Posted by colm on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:49 | #

the GNXP guy recently did a Bloggingheads.tv diavlog with David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist who is a proponent of group selection (also referred to as multilevel selection). David Sloan Wilson has defended Kevin MacDonald in the past, and even discussed MacDonald?s work in his own book Darwin?s Cathedral.

they discuss MacDonald in this segment: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24339?in=38:21&out=47:19

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:45 | #

Razib says in that clip that when commenters at his blog try to cite Kevin MacDonald’s work he doesn’t let the comments through.  Hardly open-minded or fair.  Also hardly open-minded or fair is Razib’s repeatedly insinuating in the clip that MacDonald is narrow-minded or bigoted because he’s a “white gentile.”  What does Razib think motivates 99% of Jewish race-deniers, or 99% of Subcons who support forced race-replacement like his blogging partner Godless Capitalist?  In that clip Razib struck me as shallow, narrow-minded, prejudiced, and unfair.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:47 | #

(Oops!  Sorry for straying so far off-topic!)

Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:46 | #

What is Mr Barnes definition of Britishness?

What separates UKIP from BNP as they both claim to represent traditional British values and oppose the EU and immigration into Britain?

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:33 | #

Questions for Lee Barnes:

1.) If you are not a spokesman for the BNP, why do you act like one on the internet?
2.) Why do you misrepresent the BNP’s position on various issues?
3.) Do you enjoy creating controversy and confusion?

Posted by axeman on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:32 | #

Looking forward to this one.

Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:54 | #

Will the BNP put up candidates in EVERY constituency come next General Election?
At the last election I was extremely disappointed that there was no BNP candidate to vote for.
If it’s a choice between no BNP candidate and all the rest I will simply refrain from voting at the next election.
Fuck them all.I couldn’t give a shit about ‘how many people died for my vote’ or any other sanctimonious bullshit - I will refuse to get off my arse and walk the 100 yards to the nearest polling station.
Apart from the BNP all the rest are not worth a fart.
Mr. Barnes, I live in inner London - prime territory for BNP support.Last General election, the BNP weren’t even arsed to put up a candidate for me (and thousands of others) to vote for.
- What the Hell’s going on?.

Posted by john on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:59 | #

Are we going to counter attack the fascists at the “equalities” quango, and what will the costs/benfits be is we do?
When will membership applications be accepted again?
What percentage of members are active?

Posted by Veritas on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:23 | #

Razib is laughably effeminate.  And he is a liar.  And still very politically correct.

A tool of the anti-White system one could say.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:30 | #

I’d like you ask Lee Barnes whether he feels (or maybe knows) whether the ‘1948’ clause will be preserved in the amended BNP Constitution that will be presented to the membership for its approval.

If not already clear, what I am referring to is Para 1.2(b) in the most recent (August 2009) edition:

SECTION 1: POLITICAL OBJECTIVES

...

2. The political objectives of the party are set out in the following Statement of Principles:-

...

(b) The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white make up of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

As a minor supplementary, does he know when the membership vote on the new Constitution is likely to take place?

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:17 | #

I thought this was pretty cute:

Equality quango staff rebel over BNP ‘sting’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6945883.ece

Another source added: “They were instructed to get ethnic minorities to join the BNP. Once their membership was refused, they should persuade them to complain against the BNP and ask the commission to take legal action. This was clearly an example of deliberate entrapment.”

Pikers.  If you want something done right, do it yourself.  They should get whites to join the BNP and take over positions with authority over party membership.  Then they should send their non-white agents provocateur to be refused membership by their white agents provocateur, and then their lawyers can sue.  A perfect plan, with none of those actual pesky genuine BNP members to get in the way.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:19 | #

Btw, this scenario sounds like a perfect legal defense against the very concept of holding an entire group responsible for the actions of any given member.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:41 | #

What is Mr Barnes definition of Britishness?

### Britishness spans from art, culture, architecture, culture, ethnicity etc etc from stonehenge to st.pauls cathedral. It is a connection to the British past and our ancestors, loyal to our people and nation of today and respect and love for future generations. It is environmentalism, the British constitution and the legends and myths of Britain that resonate in the soul. It is nexus that binds us to each other and our people. It is the spirit of our folk soul which we all share.   

What separates UKIP from BNP as they both claim to represent traditional British values and oppose the EU and immigration into Britain?

The BNP are a political party and a social movement - UKIP are simply a one issue pressure group.

Mr. Barnes, I live in inner London - prime territory for BNP support.Last General election, the BNP weren’t even arsed to put up a candidate for me (and thousands of others) to vote for.

### I believe the thinking is along the lines of ‘if we cannot win as there are not enough white people left to win a majority vote in an area, then why waste money and lose our deposit’. I have asked many times that in areas where we cannot win a democratic vote as we are a minority in that area, we must organise a BNP social movement to act as the consolidating and unifying social force for our white community eg day outs fro the kids, parties, barbecues etc and form a social network to support our people.

I’d like you ask Lee Barnes whether he feels (or maybe knows) whether the ‘1948’ clause will be preserved in the amended BNP Constitution that will be presented to the membership for its approval.

## I believe that clause will stay as it is but I dont know when the revised constitutional amendment will be introduced to the membership.

Are we going to counter attack the fascists at the “equalities” quango, and what will the costs/benfits be is we do?

### Never reveal your plans where the enemy may chance upon them. That sort of stuff has to remain hush hush.

When will membership applications be accepted again?

### No idea.

What percentage of members are active? 

## No idea.

1.) If you are not a spokesman for the BNP, why do you act like one on the internet?

I dont, I support the BNP. When I am asked to speak for the BNP I do, but whats on the internet is my opinion - not BNP policy.

2.) Why do you misrepresent the BNP’s position on various issues?

I dont. I express my opinion and that is what I push when I am asked what policy the BNP should have

3.) Do you enjoy creating controversy and confusion?

Politically we are fighting a guerilla war against a far superior enemy, therefore in politics as in war, as Clausewitz stated, we must act as if we are under attack - and that means smoke and mirrors are required.

Controversy and confusion are essential in order to obtain victory.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:45 | #

Controversy and confusion are essential in order to obtain victory.

Assuming that is correct, Nick Griffin does not agree that just any controversy and any confusion are conducive to “victory” (gaining political power via election as you define it).  Otherwise, why did Griffin deep-six the JQ?  He did it precisely because he believed that particular controversy is a death sentence to popular support.  In other words, it is his belief that there is such a thing as shooting oneself in the foot.  Advocacy of genetic engineering could similarly take with it a few toes. 

“Oh, I see, you want to engineer a master race.  Filthy Nazis!”

Or:

“What’s the point of preserving our people if we are to genetically engineer another anyway?  Back to the soccer match.”

See what I mean?  Perhaps that party favor is best left in the cupboard.

Posted by Angry Beard on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:31 | #

In the last Euro-election the Labour vote effectively collapsed, as core Labour voters (ie the White working-class whom they’ve arse-raped) mostly abstained or voted UKIP or BNP.
Most can never bring themselves to vote Tory, yet they realise exactly what’s goingon and have a huge urge to punish the government - and a sense of disillusion with politics in general.
I know that losing deposits is a very, very expensive business - but although the BNP won’t win anything it would make a good display of public anger (and the lefties would do their bollocks), and would also help to collapse the Labour vote, putting them out of power for a generation - they deserve a condign punishment for their insane immigration policy.

Posted by lee john barnes on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:46 | #

Otherwise, why did Griffin deep-six the JQ?  He did it precisely because he believed that particular controversy is a death sentence to popular support.  In other words, it is his belief that there is such a thing as shooting oneself in the foot. 

###

He dumped it because it was rubbish. The issue was never just about Jews, it was about Zionism which is both a Christian, Jewish, atheist, economic and political issue - not a racial issue.

Those that have spent so long hating Jews for their intelligence, ethno-communalism and social power did so because they were too stupid to realise that we should have been COPYING the Jewish community example and not attacking it.

They are and were smarter than us, therefore we should have copied them not abused them for being smarter than us.

Talent creates, genius steals.

Genius would have recognised that we should have copied what they did.

Advocacy of genetic engineering could similarly take with it a few toes.

##

The future of medicine is genetic engineering eg gene therapies.

The future of agriculture is genetic engineering eg GM crops.

The future of bio-fuels is genetic engineering.

The danger from bio-weapons that are genetically engineered is already exposed.

The genie is out of the box.

We didnt let it out, scientists did.

We have to debate it.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:27 | #

He dumped it because it was rubbish.

I have a hard time believing that, most likely he did it as a political expedient.

The issue was never just about Jews, it was about Zionism which is both a Christian, Jewish, atheist, economic and political issue - not a racial issue.

There is so much wrong with this statement I hardly know where to begin. 

1.) Zionism is an ideology of Jewish nationalism…so, of course we can expect Jews to be at the center of activities associated with that. 

2.)  If there were no Jews advocating for Zionism it is wholly reasonable to assume there would be hardly any others doing so; after all, it is the Jews’ nationalism.

3.)  Gentile advocacy for Zionism did not come into its own until Jews themselves paved the way.

4.)  It is Jewish money and media power which mythologizes Zionism for the gullible, buys the support of the venal, and crushes the potential opposition of those lacking above average courage.

5.)  Zionism is a racial issue.  It is support for the state of Israel to exist as a specifically ethnically Jewish homeland.

6.)  Criticism of Zionism is used as a proxy for criticism of Jews per se by the racialist Right.  That is precisely how you use it, we both know that.  To say otherwise is to say that the deleterious effects Jewry has had on Western host societies is a product of their Zionism, and not something of the essence to Jewry (i.e., that their tendency to subversion is genetic/racial).  If that were true, wouldn’t it be best for them, and for all of humanity, to put a stop to Zionism, that is, put a stop to Israel.  Do you support putting a stop to Israel?  Thought not.

7.)  Jewry has an interest in maximizing their interests.  To wit:  they will never cease in doing all that they can to secure power both in Diaspora and in Israel. 

8.)  It is laughable to assume that Jews would not have lobbied ceaselessly to open our borders and worked tirelessly to pathologize our peoplehood sans Israel/Zionism.  Why?  See point #7 above.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:57 | #

They are and were smarter than us, therefore we should have copied them not abused them for being smarter than us.

Jews have a higher group average IQ than do Europeans, but, in terms of absolute numbers of high IQ individuals our numbers dwarf theirs.  The vastly disproportionate influence of Jews per their numbers can only be explained by group cohesion and ethnic nepotism.  It is precisely the way in which Jews utilize that influence which is the crux of the matter, that is, to the detriment of our group.  Even leaving aside the fundamental hypocrisy that Jews bid us think and act as individuals whilst they go at it collectively, there is still the problem of Jews occupying positions of influence from which they perennially bludgeon us.  No real group cohesion and cultural health can come until Jews are either removed from those positions of influence, or they cease to utilize them to injure us.  Which do you suppose is most likely to happen first?  Europeans are too individualist to manifest anything approaching the level of Jewish group cohesion sans state intervention as in the case of National Socialist Germany; and so long as Jews occupy those positions of power - and use them to thwart our attempts at actualizing our group cohesion - those positions of influence are not available to us for our purposes.