressors.) That is true, as they do all they can to impose anti-racism. But the fact that this rule applies primarily to White heterosexual men derives from Jewish interests, quite verbatim in the case of Marcuse, whose “liberating tolerance” permitted all argumentation from the so called “left” (a misnomer as applied to White EGI - it would be sheer anti-White liberalism) and prohibited, “in the name of ‘tolerance” (note double speak) any argumentation from the so called Right - read, in defense of straight White men.
Yes, that is why. And that is why I propose this mantra in order to begin to chip away at their mantra of racism and their rule of so called “liberating tolerance,” the intolerance of White men classifying social groups and making discriminatory judgments on their basis. I can and have explained some of the important basics of liberalism. Others provide good explanations as well. I’d like for some of my re-edited essays to go up before breaking them down into more digestible arguments. However, if simple is what you think is necessary, then lets say liberals believe heavily in the notion of individuals and individual rights. They believe in liberalism above all for some reasons that are not well conceived and in many instances as a result of deliberate misguidance. The anecdote is to promote the merits of social classification which are many: as I discuss, such as - accountability, ecology (human and other), transcendence of jealousy (by seeing others in the group as family or team members), inclusive protection of people within the classification over their life-span, even when they are young, old, pregnant or otherwise not at their best - which is not liberalism’s forte. Liberalism is more like runaway Darwinism, only not even accountable to group classification. Group classification on the other hand, would protect the long evolution of tens of thousands of years against the arbitrary whims of mudsharks and Heywood groomers.
There is still much to do, one glance at the Telegraph’s comment section tells us this. It was ever thus since I joined, I knew and could see what MR was all about, I had a simple choice, accept it or go elsewhere. Trouble was, there was very few alternatives, (if any) to rival MR in those days. I know what you mean. There is some commentary at MR that I despise as well. It could be worse. He is a really smart guy. I’ve been reading some of his old posts - not only impressive, but his heart is in the right place. It may still happen. I am reluctant to make editorial suggestions as I am neither British nor a long time participant. Well, most people start out wanting to be tough and free, not bound to old fashioned positions and placed in the same camp as funny people with double chins. Bowden is wonderful, but not likely to be the hero of many children who want to seem cool. The second appeal to liberalism is its posture of objective innocence - That is very appealing to most. Critics of liberalism often start out with The Enlightenment of Christianity as sources of liberalism, the former of which has rule backing in the US Constitution. It is a susceptible rule structure which is exploited by Jewish interests, by Capital interests and the generally ignorant. (Some say the French Revolution is the important source - though I find their line of argumentation unproductive, for reasons that I think I can explain). I discuss things like this in re-edited essays I’ve sent GW. I don’t guarantee that you will not think its stuffy, but you should be able to read it. The third problem of liberalism is the Jewish misuse of it and the terms, both liberalism and leftism. Those who say that Jewish interests have a heavy hand in all of this are correct. Not only have they used other classifications, Blacks, Muslims, gays as victim groups, “surrogate proletariat” against the White man, but also women - not only feminists but traditional women have much power to gain (in the short run) by maintaining the prohibition of classifications; and they are pandered to constantly - that is one of my more original contributions that I’ve discussed in my essays. Bill Clinton is a prime example, he would not have won the Presidency without pandering to women on liberal terms. MR could easily say if you don’t reckon much to it here then try your luck elsewhere, we’re not stopping you. Who can argue with that? Mostly what I have learned about the rabbit hole that is liberalism I have had to find elsewhere. I hope that I’ve helped. Liberalism, its sources and motives do not trouble me theoretically. They do however trouble me in the reality of practice and in the mode of might makes right - as some liberals will walk right over a perfect argument. Let me concede that much.
Well, I do think that MR is more concerned with being accurate than popular. Though it will discuss what it takes, theoretically, to be popular, it has always been more intellectual (and with a scientific bent) than other websites. I think that’s valid. Our academic and egg head sorts need a place to discuss as well - they cannot easily do that at the PC universities or the work place (or very easily with prospective girlfriends). On the other hand, I do not see MR kicking out people discussing concrete concerns, like the Muslim groomers. I have seen several posters who are adamant about concrete politics. Take what you like and leave the rest. Say what you mean, mean what you say but don’t say it mean.
74
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 18:02 | # P.S. It is not accurately the lefts stock in trade to be anti racist. Accurately understood, it is Jewish interests and liberal interests. A White left would be ethnically circumscribed, just as union has members, holds elites accountable and excludes outsiders and scabs. 75
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 18:06 | # typo The Enlightenment of Christianity should be The Enlightenment or Christianity 76
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 18:14 | # Anti-racism is prejudice - that is, it is predujice against anybody who is not at the top of the game, not at the top of the class, anyone who is temporarily marginalized in their group for whatever reason - they are young, they are old, they have a sick spouse or child which takes a lot of their time, whatever. 77
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 18:27 | # Accurately understood, it is Jewish interests and liberal interests who promote anti-racism....capital interests too, for cheap labor and gullible consumers. Anti-racism is prejudice against anybody who has particular need for their group - which is everybody to some extent and from time to time. 78
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 19:22 | # This post by Scrimtar is of the kind which follows some of the contradictions of liberalism.
79
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 09 May 2012 19:24 | # Jonathan was a true and dedicated nationalist. He was also a good bloke to talk too. He appealed to the intellectuals in the movement. He was also a great orator. But when you realise the difference between an Orator and a Communicator, then you will be a step nearer reality. An Orator appeals to the converted nationalist, whilst a Communicator creates converts to nationalism out of non-nationalists. When the movement spawns more more Communicators, and less Orators, the more the movement will grow. 80
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 19:39 | # That is not the first analysis of the contradictions in liberalism that I have seen. But what strikes me about this one is how it blends the passive element of liberalism’s origin in individual rights being placed over prejudice against groups, that is, one should not judge and discriminate against outsiders, with an outright prescription of the bizarre, or the outsider behavior and engagement - the so-called Leftist aspect, which it is not really Leftist as it pertains to Whites, but rather prescribed liberalism to an extreme - destructive to Whites and distinctly the result of Jewish machinations. In other words part of the definition would be liberalism based on empirical skepticism and part would be based on subversive Jewish (from their Left) prescriptions for Whites. 81
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 19:41 | # Posted by Lee John Barnes on May 09, 2012, 02:24 PM | #
82
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 09 May 2012 19:57 | # Thank you Daniel. Very nice of you to say so. I regard Liberalism as Corporate Bolshevism - a merger of communism and capitalism where capitalism pays the state via business taxes to enforce Bolshevist ideology. Liberalism feeds on Capitalism and excretes Communism. 83
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 20:37 | # Ok and I might add by analogy that Jewish leftism promotes White liberalism to weaken White union and it also promotes advocacy of non-White outsider groups as (by analogy) scab union busters of the White union - The White Left. ...While having a moment of silence for Jonathan, I’d like to observe “groomers”..never heard of that term. I guess it is a horrible euphemism for Arab pedophiles. That is kind of an end of the world..and end of words sort of thing.. I guess these big lipped dirt bags think they’ve gone to heaven already. I wish for these sorts to meet a brutal end. As for their brothers, I am really not only interested in theoretical talk, but am very interested in the logistics, the practicality, ways and means of their expulsion.
84
Posted by Bill on Wed, 09 May 2012 20:44 | # Daniel @80
I don’t get this. I’ve been looking at communitarianism. I don’t know if Cameron’s Big Society is a stable-mate of communitarianism but as I see it, both systems require group rights governance, which is odd really as both systems are products of liberalism. 85
Posted by Bill on Wed, 09 May 2012 21:00 | # Daniel Thanks for that considered reply. It’s like peeling an onion, peel one layer and there’s another beneath - it’s never ending. I idly wondered half way through reading your reply if my neighbour (who is a retired schoolmaster) would have any idea of what he was reading. I doubt it. blockquote>Liberalism is more like runaway Darwinism, only not even accountable to group classification</blockquote>. This one line intrigued me for I have been thinking about Darwinism and our present condition. If Darwinism/evolution is all conquering, what is the likely outcome of this struggle? Is it all inevitable and if it is, what are we doing here? Maybe they (PTB) know this and just go for broke pursuing the the good life – pleasure. Maybe, like the song says, is this all there is? I am beginning to lean heavily toward the idea that liberal leftism and conservatism are innate, that we’re genetically hard wired left or right and born within the dichotomy. Genes, chromosomes, call it what you will, what we are born with determines what camp we’re in. This might explain why our manipulated political system still endures. It’s strange how liberalism rejects natures certainties, (truth) and yet has no problem readily accepting their ‘truths’ when it suits their agenda. It’s a very pic’n mix, religion, riddled with internal contradictions/inconsistencies. 86
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 09 May 2012 21:11 | # The internal contradictions of liberalism is no shock to people familiar with the subject. It’s an incredibly incoherent doctrine. But since when was coherence a political virtue? @Lee John Barnes So your case is that the perpetual marginality of the BNP arises primarily from poor communication skills? Sure it’s an element of their problems but hardly the totality of them. I’d suggest that if orator/communicator distinction is typical of depth of ‘analytical insight’ by the ‘movers and shakers’ of the aforementioned group it’s no wonder why they are not fit for purpose! 87
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 22:20 | # Posted by Bill on May 09, 2012, 03:44 PM | # Daniel @80 But what strikes me about this one is how it blends the passive element of liberalism’s origin in individual rights being placed over prejudice against groups, I don’t get this. All I’m saying is that one aspect of liberalism was based on enlightenment empiricism as individual perceptions were thought to be real, therefore entailing rights to the individual, while group classifications were a fiction of the mind - not empirical. I don’t know a great deal about communitarianism. However, it apparently differs from liberalism in that it is social, based on small communities; while sharing some similarities with liberalism in that it is against big government and tends to promote eccentricities. In that respect, it reminds me of the other half of the liberal contradiction that Scrimtar called attention to - is the highest good and we should tolerate the beliefs of others, no matter how bizarre. That is my problem with communitarianism - experiential. My experience tells me that gossip, egos and weird personalities will tend to make it unbearable. Still, I would not mind being proven wrong and if communities succeed, I wish them the best providing that their mandates do not run counter to the White race, what I call the White class. Theoretically, they can fit within the notion of paradigmatic conservatism: strong borders to the White class, while within the borders a broad array of liberal practices may be legitimate, ones considered quite liberal by most peoples standards.
I am uniquely unqualified to comment on British politics. However, if Cameron is proposing an umbrella idea wherein diversity and multiculturalism is encouraged, then clearly it is in the provisional best interests of native British to promote themselves as one of the multi ethne along with the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity in general - what, after all, is the alternative but integration and mongrelization? That is one provisional strategy until White separatism is more overtly viable and is ultimately ratified.
But the Jews will use diversity and multiculturalism as separatist where it serves their interests and use them disingenuously to promote integration where that serves their interests. We ought to use them rhetorically as they serve our interests as well. That is ad hoc for now, but one way to tarry along - I am not ignorant of British politics for no reason. I have little faith that it and its relation to big business are corrigible to White interests. Some do see communitarianism as a means for promoting the government beast’s necessary demise and a life boat in the event, but I prefer racial classification, the White race, as the more meaningful allegiance and the one which can marshal the necessary power to hold up to other nations and fund necessary, large scale economic projects. 88
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 22:33 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on May 09, 2012, 04:11 PM | # The internal contradictions of liberalism is no shock to people familiar with the subject. It’s an incredibly incoherent doctrine. But since when was coherence a political virtue?
We want a firm grasp of liberal contradictions and weaknesses to teach our people, our children, how to argue against one of our biggest problems - liberals, liberalism.
89
Posted by daniel on Wed, 09 May 2012 23:10 | # One other positive corollary to the communitarian movement seems to be alternative banking and finance. I’m hearing some good ideas. In fact, that may be the only thing that can keep some of these communities together. 90
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 10 May 2012 00:28 | # Someone . . . cough, cough . . . did post at MR on the communitarian critique of liberalism but some deemed it faux-intellectual POMO rubbish. I think otherwise. And on coherence in political thought - well this really is a case of it’s all relative! The world of human affairs is very complex and our theoretical models of that world, i.e. political ideologies, are overly simple in comparison to those messy empirical realities - the resolution of those models is generally too low to produce a ‘catch all’ description. But incoherence hasn’t stopped to rise of the hyper-liberalism has it? Interesting question as to why (beyond brain-dead monomania) but ideological plasticity has both functional and expressive value. 91
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 May 2012 06:09 | #
Post WWII “liberalism” holds the belief that the individual right to discriminate (i.e freedom of association) is pathological and utilizes the power of the state to shield the group from its practices. It opposes the individual in order to protect the group. For instance realty covenants are contracts made between individuals who agree to not sell to Jews, Catholics or homosexuals. In such a contract there is an implicit recognition of a group association that recognizes the Others as outsiders. Thus the individual is of the group and discriminates based upon an understanding of the group’s values. Mill makes it quite clear that freedom cannot exist in a heterogeneous population.
The weakness of liberalism is freedom, because those who are the victim of discrimination despise it and despise the discriminator. Thus the right of the individual to freely discriminate is framed as an irrational, hateful sickness that victim groups (including white ethnic groups) will rally to extirpate at all speed. 92
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 06:57 | # But incoherence hasn’t stopped to rise of the hyper-liberalism has it? Interesting question as to why (beyond brain-dead monomania) but ideological plasticity has both functional and expressive value. Coherence can be fairly plastic, integrative, amend, return original path and add provisos while still maintaining its overall consistency. However, to do that more successfully, it is better to make more use of the hermeneutic perspective in order to bring together those “messy” empirical realities - which, following their internal coherence, can be inconsistent with the interests of race.
93
Posted by Bill on Thu, 10 May 2012 07:26 | # @71
Today’s Telegraph 10th May 2012. The Queen’s Speech. This Speech did little to alter the country’s fate Comments. Today 04:45 AM The one thing you’ve not mentioned here is ‘gay marriage’. But you can safely bet that it will given top priority, or Simon Hughes may get upset - and that would never do. “This Speech did little to alter the country’s fate”. Coalitions ad the ensuing compromise is intellectually taxing for the British. The Coalition’s lasting legacy? That will, I think, be a long-lasting hatred of the Conservatives and the even worse Liberals. They have absolutely failed the country. The trouble is, that as a member of the Conservatives, I no longer have faith in David Cameron. I never was a member of the Conservatives, but I always voted for them. Recently I have joined my first political party ever, the UKIP. How things change - and now, how much they need to! Armchair Critics without any solutions - Don’t you just love them! You leave Cameroon, Gideon and the ConDem coalition alone you beastly lefty you! “It’s the economy, stupid”, as Bill Clinton famously said. This is the key issue and there is NOTHING in this Queen’s speech to get the economy moving. Nothing. Zilch. Hopeless. This is the most incompetent government ever…..I just cannot believe how bad they are. One word: Gordon. Please expand? **It is not necessarily a bad thing that a Queen’s Speech should be relatively There is still much to do, one glance at the Telegraph’s comment section tells us this. See what I mean. 94
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 07:58 | # Desmond, you’ve got a completely different angle than me on who is the victim here - individual or group. It’s interesting. Sort of a mirror image, it is not exactly wrong, just sort of a reverse image and maybe better for you. I still prefer my own organization but let me look at what you say through the other perspective.
First, I should say, this was half a sentence. It begins with a skepticism of teleology. The other half of that contradictory definition of liberalism is that it did indeed circumscribe and prescribe telos’ of behaviors as liberal - viz. those groupings which are deviant from the traditional White ways, coherence, etc.. However yes, I maintain that the key first move of liberalism was Lockeatine empiricism where it placed individual rights over class (group) interests.
If you were to substitute “Post WWII” with “Jewish”, I’d see this as true enough - spot-on in fact - but, it is the group practices of non-Whites and those antagonistic to Whites that it seeks to protect. Not the group interests of Whites. (The corporate group posing as “individual” by law, is another discussion and would predate the world wars, being a way to defend White interests against the numerous, newly emancipated Blacks after the Civil War)
To protect PC groups. There have been such agreements and could be again.
I’d forgotten that particular line in Mill. But I did inculcate the notion that his idea was context bound. Yes, of course he is right about that. And true, he is an exemplar of liberalism. However, I am going with the upshot of Lockeatine rights as I believe it has more explanatory power.
This follows my experience and what seems to make sense from other peoples’ experience and studies as well. Here you are saying it is Jewish interests, not merely a historical consequence of WWII. Ok. You make a good point that they were focusing on stopping individuals from discriminating - a weaker link, a smarter, no doubt more effective angle.
Yes, prior to Jewish corruption of terms, Rights (at least the U.S. version) would have been to raise the individual merit over class interests (set forth originally in rebellion against English Aristocracy).
I’m not sure of how this jibes with the American situation, but it sounds quite similar. In the States, public schools were allowed to discriminate (were allowed freedom of and from association) until the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. It represented a fundamental shift, a reversal, of the traditional notion of citizens’ rights to enrol the state as the protector of the right of the victim to freedom from discrimination. It was, in fact, a revolutionary change in the definition of individual freedom. Agreed. This was a key move in which the notion of Civil Rights were perverted by Jewish interests. Civil Rights came to mean that White men, in particular, could not discriminate. After that: They were told whom they must educate, who they must serve, who they must hire, who they must rent and sell to, who they must live near, whose babies they must pay for and literally, whose interracial relationships they must accept. The weakness of liberalism is freedom, because those who are the victim of discrimination despise it and despise the discriminator. Well, within the framework of “paradigmatic conservatism”, it could be better managed. That is to say, there could be a large amount of liberalism within the more conservative boundaries of the homogeneous group. However, there would also be liberal transgressions of group interests which should occasion that individual being expelled. This risk (I’m sounding as if I am in the Bowery school now) of expulsion might cause people to curb their liberalism and to focus more on the long term abilities, contributions, qualities of group members and the enjoyment of their way of life, their cultural pattern, creating more loyalty as opposed to the momentary or episodic experience of liberal distinction, rebellion, passion. Thus the right of the individual to freely discriminate is framed as an irrational, hateful sickness that victim groups I see this part as true enough in accordance with the Jewish definition (perversion) of liberalism and its implementation by disingenuous (mostly young) White women who can in this way protect and augment the power of their one-up position in mate selection. (including white ethnic groups) will rally to extirpate at all speed. I’m not sure which White groups that you mean. I wish they were a bit like this (at least in terms of requiring an account for the deviation, where it may be too destructive to group interests). However, I have not seen much of it. 95
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 08:02 | # It may be that I am not focusing on the as yet effective machinations of the White English upper classes in maintaining their group interests. However, inasmuch as these Whites are not accountable to the interests of the entire White class (all native British, in that case) while provoking immigration and miscegenation, I conceptualize them as elitist traitors. 96
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 08:12 | # The weakness of liberalism is freedom, because those who are the victim of discrimination despise it and despise the discriminator
This would not be about equality, but rather allow for qualitative differences to function in their part, their roles. It would also help to mitigate jealousy by protecting these qualitative differences - Within the class, people would be protected to sort them selves out on the basis of qualities, “communities”, kinds of guilds or other micro-groups to manage accountability and justice. 97
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 10 May 2012 08:36 | # ” @Lee John Barnes So your case is that the perpetual marginality of the BNP arises primarily from poor communication skills? Sure it’s an element of their problems but hardly the totality of them. I’d suggest that if orator/communicator distinction is typical of depth of ‘analytical insight’ by the ‘movers and shakers’ of the aforementioned group it’s no wonder why they are not fit for purpose! “
No, I didnt you thick prick. If I wished to make that assertion, or mention the BNP, then I would have done. I was responding directly to GW’s rather turgid, overblown and frankly absurd eulogy for Jonathan Bowden. Unlike GW I actually met JB more than once and heard him speak more than once. I respected JB as a dedicated nationalist and as a person, not as a figurehead for pseudo-intellectuals to lionise for their own reasons. Reread the actual comment I left you retarded twat. If I had wished to define the reasons why the BNP failed, as opposed to commenting on GW’s torrid screed on Jonathan Bowden , then I would have had to list all the myriad reasons why it failed - and frankly whats the point, as its all a waste of time. Bowden was not the messiah of nationalism. He was a true nationalist dedicated to nationalism whose oratory appealed to a fringe group of ‘intellectuals’ in the nationalist movement. He was not a communicator - and we need communicators not orators. If anyone thinks someone lecturing the masses on Plato, Neitzsche and Junger at a political meeting ( or when out in the street or the pub where real people actually live and socialise ) is what will motivate them to get involved in nationalism and to vote for nationalist parties, then they are truly are the dumbest fucking twats in the movement.
98
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 May 2012 09:03 | #
A universalist philosophy led to tactical alliances with other minority and liberal organizations, Thus, Daniel, people of eastern and southern European descent felt the “sting” of discrimination and were bound and determined to force British and French Canadians, the founding ethnics, to accommodate them. An alliance with Jews, blacks and yellow minorities was forged to attribute pathological qualites to acts of individual freedom, initially association and then followed by speech. Again the strategy devised was to attribute a pathology to individual freedom, using government coercion, to protect the group at the expense of the individual freedom. However, it appears that attributing responsibility, for such acts, to such a strategy can only be flights of fancy from lumps with inferior minds. After all it’s “liberalism”, old bean. 99
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 10 May 2012 09:28 | # Mr. Barnes calm down dear boy! The term ‘BNP’ was simply used as an approximate shorthand for your general brand of politics (I know how you’ll respond to this by claiming to be an entirely different political beast but let’s not revisit those debates on ideas of Familienähnlichkeit etc., again). Now you did suggest that the primary and by far the most important factor restricting the success of such a brand of politics were issues concerning the precise practical methodology of communication (orators versus communicators is your description thereof), yes? I suggest that political communication is an issue but equally is not the only one. What’s the old phase - one cannot polish a turd no matter how hard one attempts to. Even the best salesman will have some trouble in selling an utterly useless product yes? And you respond by exploding into rage. Do you think you might have some anger issues Mr. Barnes? 100
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 10 May 2012 10:21 | # 1) The BNP is not my politics, it was the premier nationalist party in Britain at the time I joined it, hence I joined it as the nearest approximation to my politics. 2) No, I did not suggest that the primary factor restricting the growth of the BNP was its communication issues. The primary reasons for its failure relate to it being run by a crooked idiot elected into his position by a cabal of cult of personality cretins. You cannot gain support if the message you are communicating is broadcast by an idiot who puts his own interests before the movement, party or members. ( eg Question Time ) 3) The BNP is now a turd only because Griffin in his hubris turned it back into one. At one time that turd acted as a potent fertiliser from which a green shoot arose that offered a real chance for nationalism to bloom into something powerful and populist. Griffin and his zombie drones killed it. 4) I dont have anger issues. You talk shite about me, I bark back at you. Simple. No issues involved. 101
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 10:40 | # “The development in Canada of ethnic minority rights ... was no accident; it was the result of tireless effort on the part of Sen. Yuzyk and others like him in direct confrontation to the then existing practices of ethnic discrimination.” I don’t know the Canadian situation. I know the American situation. But what you say here follows similar themes as in America. E.g., The Jews (Cellar and Javitz) found Ted Kennedy to front their Immigration Act of 1965. Kennedy lied, even, saying that it would not change America’s demographic. He would have some ethnic hostilities toward the W.A.S.P. elite, being Irish Cahtolic - who were discriminated against heavily, most saliently in the 1920s. More, as I’ve said before, liberalism is a posture which seems strong (not needing the group as a crutch), which seems objectively innocent. That is very appealing (especially to kids and ignorant women). Thus, we are not saying that there were no non-Jews who were inspired to act against Whites. To what extent they were motivated by liberal objectivism or to what extent they were manipulated by Jews can vary - but both factors, liberalism and Jewish machinations were at work in influencing White traitors and I have never said otherwise. I have gone into detail to say that it is both. If you want to say that Jews had nothing to do with it, not even in fostering such language of inter-European hostility, then we’d disagree. Indeed they would have. And, in the U.S., The 1924 Immigratipn Act as influenced by Madison Grant, would have been at least in part to discriminate against Eastern and Southern Europeans according to E.M. Jones. MacDonald believes the ‘24 Act was more in concern of Jews. Well, I don’t know about Canada, maybe. In The U.S. I didn’t see much in the way of above ground coalition building by South and Eastern Europeans against the founding stock. I don’t think it was mafia’s purpose to subvert Anglo culture - it was rather, to make money. On the other hand, there was an effort on the part of Deweyan liberals to do just the opposite, to break up Catholic areas and bring in Blacks in to disrupt their communites. I experienced this first hand and it was rotten to the core - a nightmare.
South Western Europeans did not form alliances with Jews, Blacks and yellows in the U.S. E.M. Jones maintains that the W.A.S.P. elite did ally with Jews, however, against these “Catholics” The basic sentiments among these Europeans is that they were happy with themselves. Sure, they wanted to advance themselves, but I do not believe that they disliked W.A.S.Ps. They admired them. They liked themselves, liked their men, they liked their women, they liked their own women. There was no patterned wish by South and Eastern Euros to destroy W.A.S.P. culture. Those are clearly Jewish tactics. There may be Jew thinkers, who inculcated the Jewish way of thinking - there would be that disease among some Southern and Eastern Europeans (as there is among North Western Europeans). There were so many Jews in Ukraine. Moreover, as I look at pictures of this Mr. Yuzyk and he sure looks like he could have had some Jewish in him. Again the strategy devised was to attribute a pathology to individual freedom, using government coercion, to protect the group at the expense of the individual freedom. However, it appears that attributing responsibility, for such acts, to such a strategy can only be flights of fancy from lumps with inferior minds. After all it’s “liberalism”, old bean. It is both, old chap. It is liberalism, and I have never denied that influence and motive. I have explained exactly why and how I think that is. I do not attribute all to Jewish machinations. However, I see the Jewish machinations as well.
102
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 10 May 2012 13:35 | # Slightly off-topic but not too far. I had a look at the new spring catalogue from Verso. I think certain elements at MR will enjoy ‘The Conspiracy’. But what caught my eye was this in the upcoming section: ‘The Western Passage: Philosophy After the Age of the Nation-State’ by Giacomo Marramao In this ambitious work, Giacomo Marramao proposes a radical reconceptualization of the world system in our era of declining state sovereignty. He argues that globalization cannot be reduced to mere economics or summarized by phrases such as ‘the end of history’ or the ‘westernization of the world.’ Instead, we find ourselves embarking on a passage - the journey to the post-Leviathan world - that is destined to transform all civilizations and forms of life. Building on the great interwar discussion between Spengler, Juenger, Schmitt and Heidegger, Marramao’s new work confronts Habermas, Derrida and post-colonialism. Arguing against the classic Western pretension to universal norms of democracy and reason, he develops instead the idea of a ‘universal politics of difference.’ Looks interesting - one of the follies of the West, our deepest act of hubris, is that we have as a foundational and almost unspoken assumption that we way of being in the world is in some way ‘universal’ or can be unproblematically universalised. It cannot - we need both a recognition of our own particularities and acceptance of a return to particularism as the grounding of all political communities. A politics of difference, including the real human universal to think and feel in in-group/out-group terms (or friends and foes), would be a welcomed development. No-one in Japan is gullible and/or arrogant enough to think that an African merely born in Japan is transformed by some form of magical geo-cultural osmosis in an authentically Japanese person. A politics of a proximal-distal axis of differentiation avoids the moral and political turpitude of something grounded along the dubious polarity of inferiority-superiority. Rather it’s grounded in the most basic human realities. Parents love their children more than others not because those children pass some ‘rational’ test of being objectively superior to the children living next-door but precisely because they are yours! I love Scotland not because it passes some objective test of being better or superior than anywhere else - it isn’t and the Scots are not some population of putative übermenschen simply waiting for some ‘great leap forward’ to release their God-like powers. No they are just normal human beings with all of the faults and imperfections that mark the human condition, but the difference is that they are mine and I in turn belong to them. This relational and reciprocal inheritance and structuring of a particular and discrete identity means that I cannot honestly and authentically be the ‘unencumbered self’ of liberal fantasy without ultimately suffering enormously for such short-sightedness. We collectively cannot but also profoundly suffer if we live by the mythology of the ‘unencumbered self’. As communitarian philosopher Michael Sandel suggests: This theme is taken up by Sandel, who rejects what he refers to as liberalism’s depiction of a ‘deontological’ self whose identity is never tied to its aims or attachments. He writes: “We cannot regard ourselves as independent in this way without great cost to those loyalties and convictions whose moral force consists partly in the fact that living by them is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular persons we are. . . . Allegiances such as these . . . go beyond the obligations I voluntarily incur and the ‘natural duties’ I owe to human beings as such. They allow that to some I owe more than justice requires or even permits, not by reason of agreements I have made but instead in virtue of those more or less enduring attachments and commitments which taken together partly define the person I am”. A person without such constitutive attachments, Sandel continues, would be lacking in moral character and depth: “For to have character is to know that I move in a history I neither summon nor command, which carries consequences none the less for my choices and conduct. It draws me closer to some and more distant from others; it makes some aims more appropriate, others less so”. 103
Posted by Bill on Thu, 10 May 2012 15:12 | #
I first came across this article c2006, Posted here - nil response. Fonte must have been among the front runners in recording this stuff. Read all. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html Note the Date June 2002. Google search ‘John Fonte Progressivve Transnationalism’ for more up to date material.
104
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 17:11 | # Correction: I had written South Western Europeans did not form alliances with Jews, Blacks and yellows in the U.S.
South Eastern Europeans did not form alliances with Jews, Blacks and yellows in the U.S. 105
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 17:35 | # Graham, Your post 102 appeals to me as an ok argument on the empirical end, but to forego agency like that is a two edged sword that would have me reluctant to depend upon it heavily. Scottish may prefer their own, but they are an old nation and need help… Your enemies cannot help but move into Scotland… It is inevitable that all things change… Scottish girls cannot help but… Yuck.
Regarding your post 103 You can merely observe that Jewish interests (“Hegelian-Marxist”) allow for classifications of those who are antagonistic to Whites - but not for Whites (Straight White men, in particular).
Most people I’ve heard discussing the Canadian situation talk consistently of a heavy Jewish influence there. It was and is perhaps even more flagrant than in The U.K. To what extent South Eastern Europeans would have been merely caught up in liberal rights babble in antagonism to the founding Canadian stock and to what extent they would have been put up to it, organized by Jews or Jewish thinking, I am not sure. But I believe that true Ukrainians (not ones part Jewish) are not naturally antagonistic to British/Scottish and French.
106
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 18:20 | # Speaking of orators, the William Shatner character gives a decent speech against school integration here. He even names the Jew.
107
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 10 May 2012 20:24 | # Bill@103 Thanks for that link, though a word of warning re Fonte (not to be confused with the wonderful, staccato-voiced CA/LA, novelist of the Italian immigrant experience, John Fante). I met him a few years ago at a conference in CA. I agreed with the substance of his talk on the dangers of transnational legalism, as well as with most of what he says here. But he is an almost pure neocon. He will not admit to the racial/civilizational dangers of (nonwhite) immigration per se, but will only criticize domestic (Left) ideological anti-‘integrationist’ elements. Of course, there is a measure of truth in his position, at least wrt America. Being less ‘thick’ or ethnoculturally defined, America can accommodate and assimilate small numbers of nonwhites. Living away from my home in Southern CA, I no longer have access to my own washing machine. The neighborhood laundromat (cf Lurker: aren’t these actually called “laundrettes” in the UK? horrible word, imo) is owned by an old Filipino gentleman (in contemporary PC-speak: “Pilipino”, not sure why), whom I’ve gotten to know a bit over the past year (he was having a problem with a rancorous - you guessed it! - Negroid some time back, when I happened to be there at a late hour, and was able to offer him a measure of support). He lets me stay after hours, if I need to, and close up the shop. This guy sounds, as well as looks, like a foreigner, yet in many ways, and at the risk of sounding neoconish, he really is as American as I am. Very conservative, very politically incorrect - anti-tax, pro-business, pro-gun, rails against illegal aliens and esp criminal ‘groids, etc. I have to admit, I like him a helluva lot better than many of the insipid leftist “Aryans” at my current university. In Europe, this man would simply be precluded by his race alone from ever culturally belonging, whatever his admirable personal qualities. Your societies are ancient and ‘deep’, and race is a foundational component of them. To admit even quality nonwhites would be to tear your fine cultural and psychic ‘fabric’, as well as, in a world of white demographic shrinkage, and continued nonwhite expansion in absolute numbers, threaten your ultimate racial integrity. Fonte is one of those types which refuse to acknowledge a racial basis to nation, society and culture, preferring to believe that anti-assimilationist multiculturalism is purely a function of ideology, as opposed to a natural outgrowth of ‘diversity’. Besides being incorrect, such a view is dangerous, as it invariably results in a shift of conservative focus from preventing alien colonization, so much simpler, to fighting cultural battles. And anyway, after the invasions of the past four decades, we are way past the “it’s only a question of numbers” arguments as a practical matter. 108
Posted by daniel on Thu, 10 May 2012 20:45 | # It is liberalism on the one hand and, on the other hand, what is being called “leftism” is Jews prescribing liberalism to Whites while maintaining leftist classification for themselves, non-Whites and anti-Whites. 109
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 10 May 2012 23:46 | # Much of the intellectual (not to mention political) Left in Western history was non-Jewish, even if Jews were always outliers. Dewey, Russell, Kinsey, the Webbs, etc - innumerable leftist malefactors who weren’t Jewish (OK, some debate re Beatrice Webb, but not her husband). By all means, let us expose the Jew at every turn. But we have plenty of homegrown assholes (was Clinton a Jew? Blair? Mitterand? LBJ? Hubert Humphrey? I mean, the list is endless). And anyway, the approach I just discussed recently is the proper way for dealing with Jewry.
110
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 10 May 2012 23:50 | # On JQ strategy:
111
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 10 May 2012 23:58 | # On cultural subversion: http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/time-magazines-breastfeeding-cover-moms-react-185700989.html The woman on the cover, though blonde, has to be Jewish (son’s name is “Aram” - wtf?). 112
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 11 May 2012 03:28 | # Daniel,
There is a bounty of evidence posted here, at MR, to the contrary, however, it does not really matter at this point. The point is that the very presence of those groups posed an existential threat to the culture of freedom because it forced accommodation. The exercise of freedom automatically creates a constituency that opposes it. Organized Jewry molded that constituency in order to shield the group from a few pathological individuals who wished to exercise their natural desire to discriminate. It matters not if the destruction was wholly incidental or unconscious, the outcome is the same. Thus the anti-discrimination meme grows. The blatant contradiction between a declared war aim of fighting the racism of the Nazis and racist discrimination at home was irreconcilable.
113
Posted by daniel on Fri, 11 May 2012 06:13 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on May 10, 2012, 10:28 PM | # Daniel, There was no patterned wish by South and Eastern Euros to destroy W.A.S.P. culture. There is a bounty of evidence posted here, at MR, to the contrary, Desmond, I said that in the context of American history. And I meant it more or less - i.e., it is not highly relevant recently and even less so now. I’m sure there were attempts by Catholic leaders to make America Catholic but it is such ancient history now that it was never very meaningful in my lifetime. Perhaps I was not paying attention to the religious aspect because I am secular and was only looking at the sub-racial aspect. Disputes in that regard existed but were not nearly the important antagonism that Blacks have been and Jews have turned out to be. We all know Europeans have been fighting each other for centuries; I would like for us agree to accept our different kinds and territories, stop fighting and ally against our common enemies. So yes, it not relevant enough now.
Much of the intellectual (not to mention political) Left in Western history was non-Jewish, even if Jews were always outliers. Dewey, Russell, Kinsey, the Webbs, etc - innumerable leftist malefactors who weren’t Jewish (OK, some debate re Beatrice Webb, but not her husband). I see Dewey as a liberal. Not a leftist. There were, however, White racial leftists - such as Jack London.
We’ve said a thousand times now that White traitors or indifferent Whites are among our biggest problems. It depends on the context, Leon. GW has made some good arguments about people having to understand a problem in order to deal with it. Your strategy may be one way. But if the Jewish relation to Whites is a kind of parasite or viral relationship, then it may require ongoing and long term attention to prevent it from recurring. There has been talk about nations throwing the Jews out and then forgetting about the problem and letting them back in. Anyway, in my leftism as a code word essay (I sent GW a corrected version which is not yet on line), I think I deal pretty tactfully with Jews as well - while not avoiding the topic. Part of what I do in that essay is tease apart liberal from leftist, Jewish and what White leftist would mean. Like most every White advocate, you are conflating these words, left, liberal, Jew. 114
Posted by daniel on Fri, 11 May 2012 06:30 | # I would like to qualify this, what I’ve said:
I should update what I say as the Mexican problem has emerged since I left the States. It may be the case that Catholic leaders are aiding and abetting Mexican and other immigration. I am not following the church, but I understand that they are key in that regard. If anyone knows the path to stop them, by all means. 115
Posted by daniel on Fri, 11 May 2012 07:02 | # Desmond, I see your argument as not in opposition to what I say, but rather a mirror (reverse) image. If you prefer that way to argue, go ahead. I find that my way is working for me. And I meant it more or less - i.e., has not been not highly relevant recently and is even less so now. I can’t seem to avoid a few typos. Sorry ‘bout that folks. And I meant it more or less - i.e., has not been highly relevant recently and is even less so now. Haller, my relation to Desmond’s position has some analogies to yours. That is, your focus on immigration is fine. In that and some other ways, there is no necessary conflict with my perspective. We both believe that we have the right way. However, in terms of the struggle, I have seen some opinions which are, in some significant ways, more advanced and experienced than yours. I suppose that is why I had thought you were young when I first started reading your posts. It seems to me that after a busy and successful career* the problem piqued your attention within the past fifteen years and you have affixed yourself to the struggle somewhat furtively by means of some frameworks that are a bit dated (I would say outdated), including religion. I will not trash you however, as I think your heart is in the right place.
For example, many intelligent people in the struggle are much more critical of Christianity, capitalism and much less inhibited about naming the Jew - perhaps not because they want to blame everything on a single cause but because they have less to lose than you do. \Note, I am not against free-enterprise and private property - I just to say that most in the struggle recognize that capitalism has obvious limits (not to mention detrimental effects to our race - particularly in its quest for cheap labor) and the extent to which you defend capitalism (in the posts of yours that I’ve seen) seems oddly anachronistic.
116
Posted by daniel on Fri, 11 May 2012 10:30 | # I’ve found this video again. It had been removed from most places on the internet. The clip explains more succinctly than just about any that I’ve seen, what it means (according to my experience) to live among Blacks.
117
Posted by Bill on Fri, 11 May 2012 15:32 | # Lurker Link. Elliot Lakes News and Views get a mention here. I can’t remember which site I first struck a mother-lode when grasping at straws (no matter how fragile) Either here or at Elliot Lakes. Such stuff in Britain was thin on the ground in those days (still is serious stuff) so we had to go across the pond. (Where I suspected it was coming from anyway). I found this, it will always remain in my memory. http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/multiculturalism-a-dividing-force-2/
This is what my country had become. My eyes popped, I was getting somewhere at last. 118
Posted by Bill on Fri, 11 May 2012 15:58 | # This has been incubating a couple days, didn’t know if to post or not but being in similar vein @117 here goes. More about John Fonte. ‘Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America’ 2000. (Thanks Leon for that snapshot @ 107) I commented earlier how I came across this author a few years ago in one of my many searches, trying to get a handle on a question I has set myself, why Immigration in my country? If anyone in 2004/5 had taken me on one side and told me I was on the cusp of reading the likes of John Fonte and wondering why there was a culture war (what’s a culture war?) in America, my reply would have been you must be mad! For it was around this time that I found myself doing just that, reading with a veracious appetite anything that I could get hold of that helped me in my quest. Why immigration? Alone and with no-one I could discuss the question, I sat at my keyboard not knowing where to begin, to add to my woes I was barely computer literate. The rest as they say is not exactly history but more work in progress. I guess this story can be replicated thousands of times and increasing in number, such is the thirst for information as to why people of the West are so confused. To cut to the chase, I was amazed to discover that what had arrived in Britain in the shape of a new New Labour government (1997) under the stewardship of Tony Blair had been going on in America for decades, I am of course, referring to the phenomena of politically correct Cultural Marxism accompanied by mass immigration. I had suspected for some time that what was happening in Britain (political correctness) was either coming from America directly, or was being routed via the UN and the EU. As a conservative Englishmen and not overly interested in politics the scale fell when I discovered that Britain’s establishment was colluding with America (and had been for some lengthy indeterminable period of time.) I was gob smacked! (Not nice but has entered the English lexicon for dumbfounded and fits the bill) I must stress that the information available at that time here in Britain was almost non-existent, I think it would be accurate to say the only fount (in the public arena) was the BNP. I remember one particular article by one L J Barnes (whatever became of him) which was particularly helpful. I digress again however, so let’s return to John Fonte and his writings, here is another piece which sort of sets the scene of where Western civilisation stands today. Most here are familiar with the content and will have no doubt read it at some time, but you never know whose peering through the window. Much water has flowed under the bridge since it was written and things have moved on apace, much has been implemented. I still think it is very relevant today and a timely reminder of how it came about and what we are about to face. ‘Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America’ http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/FonteCultureWar.php Friendly warning, allow a bit of time for this as it is quite lengthy. More works by Fonte contained in…. Hudson Institute. Center for American Common Culture 119
Posted by daniel on Fri, 11 May 2012 16:12 | # Speak of the devil, The Jewish fella largely responsible for school desegregation in the South of The U.S. has just died.
120
Posted by daniel on Fri, 11 May 2012 16:27 | # His role in the hideous 1964 “Civil Rights Act” was even more significant. ‘Civil Rights Act”, double speak if here ever was… this is where Rights went from liberal hubris and took on the Jewish perversion, Bill. 122
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 12 May 2012 06:52 | #
It was much earlier than that, Daniel.
http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-chanes-06.htm Executive Order 8802.3 became Title VII. “... I do hereby reaffirm the policy of the United States that there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin…” http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od8802t.html If not for Jewish groups FEPC dies. In fact, if not for the Jewish effort 8802 never gets enforced except possibly as a modus vivendi. 123
Posted by daniel on Sat, 12 May 2012 10:50 | # I would say yes, you are right, Desmond. It is was an earlier stage of decadence in the transformation of Rights from passive to aggressive. Even so, you are noting the same pattern. Moreover, World War II would evoke a special circumstance than would supersede the interests of private business. A circumstance which, being an emergency, would be more susceptible to objectivist argumentation - the passive side of Rights. That would still be the more liberal side, not the fully manifesting Jewish perversion of leftist classification for others, but not Whites. It does represent an onset and earlier break-out of the perversion, but not yet the full manifest perversion of Rights that Jews (Katzenbach, in particular) introduced with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You are right that WWII lent opportunity for a Randolph and Jews to begin reversing discrimination and that it was a significant stage in the process. And while the Roosevelt administration was rife with Jewish influence, I would tend to see a Randolph type crusading as deriving from the objectively based liberalism of America’s puritan strain. You are right that this sort of liberalism is a key problem and that it is highly susceptible. However, there was a dance between these objectivist liberals and Jewish machinations which became more and more tight, and more significantly Jewish in motive with The Brown vs. Board of Education (1954 Black/White school integration) and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Jewish influence perverted the notion of Rights more thoroughly, voiding freedom from association, imposing special (leftist) classification for those outside or antagonistic to White men - as opposed to a Rights which would be “liberally based” on neutral principle, applicable to White men as well, or debatable upon interpretation of Christian text.
124
Posted by daniel on Sat, 12 May 2012 10:59 | # Correcting a few typos, the moderator may delete the post before as this post is the same but corrected for minor mistakes.
It was an earlier stage of decadence in the transformation of Rights from passive to aggressive. Even so, you are noting the same pattern. Moreover, World War II would evoke a special circumstance that would supersede the interests of private business. A circumstance which, being an emergency, would be more susceptible to objectivist argumentation - the passive side of Rights. That would still be the more liberal side, not the fully manifesting Jewish perversion of leftist classification for others, but not Whites. It does represent an onset and earlier break-out of the perversion, but not yet the full manifest perversion of Rights that Jews (Katzenbach, in particular) introduced with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You are right that WWII lent opportunity for a Randolph and Jews to begin reversing discrimination and that it was a significant stage in the process. And while the Roosevelt administration had significant Jewish influence, I would tend to see a Randolph type crusading as deriving from the objectively based liberalism of America’s puritan strain. You are right that this sort of liberalism is a key problem and that it is highly susceptible. However, there was a dance between these objectivist liberals and Jewish machinations which became more and more tight, and more rife of Jewish motive with The Brown vs. Board of Education (1954 Black/White school integration) and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Jewish influence perverted the notion of Rights more thoroughly, voiding freedom from association, imposing special (leftist) classification for those outside or antagonistic to White men - as opposed to a Rights which would be “liberally based” on neutral principle, applicable to White men as well, or debatable upon interpretation of Christian text. 125
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 12 May 2012 16:28 | #
Actually James, quite a large proportion of attendees at NR meetings are graduates and middle class professionals. Most people appear somewhat unpreposessing when featured in the backgound of a low resolution video clip, but I can assure you there were plenty of quality people in the audiences that JB addressed. 126
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 12 May 2012 16:47 | # @ uh on May 04, 2012, 10:57 AM
If you saw JB just a couple of months ago, then you will not have seen him at his best. Jonathan was very ill last year and was rather subdued by strong medication thereafter. His physical energy was alway overshadowed by his mental energy and one always suspected that the latter drained him of the former, but as an orator he was a performer of the highest rank and in his prime would stand comparison with any of the great orators that have ever lived. I can recall a speech he made at a BNP summer camp soon after he joined the party and he was quite literally spellbinding in his effect. A roar went up from the audience at the end of his speech that one suspects might have been heard in the next town. He was simply brilliant, not just in the manner of his delivery, but in the depth and quality of the content of his speeches, and all without the aid of microphone, notes or auto-queu. Jonathan is the man that the BNP should have fought to get on Question Time, as someone else once said, I would have crawled ten miles on my hands and knees over salted broken glass to see that event, had it taken place.
127
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 14 May 2012 23:17 | # @Papa Luigi
You mean like Bill Brits J Richards and Wandarin?
This is the face of British nationalism that like a cancer has been the model for all other nationalist movements in Europe.
Perhaps you are right and British nationalist groups like the jihad terrorists are secretly controlled by MI6 to make any form of nationalist political party totally abhorrent to the general masses. In that they have succeeded beyond any expectation. Rather strange that European nationalist groups given Britain’s propensity to be at the forefront or background in conflicts among American and European nations would praise the British Empire that the leading banks and families that essentially rule the world made there wealth from like the Rothschild’s.
Post a comment:
Next entry: Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 3
|
|
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 Bill on Thu, 03 May 2012 15:56 | #
Jonathan Bowden’s progress of oratory mirrored uncannily the path of the nationalist unveilings of the blogosphere, especially in such threads as the Daily Telegraph. In the beginning JB was playing it safe, who could blame him? At this time, one had to connect the dots oneself to gain any meaningful insight into the liberal agenda and the biger picture.
In other words, he never attempted to tell it as it is. He was not alone.
There were moments for me when he seemed reluctant to go as far as he did, and was metaphorically glancing over his shoulder lest he overstepped the mark.
In the early days this tendency irritated me, I railed but deep down understood why, it would and will be a very brave man/woman who comes out and tells it as it is.
Nevertheless less, overtime, the envelope was being pushed relentlessly and the opposition simply had to respond by extending the boundaries of what was permissible.
The nationalist/liberal conversation in the Telegraph threads is unrecognisable from those early pioneer days. Jonathan Bowden tucked into the slipstream and gradually became more confident. To me he looked as if he was enjoying himself, he began to expand and fit more pieces into the greatest conversation ever.
The manner in which he brayed ‘Glory’ to his audience always made me jump.
Sadly, he’s dropped out of the conflict just as he was approaching his prime, we shall never know what heights he could have attained for fate decrees he hands over the baton, just when the conversation is becoming interesting.
How does one measure a man’s contribution in such a role? From a cool start I gradually looked forward to his compelling oratory, his lightening thought and tongue. Like the Internet, he progressively pushed his personal envelope in his own matchless style, the bigger picture became more clear to more people, perhaps not everything, but a great deal more than at the beginning.
R.I.P. Jonathan Bowden, you have set the bar high.