Posted by Bill on Sat, 30 May 2009 07:43 | #

Don’t apologise GW, where else can we get a discussion such as this?  I don’t see any. 

For Brits, the BNP is the only show in town.  (But a lot don’t know it - yet)

I’m sure our American friends here, are mightily interested in how all this is playing out, after all, it’s coming to a cinema near them soon.  I’m sure they’re taking notes.

One way or another, history is being made here.  Nobody ever apologised for recording history.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 09:55 | #

I see The Times is back in the game this morning with a Populus poll showing the zombie-esque UKIP on 19%, two points behind Labour.  It predicts:-

Although regional factors could have an unexpected impact, today’s poll would mean that Britain’s contingent in Strasbourg would look like this: Conservative 28 (+4); Labour 12 (-6); UKIP 15 (+3); Lib-Dem 8 (-2); Green 4 (+2); SNP 1 (-1); Plaid Cymru 1.

Whadya know, no BNP.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 10:07 | #

The Times is also running a BNP smear story about Solidarity trades union.  It is by Fiona Hamilton, the person who has clearly been delegated the task of producing these smears for the paper.  Half-way down this one she tries to snatch a bit of profit from her failed donation scam:-

The Times revealed on Thursday that Solidarity was the recipient of a £5,000 donation, originally sent to Mr Griffin, that is under review by the Electoral Commission. Mr Griffin admitted that he did not inform the authorities about the donation, which appeared to be from a political supporter, although he paid it into his own account before transferring it to Solidarity. Donations of more than £1,000 to individual party members must be declared if they are for political use.

Mr Griffin said that he gave the money to the union because the donor wanted to remain anonymous and he believed that he would have had to declare it if passed to the BNP.

In the comments to this piece Roger, Norwich, GB observes:-

It seems you can’t open a newspaper or switch on the TV without seeing concerted attacks on the BNP. Every time I leave the office some group or other give me an anti-BNP leaflet! If they get anyone elected after this barrage it will be a miracle of people power over the media.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 10:11 | #

Having said all that, there remains a disconcerting possibility that the real strategy of the Establishment is electoral fraud, and all we are seeing now is just the case to fight off the howls of outrage when the fake results are announced.

Is that scenario too ridiculous?  I really don’t know anymore.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 30 May 2009 11:02 | #

Trying to make sense of it all

No matter which way I view what’s going on here, (in Britain) very little, or any of it - makes sense.

Is this this running around like a headless chicken routine by the traitorous establishment genuine, or is it all contrived?  You would think after weeks of hysteria the situation would stabilise, but it doesn’t, the Richter scale of hysterics records new highs daily.

The perpetrators of this evil plan must have factored into their thinking for the moment when the people of the target nation would cotton on to what was afoot.  After all, you cannot hide a rising tide of non white faces for ever.  People do notice these things you know.

I cannot believe that the only counter they have is scream waycist at us in an ever shrill voice. 

We’ve known right from the outset, that where we are right now was entirely predictable and has become so.  As GW says, they’ll still be playing ‘our’ tune in ten years time, simply because they’re a one tune outfit, there never was and never will be a different tune.  I find this unbelievable and like everything else, doesn’t make sense.

The soporific people of Britain are showing signs of waking from their consumerist induced torpor.

This is the behind the curtain time - who and what is behind it.

The only significant resistance to the plan of replacing whites with non white in Britain, is the British National Party. (BNP)

The BNP’s tactics and strategy have always baffled me, as they have never told it as it is.  To those who are familiar with my comments here, my saying this should come as no surprise.  Despite this not telling it as it is, the BNP continue to go from strength to strength, not surprising really as the establishment were on a hiding to nothing from the start.  It was just a question of the time taken to get there.

Does this mean Griffin is doing things right?  I suppose most would say he must be, he’s winning isn’t he?

I think Griffin is winning despite not telling like it is.  Either by design or ineptness he is missing open goal after open goal in debate with the media morons.  If he’s missing the goal by design, then again, to me, it doesn’t make sense, as this strategy is taking a much longer rout to success.  I prefer rout one, the long ball down the middle. (I don’t know the equivalent in US Football)

When I say rout one, I mean place the blame firmly on the useful idiot politicians and their enablers, not their handlers.  It’s got to the ridiculous position where commenter’s in the blogosphere are making a better fist of articulating the plot than the BNP.  Again, it makes no sense. (Or does it?)

Having said all this, the last thing the BNP want right now is runaway success as they are not in any shape to handle it, the media would crucify their inexperience. The public would sense this - and quickly become disillusioned.

Maybe Griffin knows and understands all of this.  Maybe he does know that he is nowhere near ready for the task ahead and is cool with the softly softly catchy monkey approach, this is understandable but it does nothing for my nerves.

In a few days time, whatever the EU election results, things are not going to be the same again.

Fortunately for us, we can, (hopefully) continue following the story here at MR.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 30 May 2009 11:28 | #

GW.  Have just read your comment.  Re UKIP.

Last night (Newsnight) Nick Robinson told viewers a recent poll had put Labour in third place behind UKIP.  (how do we know these polls are genuine? - We don’t.)

Robinson said this would reduce Labour reputation to rubble.  Then in *abstract language (as they do) he implicitly invited viewers who wanted to see the back of new Labour (and who doesn’t?) to vote UKIP, thereby consigning Labour to certain oblivion.  Again not a mention of the BNP.

There is little doubt in my mind the BBC is complicit in influencing the way people vote.

After all, if the BBC tell us it must be UKIP - then it must be right.

*When I say abstract language, I mean the joining/connecting of seemingly random/similar words linked in such a manner to subliminally suggest you to do something you normally wouldn’t do.

These people are very good at such auto suggestive language.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 30 May 2009 12:34 | #

Sorry, I’m having trouble picturing Jesus in a polling booth.

Here we see the Bishop’s true motivation:

One of the problems with the multi-culturalism that has been foisted on us by a secularist elite is that it seeks to promote an empty “tolerance”. This leads to isolated communities which keep growing apart and can fall victim to mutual hostility. Extremists of all sorts can exploit such isolation.

So if we had it foisted on us by the clergy, tolerance would mean something and there’d be a religious basis for our race-replacement.  Sounds like a pretty perverted version of Christianity from the Naz.  I’d like to see him and Williamson debate the matter.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 12:35 | #

Bill,

On 25th May on his own blog Martin Wingfield, who is Steady Eddie squared, said in a piece titled Our Quiet Revolution has given us foundations:-

It was a worry when UKIP were being hyped up last week and many of us feared that it might be a repeat of 2004 all over again. But please rest assured things are very different for us this time around.

Our support has been built up over the past five years on firm foundations. There is a bedrock of BNP support that really exists and is there whether the media puts the spotlight on it or not. It is there whether there is an Expenses Scandal or not. It doesn’t just exist, like UKIP’s alleged support, only because of the Expenses Scandal.

I think one has to ask, though, how and when the lineaments of the anti-BNP campaign - because it surely is a campaign and not an ad hoc collection of like-minded, topical observations - were sketched out, and by whom.

I would guess that the political impetus for this sprang from Richard Barnbrook’s election to the London Assembly in May last year, and serious planning got underway in July or August.

Personnel-wise, I would plump Tom Watson, Gordon Brown’s Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, and the “late” Damian McBride of smeargate fame who sat right next to him in No 10.  I would say that initially they liaised with their opposite numbers, or whatever passes for them, in the Conservative and Libdem Parties.  When cross-party agreement was reached, they took the case to the Controllers of BBC News and Current Affairs for TV and Radio, and the national newspaper editors and proprietors.  It rippled out from there.  It is a genuine conspiracy.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 12:55 | #

Dasein,

The writ of EGI runs free everywhere but in the guilt-ridden middle-classes of our people.  Guilt, it seems, switches Nature off.  I would like to understand the mechanism better.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 May 2009 13:11 | #

“I think one has to ask, though, how and when the lineaments of the anti-BNP campaign - because it surely is a campaign and not an ad hoc collection of like-minded, topical observations - were sketched out, and by whom.

I would guess that the political impetus for this sprang from Richard Barnbrook’s election to the London Assembly in May last year, and serious planning got underway in July or August.

Personnel-wise, I would plump for Tom Watson, Gordon Brown’s Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, and the ‘late’ Damian McBride of smeargate fame who sat right next to him in No 10.  I would say that initially they liaised with their opposite numbers, or whatever passes for them, in the Conservative and Libdem Parties.  When cross-party agreement was reached, they took the case to the Controllers of BBC News and Current Affairs for TV and Radio, and the national newspaper editors and proprietors.  It rippled out from there.  It is a genuine conspiracy.”  (—GW)

Excellent commentary by GW there.  We over here in the Colonies don’t, of course, recognize any of the names GW cites there, let alone the web of governmental relationships he outlines but those specifics aren’t the important thing.  The important thing is recognizing that a process did not just spontaneously arise but must have originated as a concerted, explicitly agreed upon effort no matter that there may now be free-lancers out there doing it and people caught up in the momentum just going along with it.  At bottom it was and is a plan, calculated by minds, not some force of nature that arose like this morning’s weather pattern over Boston or a volcano that erupted in Hawaii.  GW can even pinpoint the time when it likely had its birth.  Well, I see an exact analogy here with the whole race-replacement drive:  I see race-replacement not as spontaneous though there are those dull-wits, opportunists, and so on, who are carried along with the momentum it now has, thinking it’s where the winners belong and so on — I see it as having been explicitly more or less agreed-upon in these international meetings that are always taking place beyond the ken of us ordinary mortals, us peons, and I put the time of the explicit coming-together and finalizing of the rough overall plan as the somewhere around the mid-1970s.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 13:59 | #

Fred,

After listening to several of Richard Barnbrook’s interventions in the London Assembly, including an embarrassing one just the other day when he started prattling away about apples and pears, I would assess his IQ at 112.  I agree that he doesn’t have to be able to process abstract thought.  But he does have to be able to follow a debate and the rules of the debate, and to speak cogently and sparely without notes and with mastery of his brief.  That is the minimum requirement for a senior political figure.

The BNP really has to attract educated middle-class people into the party before it threatens to start winning parliamentary seats.  It will be hard for the guys who have fought the party to that point, given all that they have had to suffer.  But there really is no substitute for intelligence and articulacy.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 14:19 | #

We don’t have any philosophy, btw.  We have instinct.  We have outrage.  We have righteousness.  We have cold, hard determination.  But real, world-changing philosophy, no.  What passes for philosophy in our sphere is analysis.  All that de Benoist and Faye and Sunic write, scholarly though it is, is an analysis of the liberal dispensation with some historical proofs.  Their complaint is just.  But it does not contain the seed of ideational revolution, which is what we must, absolutely must have if we are throw off our shackles and change the world.

People - in every way good and loyal people - who cannot grasp the formative function of original thinking are the blue collar workers of ideological politics.  They have their own crucial role in the process of change.  But it comes later.  They would do well to let be those things which come first, but which are simply unseen by them.

Posted by Darren on Sat, 30 May 2009 15:23 | #

What is philosophy and analysis to you? This seems to be an arbitrary criticism. I just consider them thinkers - I don’t care for academic labels. It is readily apparent that these are both intelligent and highly educated; enough so to have a well-developed weltanschauung. That isn’t to say I always agree with them. Maybe it is that you expect individual men to provide all the answers for you. That is a bit of a task to ask out of anybody.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 May 2009 16:23 | #

Darren,

Creative thought is an IQ 160 game.  James is creative, when he wants to be.  I try to be creative but I am scarcely at the level of the philosophical analyst.  That’s partly because I have no formal education but mostly because real, active mentation is a highly demanding process at any level, and the folks who can do that sort of thing are all very, very bright - much brighter than me.

Maybe it is that you expect individual men to provide all the answers for you.

I think there are people associated with this blog who could tell those individual men, frankly, that they are failing, that they are starting from the wrong place.  Furthermore, I think there are people here who could show them where the starting point is.  This conversation has to take place, in my view.

Six or eight months ago I was of the opinion that significant actors in occidental thought must have apprehended the intellectual stasis which afflicts us, must have asked themselves how to become effective.  I have been forced to conclude that this is not the case.  They are all still busily doing their own thing, competing for attention and for converts to their view.  They are, by and large, not willing to sacrifice their feeble attainments for a forward-march in the common good.  It is all insular and sterile.  If I told you the typical book sales for significant titles in our market sector you would be shocked.  Nothing concrete will come of what has been offered by them thusfar, I promise you.

It means that political efforts like that of the BNP are left with foundational ideas of very low quality and little serviceability.  Distributism, anyone?  Patriotism?  Something called nationalism that no one can actually define?

It is a serious failing that we fail seriously in not apprehending and seeking to correct.  Hell, our kids’ lives depends on getting this right.  We cannot leave it to pure instinct and hope.

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 30 May 2009 16:37 | #

GW,

If vanity prevents our best minds from being of use to us, then we must look elsewhere for our answers.  History is full of examples for us to follow - creativity is certainly helpful, but where there is a paucity of said the past can be instructive.  It is amazing to me that so few people in our (non-)movement look to the richest well we have:  Memory.

I recall Alex Linder, in your Cosmic Ants post, saying something about picking bits and pieces from past movements that have worked and assembling them into a workable whole.  What’s wrong with that?  It is damn certainly better than nothing.

Posted by Arthur Lincoln on Sat, 30 May 2009 17:01 | #

I am a sympathetic supporter of the BNP but, as some on here recognise, Mr Barnbrook does occasionally make my toes curl. From a purely observational point of view he (Barnbrook) seems to try to use the language of a seasoned politician without being seasoned! His statements would be more meaningful if he kept the language simple and to the point so those that voted for him could understand his train of thought and the BNP policies for the capital.
However, I have noticed, as I’m sure most of you have, the increased level of support for the BNP over the past couple of years. Not from opinion polls but purely from the comment section of on-line newspapers such as the Telegraph or, amazingly indeed, the Guardian. An article in any newspaper regarding the BNP is destined to become a ‘most-commented’ article today while two years ago it would probably have been largely ignored by the readership and only of interest to those committed to Nationalism.
As a result, in my gut-felt opinion, should the BNP do very well in the upcoming election there will, most likely, be more high-calibre people drawn toward it and, perhaps, we will see more articulate party spokesmen/women. I doubt that IQ has much to do with winning support or spreading the party policies, it is the ability to shape society that the majority desire, just common sense.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 30 May 2009 21:40 | #

After listening to several of Richard Barnbrook’s interventions in the London Assembly, including an embarrassing one just the other day when he started prattling away about apples and pears, I would assess his IQ at 112.—GW

I was also scratching my head when he said that bit about apples and pears and thought perhaps it was just the bad audio, but after listening a second time confirmed that it was pointless.  Maybe he lost his train of thought and actually meant to make a sensible point (e.g. if apple trees produce more trees from seed in succeeding generations, etc.).  He did seem to be following some outline from notes though, so it is pretty hard to excuse.  Surely he could have rehearsed it a bit beforehand.  Imagine something like that going viral on YouTube (sure it would get yanked though).  BTW, the audio is so poor in that clip that at 2:14 it actually sounds like Boris says ‘to work for young people of all species’.  For a second I thought he’d adopted Fred’s taxonomy

Posted by Bill on Sat, 30 May 2009 22:33 | #

If the comments slow down a little, try these over at the Brussels Journal.

‘The Surprising Rise of UKIP.’  As is usual, the comments provide the interest.

Hope the link works.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3923#

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 30 May 2009 22:39 | #

  “What passes for philosophy in our sphere is analysis.  All that de Benoist and Faye and Sunic write, scholarly though it is, is an analysis of the liberal dispensation with some historical proofs.  Their complaint is just.  But it does not contain the seed of ideational revolution, which is what we must, absolutely must have if we are throw off our shackles and change the world.”—GW

With all respect I think you’re wrong.  The philosophy backing us up already exists and likely has for two and a half thousand years going on three.  It’s a matter of looking it up.  No new philosophy is needed.  I can’t glibly rattle it off but I know it’s there.  If not three thousand years old, then younger, but I know it’s there.—Fred

I think GW’s distinction between analysis (critique) and creative philosophy is completely accurate, as well as the need for more of the latter.  I also think Fred’s partly right, in that much of what we need exists in the Western canon and that we should look to see where wrong turns were taken.  Heidegger was profoundly influenced by Otto’s work on Greek mythology, whose thesis was that the enlightened religion of Homeric Greece represented a break with the primordial relation to the earth represented by earlier deities, and ushered in the rational/metaphyscial age of the Olympian enlightenment.  Ever since then, the West has been swimming in the rational/analytic stream (though you had some who tried to escape this, like Meister Eckhart).  Heidegger saw this as a wrong turn and wanted to go back to the pre-Socratic philosophers in order to address the question of Being.  For him, man’s rootedness was in the soil (Bodenständigkeit).  Although he was a member of the Nazi party, he became disappointed with their version of National Socialism and left.  He opposed the racial theories of the Nazis and it seems to have led him to avoid genetics in his quest to understand Being.  This, I believe, was his wrong turn and the right place to start looking for a philosophy to replace (not just critique) liberalism.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 May 2009 23:36 | #

What is and hence what we are is a scientific question.  Our relationship to that, and to ourselves, and whatever ‘oughts’ that can be coaxed out of it, is for philosophy.  ‘How does one, or a people, live in accordance with Nature, knowing their Nature is itself a part of Nature?’  ‘What is excellent and good according to our Nature?’

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 May 2009 00:29 | #

Fred,

The important thing is recognizing that a process did not just spontaneously arise but must have originated as a concerted, explicitly agreed upon effort no matter that there may now be free-lancers out there doing it and people caught up in the momentum just going along with it.

There is one area where only free-lancers could be “encouraged” to do the deed - and that is in stealing the election:-

All British National Party members and supporters have been urged to be on the lookout for polling station fraud committed by corrupt officials who may seek to cast ghost votes in the election on June 4th, party leader Nick Griffin has announced.

“We have received information that certain corrupt officials at some polling stations have devised a plan whereby they intend to vote on other people’s behalf towards the end of polling day,” Mr Griffin said.

“Apparently the plan is to wait until late on polling day, and then to start crossing off names of people on the electoral register who have not yet voted and then voting on their behalf,” Mr Griffin said.

“Such a scam is simple to carry out with only two corrupt officials in on it at a polling station,” he continued. “The plan also involves an escape route if the person whose name has just been crossed off comes in to vote at the last moment. The answer that has already been devised entails simply giving the voter a ballot sheet and then crossing someone else’s name off the register as having voted.

“The plan is outrageously simple to effect, and an unaware public might well be none the wiser.

Nick Griffin talks about a “plan”.  So how would that work?

In this (obviously hypothetical and purely imaginary) case I think the initial discussions between those two Downing Street personnel I mentioned before would have to remain strictly in-house - no blabbing to the political opposition about this one.  So, one of the pair would ask if is it morally acceptable?  Silly question, this is the BNP!  Then how to do it?  Childishly simple, as the linked article explains.  Who can do it?  Not the local Labour Party.  This is jail time country, and not the slightest suspicion must attach to the Party.  But perhaps thought might be given to contracting the job out.  To an anti-fascist organisation, say, whose fanatical cadres could include some with polling station responsibilities on election night.  Even there, though, the illegality of vote-fraud would militate a fully-deniable arms-length operation.

Just one way it could be done by people with sufficient hatred for the BNP, and without risk to the architects of the plan.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 May 2009 00:46 | #

Gudmund,

Self-importance produces sectionalism wherever it is found.  Intellectualism is not an exclusive qualification. The little knots of WNs sending their greenbacks to the Leader for the continuance of his, as I think JWH used to say, “important work” are fine examples.

I recall Alex Linder, in your Cosmic Ants post, saying something about picking bits and pieces from past movements that have worked and assembling them into a workable whole.

My original idea when I started this blog was basically Imitatio Conservati.  So I see where you are coming from.  But I gave up that plan quite a while ago, and now I think that Dasein and I and, among others, the likes of Happy Cracker (if he forgives my pedantry enough to return), Loriver, Soren and James will generate something new and more interesting.

We shall see.

Posted by Astrid on Sun, 31 May 2009 04:21 | #

OT but where else to put it?

A-B the first and last Susan Boyle performances.  This is what ‘they’, and now we know that there is indeed a ‘they’, can do to an individual in a few weeks. Gone is the LIFE, the personality, the spunk, the FRESHNESS, the real, normal, drive and talent, of the woman. The voice is still there but she is a shadow of the self of the first time.

So a group called Diversity won.

Posted by ISRAELIS WANT TO FLOOD IN TO AMERICA on Sun, 31 May 2009 10:37 | #

On the Jewish blog The Kvetcher, Jews are discussing evacuating most of the Jews from Israel to the USA by trying to use Iranian nuclear weapons as an excuse for classifying Israelis as “refugees” fleeing non-existent Iranian nukes, thus flooding the USA with millions of more Jews and making the American Jewish problem even worse:

“Jewish Immigration Policy as Worst Case Scenario Appears Ever More Likely”

Steve writes,

  If two million Jewish Israelis ask for citizenship in the USA - what do we do? Do we as American Jews seek to bump the Israelis to the front of the line - ahead of the Koreans and Chinese that have been waiting 20 years to get in to the USA? I am open to that idea -
  or do we loosen the whole US immigration system in order to get them in - if we do this then along with 2 million Israelis we probably get 10 or 20 million other people that we don’t really want here in the USA

No. As Israel becomes increasingly threatened with nuclear destruction and its secular, younger population becomes increasingly desperate to get out, we work to have these young people classified as refugees, not immigrants. Additionally, we work with European countries to absorb them as well.

  Again, I say as a committed zionist that Israel’s days as the country we know are numbered. We are looking at an Israel with a much smaller jewish population, a jewish population that is made up of ultra religious folks who are more committed to living under the shadow of a mushroom clowd - Dare i say it - a jewish population with a a Masada complex.

  This subject - the subject of millions of jews abandoning Israel out of fear for their lives - is truly the greatest taboo in our community - it really is too unpleasant for jews at any point on the political spectrum to contemplate - but it is coming

- http://kvetcher.net/2009/05/3328/jewish-immigration-policy-as-worst-case-scenario-appears-ever-more-likely/

—-

Also read: http://kvetcher.net/2009/05/3321/deplorable/comment-page-1/#comment-12256

Posted by ROBERT CROSS on Sun, 31 May 2009 15:58 | #

The BNP may be a little rough around the edges,but it is a grass roots movement by the ordinary people,there are no philosophical mysteries involved in politics,it is a way of perpetuating society for the good of its members,and as such is perfectly simple,it just becomes convoluted by constant discussion and hair-splitting,which destroys the ability to act.Every change or revolution is invariably hi-jacked by the very people whom the movement displaced ,because it is assumed that the little people have no sense,no education,and no right to order things the way that they want them,but must be steered and guided by those that presume to know better,but who will not lend thier support until they see a prospect for thier own advancement and climb onto the backs of the people,after spending years using long words in idle chat with thier heads up thier arses,debating how fast the train is going that will run us over.I would prefer the BNP ,warts and all,rather than the endless airing of brains by the people that brought us to this pass in the first place,the peoples needs are simple,all that is needed is to ask yourself what you need for a descent life.Articulation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:13 | #

”there are no philosophical mysteries involved in politics, it is a way of perpetuating society for the good of its members, and as such is perfectly simple […].  I would prefer the BNP, warts and all, to the endless airing of brains by the people that brought us to this pass in the first place”  (—ROBERT CROSS)

Well said.

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:14 | #

One thing I did like about Barnbrook’s speech is that he spoke of the ‘replacement’ of the native population, rather than using terms like ‘genocide’ or ‘invasion’ which come across as too extreme to the average person.  It’s obvious that the Brits of Brixton have been replaced by Negroes.  It’s not obvious that they’ve been genocided (if they can’t afford to have children because they were forced to sell their home in what has become a slum and pay 10x that amount for something in a decent area, you could start extrapolating to a genocide, but it’s too subtle and longterm for the average person to think about).  Race-replacement is an excellent term.  I think I met it for the first time on this site.  Fred, is this a term that you began to popularize?  (I thought I heard GW say something to that effect on another thread recently)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:14 | #

Well said except I don’t see where it has any warts, not one.  I see it as a god damned good outfit.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:22 | #

“Fred, is this a term that you began to popularize?”  (—Dasein)

It’s a concept I traffic in and a term I use.  I don’t know who began “popularizing it.”  I see it as calling a spade a spade (no pun inten .... oh, why lie?  Pun intended).

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:27 | #

I posted the following moderate and self-effacing comments, somewhat on point here, to the “traditionalist conservative” website of CHRONICLES magazine. In less than an hour or so, they had been deleted (I’ve re-posted them for now). Why? I encourage WNs to visit and comment on that site. The so-called Right needs to know that an authentic Right still exists, and is growing bolder.

13 Comment by cato on 31 May 2009:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Didn’t Sam Francis once refer to Christianity as a “fifth column in/of the West”? (He did.) Didn’t Spengler refer to it as the “godmother of Bolshevism”? (ditto.) Obviously, neither was referring to the historic fighting faith of the Crusaders. But that only begs the real question, which Dr. Fleming does not satisfactorily answer: could modern (white) race treason have arisen apart from Christianity? Probably not, even though today secular leftists, indeed secularists generally, are vastly less patriotic, even nationalist (and even racist), than committed Christians. But the real issue is whether those “exclusionary Christians” are acting properly according to their faith.

My own view is that Christianity was once the greatest exalter of Western civ (ie, it played an enormously important role in lifting Western man up from pagan barbarism, including that of ‘civilized’ pagans, like the Romans), but that today, at least as a sociological and political, if not necessarily philosophical or theological, matter, it is clearly what Dr. Francis believed it to be. For nearly 30 years, as long as I’ve been intellectually awakened and able to understand adults, I think just about every religious sermon I’ve attended, which had any sort of social or political implication, had a left-of-center-to-hard-left orientation. The single greatest threat to Western Christianity (and Christianity all across the globe, now that communism has reached its just demise) is Islam; in the West specifically, it is Islamic immigration (no disagreement from the CHRONICLES crowd there, I’m sure). And yet, what did Dr. Fleming’s allegedly great pontiff, John Paul II, do about it?

NOT ONE DAMN THING. No, scratch that. He made the problem worse. He declaimed on the alleged “rights of immigrants” (huh?), in a horrible document entitled “On Welcoming the Stranger” (or something like that). Since when do receiving nations (in reality, this means only white nations) have an eternal obligation to open their gates to any foreigners who want entry? Is that in Scripture? Can such a position be derived from Christian precepts? I’m inclined to doubt it, but I’m not sure. JPII was a learned man. Why would he preach such nonsense? Is the problem faulty understanding - or faulty doctrine?

Isn’t Christianity primarily concerned with the fate of souls - not with the disposition of the things of the world? Our lives are supposed to be nought but a kind of training ground for eternity, in which case, patriotism will always seem a bit suspect. Loyalty is to Christ, to parents, wives and children (provided they are good Christians), perhaps to the wider Christian community … But to race, culture, (secular) community, nation, heritage, class, institutions, ranks, etc?

I believe (but then, I’m mostly uneducated in Christian theology) that Christianity does allow for various loyalties, provided they exist in proper balance and hierarchy. But I do not know whether Christianity possesses the intellectual resources to provide moral justifications for the stern measures (ie physically aggressive ones) which must be taken if the West, understood historically properly as the civilization of the white man, is to survive. And that refers to Christianity at its best (eg, in the pages of CHRONICLES). The typical Western Christian today is a racial integrationist and a socialist (and most Western non-Christians are even worse!).

I remain haunted by the words of Revilo Oliver, great writer and brave man, written nearly a half-century ago (this is from memory, so I’m paraphrasing): “The Civitatis Dei is a great work of Christian metaphysics, and perhaps even consoled its author while the Vandals were besieging Hippo Regius …. Our task is to defend Rome.”

If Hitler had won, the West would not be on the brink of annihilation. Indeed, the gene pool would have been purified, the territories of the West (or at least Europe) racially cleansed, and there would always have been the possibility of eventual cultural instauration and moral renewal. But with the racial aliens flooding in, we are threatened with demographic conquest, peaceful but permanent. Once the West ceases to be white, there will be no possibility of renaissance. Is Christianity helping to keep the West white - or aiding in the alien conquest? Surely, even Dr. Fleming knows the answer. And that answer must determine the conservative’s attitude towards the faith.

——————————————-

Note: these comments can hardly be called extreme! I am not, eg, endorsing Hitler, but merely stating an historical fact. Nor am I disparaging Christianity, but rather, asking the perfectly intellectually legitimate question whether it is capable of truly preserving the West. The PC cowardice of the self-congratulatory and generally insufferable editor, Thomas Fleming, is really too much. No donations for you, Phlegming!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:54 | #

”The so-called Right needs to know that an authentic Right still exists, and is growing bolder.”  (—Leon Haller)

Don’t call yourself “the Right.”  If race-replacement advocates are “the Right” what makes you “the Right”?  How about calling yourself what you actually are for a change?  I’m not “the Right” and I don’t know what the fuck “the Right” is supposed to be but I know to be “the Right” you have to experience a veritable orgasm of pleasure every time you see a blonde shiksa strolling down the street arm in arm with a groid or every time you re-read for the Nth time the prediction that always gives Jews their best orgasms, namely the one about the Euro race becoming an irreversible minority within the Eurosphere itself within the next ten nanoseconds or whatever — “the Right” is supposed to view that stuff as the utmost pleasure-giver in the known universe so why in the god damned fuck would I want to consider myself as “the Right” or try to break into “the Right” or try to be accepted by “the Right”???????  On the contrary, “the Right” should DROP FUCKING DEAD.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 May 2009 16:58 | #

Ditto “the Conservatives.”  Alain de Benoist never saw an instance of race-replacement he didn’t like.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 31 May 2009 17:03 | #

I prefer rout one, the long ball down the middle. (I don’t know the equivalent in US Football)

Ironically enough, it is called a Hail Mary.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 May 2009 17:47 | #

“I think that Dasein and I and, among others, the likes of Happy Cracker [...], Loriver, Soren and James will generate something new and more interesting.”  (—GW, May 30, 11:46 PM)

If it’s a gift for doing philosophy that’s wanted, maybe that list should include DanielJ — check out this page from one of his blogs I just stumbled across:

http://robertlewisdabney.blogspot.com/

Posted by Spirit of 1776 on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:18 | #

If I may, AMEN BROTHER.  Truer words have seldom been said.

Saith the Scoob:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 31, 2009, 03:58 PM | #

Ditto “the Conservatives.” Alain de Benoist never saw an instance of race-replacement he didn’t like.

There is another good reason to jettison both terms, “The Right” and “Conservatives”:  they have been reduced in the popular mind to franchise (team) names in the sport of politics.  Why should be care if the Tories or the Republicans win an election any more than I care if Manchester or Spain wins the cup?  So what?  They represent no one but themselves and they can’t do a good job even of that.

Here’s my small contribution to the creative intellectual underpinnings of nationalism.  I call it the “Joe of the Mountain Peasant Theory of Everything” that posits a recessive “Liberty” gene, bred in quantity in Britain, thanks to its geographical isolation, but also found here and there in the odd free cities of historical Europe and in the British colonies such as Canada, Australia, USA etc.

What is a peasant?  A peasant is a man who made his survival deal with his lord, agreeing to live in submission and pay taxes lest he be dispossessed and die.  Roman Catholic Europe is the gross example, while the north countries maintained their independence as best they could.

One either has the Liberty gene or one does not.  Africans seem not to possess it.  Moslems seem not to possess it.  Most Whites do not express the gene whether they have a copy or no!  But those of us that do understand that Liberty is a compulsion.  It is not an act of Will or choice, it is an act of Being.

Good luck to the BNP, whatever their IQ they are proof positive the Liberty gene lives yet in Britain.

Cheers,
Joe of the Mountain
Not far from Philadelphia, USA

Posted by danielj on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:24 | #

I’m doing my best Fred.

I spend most of my time fighting against and lamenting the damnable leftward lurch of my church.

To any Christers out there, Dabney is your man.

Posted by Red Mercury on Sun, 31 May 2009 19:19 | #

But I do not know whether Christianity possesses the intellectual resources to provide moral justifications for the stern measures (ie physically aggressive ones) which must be taken if the West, understood historically properly as the civilization of the white man, is to survive.

That is the question. Well put. Tha same can be said of most White men themselves, i.e., Do we have what it takes? If Christianity is found wanting, what will replace it?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 May 2009 20:05 | #

Fred, Daniel knows that he is always welcome to post here.

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 31 May 2009 20:21 | #

I’m not “the Right” and I don’t know what the fuck “the Right” is supposed to be ...—Fred

I remember hearing a speech online once by Newt Gingrich (from early 2000’s) where he advocated paying inner-city Blacks to study physics so the US could compete with China.  It was before I had read the Bell Curve and really started learning about racial differences, so I didn’t laugh like I do know when I think of this.

Posted by q on Sun, 31 May 2009 20:51 | #

I remember hearing a speech online once by Newt Gingrich (from early 2000’s) where he advocated paying inner-city Blacks to study physics so the US could compete with China.

Ole’ Newty should change his profession from politician to stand-up comedian.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 31 May 2009 21:02 | #

danielj wrote:

I prefer rout one, the long ball down the middle. (I don’t know the equivalent in US Football)

Ironically enough, it is called a Hail Mary.

The late Emlyn Hughes, (ex Liverpool) used to describe this tactic - the ale house ball.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 May 2009 22:15 | #

The BNP is actually doing what even a few years ago seemed impossible.  They are gaining momentum with common people with explicit ethno-nationalism.  Before people will be able to accept a paradigm shift towards racially life affirming memes they will need to be at least somewhat primed is the ways of tribalism.  For whatever intellect the BNP may lack, they are providing that indispensable service.  Besides, there is not any ready-made salvific philosophy to be taught as stands anyway.

Posted by Fiotheth on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:47 | #

If Christianity is found wanting, what will replace it?

Atheism coupled with the belief that ‘My Race is my Religion!  ‘

Let Semitic Fables ‘wither on the vine’ as The Great One stated in Hitler’s Table Talk

The White Man could return to that Ancient Tradition of Ancestor Worship if in need of a fuller belief system.

Note that this is an essential part of Japanese Religiousness and they are a fully Modern Nation/State that is very Racialist (note how Jared Taylor and alot of Amren types are very fond of contemporary Japan)

Posted by Hail Mary on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:49 | #

Ironically enough, it is called a Hail Mary.

More correct to refer to it as a “long bomb.”  A “Hail Mary” is the same play but generally used to describe an ambitious last ditch attempt.  It’s not really akin to a long ball down the middle, which is normal style of play in British soccer.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:44 | #

Last Word.

“The Liverpool team in those days boasted the likes of Kenny Dalglish, and Graeme Souness; a plethora of bad perms; and, let’s be honest, borderline-crap tactics, based all-too-regularly around what was called the ‘alehouse ball,’ in which some twat like Emlyn Hughes (a man who called his kids Emma, and Lynn lest we forget), or later Alan Hansen, pumped the ball long for a big center forward to nod down into the path of an onrushing Jimmy Case or Alan Kennedy.”

http://unprofessionalfoul.com/2008/03/ufs-rivalries-series-manchester-united.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:22 | #

I just now for the first time looked up Richard Barnbrook’s Wikipedia entry and was stupefied at the sheer filthiness of the hatchet job I found there, hatchet job all the way from the photo of Barnbrook chosen for the piece to just about every word of text in the article.  Someone who is skilled at amending the filthy propaganda typically spouted by the Marxist sewage who seem to control that e-rag, Wikipedia, needs to get over there and correct that article’s whole hatchet-job thrust and insert an appropriate photo of the subject.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:25 | #

More correct to refer to it as a “long bomb.” A “Hail Mary” is the same play but generally used to describe an ambitious last ditch attempt.  It’s not really akin to a long ball down the middle, which is normal style of play in British soccer.

I stand corrected.

Not a sports guy.

Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:31 | #

Christiantity is in big trouble in America. The Catholic and Protestant Churches are on board with the race replacement of Native Born White Americans and the economic marginalization that comes along with race-replacement. The Southern Evangelicals are trying to instigate a nuclear WW3. Southern Evangelicals are evil.

The Episcapal,Methodist,Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches are on board with the Legalization of homosexual, marriage. I consider, the Catholic and Protestant Churches at this point in time to be evil.

Because of their enthusiasm for the race-replacement, the Chrisian Churches are going to see more and more Christians drfiting away from the Churches. Race will become more importatn than Chritianity.

I am not an athiest. I consider myself Christian. But I will not support the Chritian Churches. The Christian Churches are thoroughly evil at this point in time.

The legalization of homosexual marrige may very well create a huge opportuity in America for Islam. Posssibly, many Christians will jump ship and convert. An Islamic America would never tolerate the legalzation of homosexaul marriage. But neither would an Russian Orthodox America.

Christianity in America is sick and diseased.

Posted by Martin on Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:20 | #

Congratulations, guys! More to come, I fancy.