Posted by Amalek on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:58 | #

Kriss Donald.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:07 | #

And Ross Parker.  And Richard Whelan.  But these aren’t current stories and my intention was to stay current to aid the objectivity.

To be perfectly objective, of course, the two double-digit scrotes who ice-axed “Anthony” are also victims ... but of the liberal elite that has declared its own people must be racially marxised.  What might these boys’ lives have been like in a healthy white England?  Why have they been deprived of the chance to live those healthy lives?  They have lost a very great deal to the Establishment and its policy of immigration at levels no ordinary English person wanted or wants.

As for the issue of media (ie Establishment) bias, the always sound and readable Laban Tall wrote:-

It could perhaps be argued that the remarkable disproportion between the coverage of racist murders where the victim is white (minimal coverage) and non-white (major coverage extending in some cases over years) reflects the severity of the problem. Perhaps black and Asian people are being murdered much more often than white.

But what they can show conclusively is that in all murders which could POTENTIALLY be racist, white people are over-represented in the victim class and correspondingly under-represented in the ‘principal suspect’ class. You would never know that if you listened to the BBC.

Posted by John S Bolton on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:10 | #

Official anticaucasianism has to be put down. Whether this happens by officials actually fomenting the civil war they are pushing for, or some other way, it is unstable and will be crushed.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:13 | #

The BBC should be defunded and shut down. It has long since outlived its utility - it only serves the purposes of the worst elements of the pseudo intellectual class in this country.

I do not own a Television set in my house because I will not participate in the national rip-off that is the TV Licence fee which is used to fund the Marxist BBC exclusively.

As a result, I do not watch television. And my life is richer for it.

Posted by Ollie on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:53 | #

For murders with a suspected racial motivate or partial motive, the stats back you up GW.

Over this three-year period (ending 2004), the police reported to the Home Office 22 homicides where there was a known racial motivation. Twelve victims were White, 4 Asian, 3 Black and 3 of ‘Other’ ethnic origin. There were no current suspects identified for 5 of these victims, 3 of who were White, 1 Black and 1 ‘Other’.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf

Posted by Amalek on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:03 | #

Guessedworker—Kriss Donald IS a current case. Three of those suspected of his murder fled to Pakistan and were only extradited in October. You don’t appreciate this because the MSM will not report the progress of the case. Another mistake to your discredit.

Your allowing the vain logorrhoeic Johnjayray to swamp this site with his Eurasian ramblings, your failure of oversight in the Geoff Beck affair (and your subsequent attempt to cover your embarrassment by drawing attention to stuff he was posting elsewhere) and your stubborn refusal to admit that you let your mouth be infected by a ZOG microbe in using the historically inaccurate and pejorative slur ‘Islamofascism’... all this leads me to doubt you are up to running a site such as this.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:07 | #

Amalek,

Our mission is to debate with people - even you if it were possible.  We are not here to hand down Truth to the blind masses.  We have too much respect for them.  Anyway, we do not embody one single view.  We, like the commentariat we value so highly, are a plurality.  I know this is difficult for single-meme fanatics to understand.  But that’s how it is.

This, of course, has already been explained to you by myself and others.

Amalek, you are aggressive only to your own detriment.  But I have observed that this is a condition particular to folk who prate about ZOG.  It is rank intolerance.

That said, there is sometimes eloquence to be found among those who diagnose the source of all our ills in Jewry.  It tends to flow from the most intelligent and widely read, such as Wintermute who is a welcome, occasional visitor here.  I can only advise you, since the range of opinion at MR is too broad for your tastes, to labour in the vineyards until you have acquired the same range of knowledge and gifts of expression as he.

Geoff’s decision to journey beyond us, by the way, you know absolutely nothing about.

On the “Islamofascist” issue you were <u>wrong</u>.  Sorry.  Your arguments were false.

I am pleased there has been progress on the Kriss Donald case, and thank you for this information if not for its graceless delivery.  5th October seems to have been the date the three suspects were handed over.  It will be interesting to see whether the trial is reported outside Scotland.  There is some hope that it might to be got from the involvement of Tony Blair and Jack Straw in negotiations with Pakistan.

The UK averages around 850 murders per year, of which some 780 are solved by the police.  Over any two week period there are thirty or so cases before the courts, most of which never make the MSM.  There are, no doubt, several cases you could have picked out to try to embarrass me.  The question is why do you need to do that?  It doesn’t seem psychologically healthy.

I don’t “run” the blog, by the way.  I own it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:35 | #

“To be perfectly objective, of course, the two double-digit scrotes who ice-axed ‘Anthony’ are also victims ... but of the liberal elite that has declared its own people must be racially marxised.  What might these boys’ lives have been like in a healthy white England?  Why have they been deprived of the chance to live those healthy lives?  They have lost a very great deal to the Establishment and its policy of immigration at levels no ordinary English person wanted or wants.”  (—GW, 12/3, 8:07 AM)

I agree with this point—I think it is an excellent one, and well put.  One article I saw said these two whites were no saints, had done burglary, and had plans to do more, plans to burgle a hotel safe or something, I think it said.  Maybe so.  But they weren’t murderers.  Now they are. 

Why are wildly-inappropriate volumes of racially-incompatible peoples being forced—forced— together?  People who hate it don’t violently revolt against it because they’re in the lifelong habit of putting up with all sorts of things forced on them by government which they know deep down are for society’s good and therefore their own, so are in the ingrained habit of giving the government the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, not protesting and resisting every bit of it.  The government benefits from their automatic presumption of good faith on its part in regard to immigration policy, as for all the rest:  they swallow it as much as they can, with its deep and unavoidable disruptions, its outrageous unfairness, its creeping racial transformations of whole cities and towns with all the negative consequences that brings, and so on—they try to adjust to it and, where they can’t, avoid it in little or big ways, flee it, and so on. 

But is government acting in good faith on immigration?  Why was no binding referendum held?  An oversight, maybe?  All right then, why is none held now, on whether to continue along the present path or reverse course?  Why is even asking the questsions I’m asking right now condemned, shouted down, stifled, as impermissible “racism” and criminal “hate”?  Why the necessity for the racial transformation?  If it’s all so good, why the force? 

Why in God’s name is all this racial forcing necessary?  Why is no one explaining the need to us, making the other side’s case for its necessity, proving the absence of any alternative so at least we can see it’s all for a reason we approve of?  Why is it all a big, behind-closed-doors secret we’re not allowed to know about?  Why all the mountains of apparatus erected by all the usual suspects in and out of government to shove it down their throats, “no questions permitted, just learn to love it”? 

In this tragedy of the young Negro killed and the two young whites who killed him there is an unnamed third party, a culprit, an instigator, an accessory to the crime, who has not been brought to book and won’t be, because he’s getting off scot-free even though he was intrumental in bringing the killing about—even though in a sense the whole ghastly thing can be laid at his feet.  His name is government and its insane, immoral, outrageous, unacceptable incompatible immigration policy and his name is the forces who are pushing that policy behind the scenes.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:32 | #

I don’t know how you can say that Amalek was wrong on “Islamofascism”. It is a neo-con term of abuse, even according to you source:

“Long before September 11 2001, Duran was commissioned by the American Jewish Committee to produce one side of an interfaith project. Duran responded to attacks on his book, Children of Abraham, by deriding those who sought “to impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry”. In that sense, he said, extreme islamism is “islamofascism.”

The American Jewish Committee knew very well what kind of document the house Muslim was going to produce. They would only give this project to someone they trusted. At any rate, the folks who popularized it are all neo-cons in good standing. Additionally, it’s a meaningless and inappropriate term of abuse when applied to Wahhabi puritans.

Posted by Amalek on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:53 | #

Friedrich—Guessedworker can avow ex cathedra that I was “wrong” about ticking him off for sloppily employing a ZOG-ism because he owns the site, you see. Though apparently he does not ‘run’ it. An absentee landlord—at least, when cock-ups are happening.

My complaint is not that the range of opinion here is ‘too wide for my taste’ but the precise opposite. If he’s so proud of his pluralism, why do so few of the guinea pigs listed as contributors ever contribute, and why does that Aussie blowhard hog the bandwidth with his miscegenation preaching?

If ‘absolutism’ is what prompts the defective comparison of Islamists with Mussolini, why not call them ‘Islamocommunists’ or ‘Islamobolshevists’, since that system was far more totalitarian than Italy’s? Mussolini came to power by a constitutional route, was supported by a huge majority of citizens for most of his rule, and was then removed by constitutional means without lifting a finger to resist. His ‘absolutist’ rhetoric was just that—to disarm workers who might otherwise have been tempted by Soviet communism, which propensity resurfaced after 1943. But fascism had no concentration camps, no serious antisemitism and no hostility to religion.

I fear we can already see Guessedworker turning into a Bill Buckley of the blogosphere. He’d like to purge British conservative patriotism of all its ‘distasteful’ elements and make it fit for Daily Telegraph readers. I don’t say he’s an establishment stooge like Buckley, but he’s doing the same kind of work.

Posted by Amalek on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:01 | #

PS: Guessedworker recommends somebody called Wintermute for my edification, but he appears not to have commented here for at least six months. Perhaps his muteness means he feels the same way about Majority Rights!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:35 | #

“I fear we can already see Guessedworker turning into a Bill Buckley of the blogosphere.”  (—Amalek)

We can?  That’s funny—I haven’t seen that ... haven’t seen it at all.

Amalek, I for one haven’t been closely following this discussion about use of the word “Islamofascist” but let’s for the sake of argument say you’re right and it’s somehow an illegitimate word (just for the sake of argument—I’m not conceding it is; it’s a word I myself never use, incidentally, but I haven’t given much thought as to why).  Don’t you think you’re overreacting just a bit to GW’s one-time use of it?  I mean, look at this whole broad blog, the richness of opinion expressed here on so many topics.  You’re going to get hung-up on that one use by GW of that one word??? 

Why not let that detail drop, and “agree to disagree”?  I mean ... long ago I “agreed to disagree” with John Ray on race-replacement and now we get along famously.  For a while there we were at each other’s throats but that’s all just an unpleasant memory now ... (or rather, I was at his throat—he’s way too much of a gentleman to ever be at anyone’s throat).
______

—”<u>All I know is</u> that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell
—Moratorium-plus-<u>Repatriation</u>!
—Balkanization is better than Brazilianization!
—The <u>1965 Immigration-Holocaust Act</u>:  the gift that keeps on giving!
—What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the usual suspects!

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:52 | #

Amalek, it’s odd that you should accuse GW of seeking to purge the conservative movement, when this is one of the least moderated sites around. It is even less moderated than most white nationalist sites.

Part of your complaint seems to be the prominence of John Ray at the site, given his support for foreign immigration. But I think you exaggerate John’s dominance of MR. It’s true that he posts the most, but many of his posts don’t touch on immigration, and the ones that do provoke a lot of counter-argument from the rest of us.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:32 | #

Amalek, it’s simple, post here in a reasonble manner or go and start your own website (its pretty easy to do the basics) if you’re not happy with this one. Thats just my personal opinion btw.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:35 | #

Friedrich,

Thank you for granting the Duran antecedent.  Now I ask you to distinguish the antecedent from its later neocon employment ... to grant that the term was not coined for Jews to use, though it is used by them now.  Quite obviously, the parellel interest between Duran and the AJC in opposing extremism in Islam does not demonstrate that Duran coined the term for the AJC, like a copywriter coins a slogan for an advertiser.  It was Duran’s own term which he coined for his own use: to demonstrate the absolutist nature of his enemy.

That really is the end of the issue since I had said earlier that, although I was well aware that Italian Fascism had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and therefore had some reservations about using the “Islamofascist” term, nonetheless I found it useful in relation to its absolutist inference and in the absence of other, more suitable terms.

Sorry, but the debate does not turn on whether the term has been used by neocons but whether it was employed by me consistent with the facts as I have set them out.  Sheesh, is all this really necessary?

Amalek,

Let me try one more time to save you from yourself.

I perceive there to be two broad castes of mind active in that part of White Nationalism which is singularly anti-Jewry.  You can distinguish them by whether intellect is or is not employed in the service of emotion.

In other words, broadly, anti-Jewry White Nationalism attracts the type of people who primarily think and then might experience a minor emotional response to those thoughts and it attracts people who have deep-seated emotional issues which, essentially, are always on the look-out for something upon which to alight, some opportunity for release.  The JQ is a wonderful opportunity for that, no?

The JQ could, of course, be debated with much greater ease, much more widely and to more profit but for such difficult people.  They are a bane to those striving to communicate the issue sensibly and sensitively to their fellow Euros.

It’s plain to me that you fall plum into this second category.  You are obsessive.  You are very aggressive.  You are bereft of anything positive to contribute.  You are a deadweight on the WN you espouse.  Without your kind, WN would be far more difficult for its enemies to marginalise.  Understand - what they fear isn’t arguments for the survival of Western Man but reasonable and well-received people making them.

In politics, if you want to talk to a man it pays to be like him.  If he looks at you and sees a hate-filled, single-issue ideologue he will despise you and everything you say.

Now, don’t fight any more here just for the sake of fighting.  Learn something from this and become a better political operator.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:54 | #

GW, for the sake of your blog, please refrain from using neo-con cuss words. It doesn’t matter if a bought and paid for “Muslim” Uncle Tom ingnorantly used the term “Islamofascism” to describe Sunni fundamentalists. It soon passed into a neo-con vocabulary to anathematize Muslim foes of Israel. It’s a mental meme, and you should refuse to succomb to it. Now, stop making excuses and cease to think inside neo-con parametres.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:19 | #

The neocon use of Islamofacsim is a typical bit of American distortion because it makes the implied claim that Osama’s lot are different from all other terrorists, other than by currently holding the single-Western-outrage casualty record, which I bet they won’t keep for long. 

There is really no difference in principle between Osama’s lot, the IRA, the Colombian lefties whose name I forget, or any other bunch of ideology-sozzled nutters who think it’s cool to blow up innocent people. Britain has suffered from IRA terrorism since 1973, and has not enjoyed watching slimy US pols fund and support the terrorists.

There IS a global war on terrorism, but it’s probebly unwinnable.  It does NOT consist of invading hapless Middle Eastern countries one after another to try to find the elusive bin Laden. It consist of making sure that nuclear, biological and other weapons that could kill serious numbers of people are kept out of the hands of nutters, and that lunatics that commit or assist in commiting these acts of mass murder are given the most unpleasant and deterrent punishment possible.  Presonally I would favor the return of hanging drawing and quartering, which these primitives (including ethnically European primitives such as the IRA) would understand.  Of course that would contravene the European Declaration of Human Rights, yet another excellent reason for Britain to leave the EU.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:18 | #

My God, Friedrich, if you think I’m a prisoner of neocon memes you really are w-a-y to the right!  What is there in my post besides one dubious term - the use of which I have explained (not excused) - that would ever fall from the lips of a Christopher Hitchins or any of the members of Britain’s newest and ghastliest think-tank, the Henry Jackson Society?

Anyhow, because you are you, and I know you make an effort to post here in a manner you would not necessarily do elswhere, and because you ask so nicely, I consent to your request.  Do me one favour, though.  Come up with a functioning alternative without the chosen association, so I can switch without a Hitch, so to speak.

Cheers.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:56 | #

Anyhow, because you are you, and I know you make an effort to post here in a manner you would not necessarily do elswhere, and because you ask so nicely, I consent to your request.

Thank you.

Posted by Amalek on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:32 | #

Guessedworker: You’ve just given yourself away again. ‘Hate-filled’ is another example of the verbal pollution of the enemy.

How do you know I’m ‘obsessive’ about anything? On the sttrength of three, count em, three comments largely comprising detailed explanations why ‘Islamofascism’ is an historically invalid and deceitful term?

How do you know what I ‘espouse’?  This patronising cod psychoanlysis is yet another example of how you have been corrupted by the ad-hominem methods of those you profess to oppose. Like so many conductors of websites, you’ve let this one become a little sewing circle of chums and don’t like gatecrashers, so you imagine somebody fixated on the ‘JQ’ and ‘WN’. (I had to look up both abbreviations to discover what is making me so ‘hateful’ that I have to be saved from myself.)

“In politics, if you want to talk to a man it pays to be like him.”

No, it pays to make him sit up and say ‘My word, I never realised I was being brainwashed and bamboozled till you came along and pointed out that well-meaning folks can be infiltrated linguistically by their enemies.” But Friedrich Braun and the others have made my case for me: verbal precision is important.

That said, I think Matt Nuenke’s post above is spot on. More of that kind of ev-psych-based matterial and less of you know who, if you please. Andf where’s Sean Gabb, apart from the masthead?

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:34 | #

Amalek

Dr Ray may well suffer from logorrhea although there is no evidence thereof. That he suffers from ‘cacoethes scribendi’ is self-evident and I am glad that this is so.