The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 4

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 01:51.

This was to have been the final part of my investigation into The Rotherham Syndrome.  But I have received a further email from my correspondent Steve S, whose original mail precipitated this series, in which he writes:

I guess I will start with the House of Lords and go from there. To me the House of Lords is the Upper House where political oscillations should be modulated so as to protect the British people from bad public policy. In looking at Wikipedia it shows that the current body has 26 Spiritual Peers and many Life Peers and Hereditary Peers. So the Anglican Church leaders and the permanent members are not subject to the whims of the mass media and do not have to worry about re-election. They can act in the long term interests of their districts and the UK

In all parts of the UK these leaders are in touch with their local citizens and their issues and since they are there for life, they themselves, have to live with their decisions. And similar motivations for the Queen and her family. They are the British Nobility. They have resources, they are generally intelligent, well schooled, well travelled, and well connected to academia, business, government, military, etc. And yet something has caused them to throw open the doors to populations that are the most incongruous with the British population, British culture, British civility. Which was the highest in the world in the pre-war days.

… But something has gripped the leadership of the UK and Western Civilization.

I think that’s a pretty valid observation on the mysterious, ubiquitous phenomenon of Establishment treachery.  So in this fourth but no longer final part of my essay, I will investigate how the old Establishment class - the elites of the old courtiers, the new industries, and Empire – lost its political foothold.  It will now be the fifth - and final - part in which I will focus, finally, on today’s controlling class of thousands of men and women who attach no human value, indeed, scarcely any meaning at all to children of our people simply because they are white victims of Asian Moslem sexual criminals.

It is worth noting in passing that although the context here is British, the latter’s monopoly of control, the common purpose, the hermetic networking, the focus on “modernising” everything via a near-religious progressive obsession, the unnatural preoccupation with racism, the total absence of empathy for kind, and the easy resort to race-treachery are common to political and liberal Establishments and the official mind throughout the West.  Rotherham is only an extreme example of how absolute their thinking can be and just how far they are prepared to go to defend their racial proposition.  I hope non-British readers will indulge me, therefore, in the following (brief) history of British elitism.

Today’s Establishment is an historically unique and most recent development.  It finally flowered managerially and ideologically with the election of New Labour to office in 1997.  But let us not forget that for the best part of three centuries the Establishment in Britain was a very different quantity.  Certainly, from Waterloo to 1914, its elites were unassailed anywhere in terms of power, wealth, sheer confidence and security.  They can be profitably presented in a tri-partite form, the oldest element of which was the landed aristocracy, whose power was expressed and maintained largely through the House of Lords but also through the Whig Party.  Then there were the commercial and financial elites of London, including the Jewish banking dynasties.  Their ties to the Tory and Whig/Liberal parties in the Commons and in government (principally the former) provided for the pursuit of their interests.  To a degree, these two groups represented wholly different and conflicting interests: those of the land and tradition, continuity, paternalism and a somewhat self-serving connectedness to the safely uneducated, rustic labourer; and those of the town and modernity, of expansiveness, of the merchant class, of profit, therefore, and of the revolution of the machine.  This was the real division in the politics of the age and, to no small extent, it mirrored the divisions of the American Civil War.

The third element was the new elites of the northern and midland industrial regions – often self-made men who, though as wealthy as the others, possessed no collective instrument of power.  Many, though, exercised individual patronage of the Whigs, which might only have been the usual story of new money craving old.

There was much overlap between the first two elements, and perhaps they should be understood not as opposing interests but rather as a conclave of aristocratic and upper-middle class men educated at the best public (ie, private) schools and the top universities, who went on to people the Tory and Whig parties they themselves had fashioned, who created the Civil Service, the City of London and the military and industrial might of Britain, and who governed the largest empire of dominions, colonies, protectorates, and mandates the world had ever seen, and thereby owned the international trade of 450 million people.  They were not just pre-eminent in Britain.  They were the global elite.  And like all elites they were not Platonic philosopher kings but parasites.  Ultimately, they were loyal only to their own dictates as individuals and as a class.

To understand their vertiginous descent and the condition of their successors in Britain today we must first examine the existential crisis of this elite, which began to emerge in concrete terms, in my view, sometime after the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940 and before the final victory in North Africa at Tunis on 12th May 1943.

The signs were there much earlier, of course.  The Great War, the disintegration of the Liberal Party and the political rise of the working man, and the Great Depression had been hammer blows.  But they might have been survivable with some Disraelian political nuance and a sufficient period of peace and stability.  Instead, it was all too plain from the German re-militarisation of the Rhineland on 7th March 1936 that another war with Germany, and another hammer blow, was coming.  The long process of rearmament began that same year, hand-in-hand with a diplomatic effort to find a peaceful way forward or, at least, to buy time.  In the course of that, the British and French Governments humiliated themselves at Munich on 30th September 1938, ceding to Hitler the newly-named Sudetanlands.  Then, less than six months later, they sat on their hands, whistling innocently, as he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia.  The focus switched to Poland.  All classes of British society now knew with sickening clarity what lay ahead.  HG Wells’s famous aphorism from 1914 – “the war to end all wars” – quickly developed into a term of disparagement, and a blackly ironic commentary upon the sacrifice in the trenches.

By 27th April 1939, when Military Service was re-introduced, initially for single men of 20 to 22 years old, there must already have been a terrible weight of failure and foreboding across the political class.  It will only have been compounded by the knowledge that in the preceding decade most of the country had endured an economic depression that was little touched by the upturn in the south after 1932.  There was a genuine sense of social ferment given political voice by the Labour Party (the great part of which had stayed out of the national governments of the thirties) and the Trades Union Council.  Chamberlain’s National Government bowed to it by curtailing excess working hours under the Factory Act and by much slum clearance.  But it all only confirmed the justice of the working man’s cause - the economic and social system had failed him comprehensively.  He had little cause to defend it.  And yet, that was implicit in what the politicians had to ask him to do when war was declared on 3rd September 1939.

The comprehensive defeat of the BEF in France was written over in the public mind by the Miracle of Dunkirk from 27th May and 4th June 1940, and by victory in the air in September of that year.  These defensive triumphs were the last hurrahs for the old values.  The leading lights of the Labour Party were now inside Churchill’s National Government, not only pushing at departmental level in every way possible to defeat Germany but taking political advantage of their new positions.  The moment, after all, was ripe.  This was to be the people’s war.  It did not only claim the lives of fighting men on the front-line.  Some thirty thousand civilian lives were lost in the The Blitz – the night-bombing of British cities which the Luftwaffe inaugurated on 7th September, 1941 – before the Air Ministry finally ordered its own night offensive (ie, area bombing) on, ironically, Valentine’s Day 1942.  The young men who climbed aboard the Wimpeys, Stirlings, Halibags, and Lancs were not at all the educated, middle-class, latter-day knights of 1940 who had hurled their Spits and Hurricanes into battle over southern England.  They were the sons of Everyman, and they took terrible casualties.  Through the worst of it over Berlin and the Ruhr in 1943 their odds of surviving a tour were less than 50/50.  And the costs of war, of course, were borne in treasure as well as life.  The people were suffering a huge material privation for the war-cause – far more than Hitler ever felt able to demand from his people.  Britain expended more of her national wealth during those six years than any other combatant (and after the war she would receive the least favourable treatment from a US president determined to break British imperial power).

The first concrete sign of a new and, for the Establishment, ominous political consensus came early with the announcement by Arthur Greenwood, the Labour MP and Minister without Portfolio, on 10th June 1941 of an inter-departmental committee which would carry out a survey of Britain’s social insurance and allied services.  The result was the momentous Beveridge Report, published on 2nd December 1942.  It identified not just poverty but five “Giant Evils” in British society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, disease.  None of these could be tolerated in the modern age.  All of them indicted the years of Establishment disinterest and inaction.  Their eradication could be delivered only through a far-reaching and radical process of welfare reform: care “from the cradle to the grave”.

Among the people this idea proved to be hugely and immediately welcome.  The political impetus was already irresistible.  It signalled the coming of the end of the old social and economic dispensation.  About this the report’s author William Beveridge, an economist, had been perfectly explicit:

Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.

The revolution commenced quietly with the reform of the most democratising force in society: education.  In June 1943 the Conservative Minister Rab Butler, the father of “new conservatism”, published his white paper titled “Educational Reconstruction”.  It began with a quotation from Disraeli:

Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.

Five months later a bill was introduced to the House.  At its second reading on 19th January 1944, Butler expressed in simple and unassuming language the spirit of the new consensus:

This is the first of the Government Measures of social reform. Let us hope that our work together for the next few weeks, and more perhaps, will carry into the years of victory the thirst for service and advancement, as well as the common sharing of experience and opportunity which we have at present.

These mild, emollient words masked a stark truth: the consensus had put an end not just to the old social and economic structure or even to the presumption for the elites’ “rightful” place in government.  The very idea of class and deference was being questioned no less critically, if less dramatically, than in pre-revolutionary Russia.  All down the years from the mid-18th century to the collapse of the Liberal Party, reform had been a debate within the elite’s ranks.  Literally by entitlement, access to and possession of social and economic power remained securely in their keeping.  Class distinctions were not only marked by the contours of wealth and manners but, incontestably, by breeding, education and Weltanschauung … by palpable human quality, so seeming.  But this second German war within a generation, and the popular will to change which its sufferings engendered among the British people, had hollowed out the elites as a political entity with something to say about the future.  All that remained to them now was to seek to ameliorate the worst of socialism while mimicking the Labour Party so as to appear friendly towards ordinary working folk and, more importantly, voters.

On 5th July 1945, two months after VE Day and two months before VJ Day, the ordinary working voters delivered Winston Churchill’s Conservatives a sharp slap in the face with the election of Clement Atlee’s Labour Party to office.  It was quite unexpected by the Establishment itself, which assumed that the electorate would reward Churchill for guiding the nation to victory.  It was also an emphatic electoral message.  Labour bagged 47.7% of the vote and a majority of 145 seats – the first working majority the party had won.  The way was open to profound and, for the elites, profoundly disquieting social change, taking forwards Beveridge’s agenda in every area.  It was an historic moment.  The great massifying ideas of the modern age - liberalism, socialism, democracy, and modernism itself – had worked themselves out in the crucible of war, and revealed the old Establishment to be impermanent after all; less a bulwark of past values and more an agent of change itself than it could ever have foreseen or would want to admit.

Labour had campaigned for its victory under the slogan “Let us face the future”.  The future for the elites darkened immeasurably in 1947 with the loss of India, which was the keystone of the whole colonial structure.  For example, control of East Africa had been predicated on protecting the sea route to India following the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869.  That no longer mattered.  But walk away from East Africa and how do you justify staying on in the south?

A suitably Platonic-sounding justification for continued colonisation was found in re-defining it as a facilitator of independence.  Native societies would be developed, indigenous elites educated and enlightened so that self-rule, civil order, and a place among the family of happy and productive sovereign nations of the world would become possible.  It was utterly self-serving, of course.  It was designed to stave off untimely and disorderly exits in the face of native resistance, and to protect commercial interests from local “big men” who were not educated in the British way of doing things.  But it did not hide the truth that decolonialism was taking away the last of the elites’ political raisons d’etre.  Over a period of less that two decades they had been transformed into a political anachronism by the rising consciousness of the people, expressed as the socialism of the left at home and as nationalism abroad.

The most notable and fateful example of the latter was the Pan-Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt.  The Suez Crisis of 1956 marked the end of the role of both Britain and France as international powers.  Within three months of completing the ignominious withdrawal from Egypt, Charles de Gaulle was signing the Treaty of Rome to establish the European Economic Community.  The French political class had new vistas of self-realisation stretching before it.  But British politicians were on the outside, and had only a dying Empire and the disparate and purposeless Commonwealth which was taking its place.  The emphasis was heavily on the dying.  On 3rd February 1960, the Conservative Prime Minster Harold Macmillan made his famous speech in Cape Town, declaring:

The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.

Another political fact was that Britan could not find a new future in the EEC without the consent of all six existing members, and one of them - de Gaulle – was not going to have it.  In January 1963 he blocked the British application to join (which he would do again four years later).  Desolated, Macmillan wrote in his diary “all our policies at home and abroad are in ruins”.  The following year Macmillan was gone in the wake of the Profumo Affair, which let slip the mask of the governing class as dull and worthy servants of the public good and guardians of social propriety, and suggested a deep, abusive vice at the heart of power.

Mortified, Conservative MPs stepped backwards and selected as leader and Prime Minister a run-of-the-mansion, little-known aristocrat from the Scottish lowlands who had first entered parliament in 1931 and was now an hereditary peer.  His name was Alec Douglas-Home (pronounced “Hume”), The Lord Home of The Hirsel, no less.  He looked like a cadaver and betrayed a distinct rigour mortis in his public demeanour.  He lasted two days short of a year.  The Labour Party under Harold Wilson won a narrow victory in the 1964 election.  The sixties were truly here, unbuttoned and on the razzle.  The world of the old elites was finally consigned to the past.

But anachronistic or not, parasitic or not, they had served some social use during their time, lending structure, order, stability to society and continuity to government in the long, extraordinary and dynamic age of British Empire.  Now there was a vacuum.  This would be an age of social, intellectual, and political tumult … shallow self-interest and shallower self-expression ... the pill and sudden sexual freedom ... disastrous socially liberal reforms ... coarse social critique and coarser draughtsmanship in the arts ... internationalism and brutalism in architecture ... industrial decay wrought by weak government, weak business leadership and bloody-minded union militancy ... the cult of youth, pop culture, counter-culture, drug culture, the flight into eastern mysticism ... anti-authoritarianism among the young, reaction to the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation, reaction to Vietnam, interminable student sit-ins and demos ... support on campus for terrorism in Northern Ireland and Palestine … support for anything that outraged normal sensibility.  Radical egalitarian ideas coursed through the university left, infecting a generation with the sense that everything was rotten and had to be swept away.  Moral norms, natural interests and imperatives, loyalties, beliefs were declared “oppressive” or “reactionary” or just “middle-class”.  Change was the only value, destruction the only joy, the new the only virtue.  The most rampant and pathological elements cried not just “smash capitalism” but “smash the family”, and nobody thought they could possibly mean it or would ever be able to do it.

It was, really, a mad scramble for a vacant crown.  As with the tumult of pre-revolutionary Russia in 1917, when several possible paths to the future presented themselves, it was the worst possible ideological elements who would triumph.



Posted by YKW and Objectivists on Wed, 22 Apr 2015 03:40 | #

...“it was the worst possible ideological elements who would triumph”:

1. Prescriptions of internationalist liberalism by plutocrats headed by Jewish interests and plutocrats whose objectivism was indifferent to the relative interests of race and species thereof.

2. Cultural Marxism which was/is a unionionization of any peoples who want to rupture union of native White interests, in particular by liberalizing what would otherwise be the boundaries and borders of that union.

Lets not get lost in blaming young White men for what organized Jewry, such as the SDS did in co-opting Viet Nam protest as a political venue, as it is White men they want to blame entirely, particularly those who could not immunize themselves from expendablity and had/have motive to be loyal to a nation which is in turn loyal to their interests. Nor should we allow the YKW to take their nascent and inarticulate protest to be included in native social unionization and associate it with liberalism so pervasive as to do away with native national citizenship and boundaries/borders.

No, the answer is in nationalism proper, in which “class” is the same as the whole bounded nation, unionized by citizenship of historic native peoples; and qualitative “niche” takes the place of class, position determined by qualitative merit, stable but accountable to the systemic human ecology. Indeed this requires “elite”, viz., those in positions sensitive to cybernetic governance (or otherwise runaway) of the system, to be uncorrupted by YKW and without objectivist blindness to indebtedness to historical/social capital of native human ecology.


Posted by Friends of Greville Jenner on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:03 | #

Friends of Greville Janner

April 23, 2015 — Francis Carr Begbie

With the clamour of protest over the decision not to prosecute one of Britain’s most senior Jewish politicians over child rape allegations showing no sign of abating, it is worthwhile looking back at the career of the man at the centre.

Even without these lurid claims, Greville Janner must rank as one of the most unpopular specimens to ooze his way onto Parliament’s famous green benches.

With his pink carnation, clammy handshake and faint after burn of eau-de-cologne, his grinning approach was guaranteed to send a shiver down the spines of the toughest parliamentarians, even in his own Labour Party.

Nevertheless, this ingratiating, limp-wristed flatterer has prospered over the decades of his slithering along the corridors of power, not least due to his astute playing of the Jewish ethnic card.

His modus operandi was as a backroom operator, a Mr Fixit, a dispenser of favours and passer-on of messages. He was one of those types who would insist on doing someone a favour whether it was wanted or not. In his autobiography he says it was his mother who taught him his most important political lesson — there are few problems that could not be solved with a quiet word in the right ear.

Indeed, his own political career was launched by a backroom deal. The lifelong Londoner effectively inherited his Midlands constituency from his father after a dubious, secretive process which infuriated many local Labour Party members.

When it came to weaselling himself into the favour of a powerful figures, he displayed a sublime talent. A favoured tactic was to lobby some prominent figure for recognition for another one, especially in the Jewish community.  Here, he lobbies the Archbishop of Canterbury for an honour for the Chief Rabbi. There, he buttonholes a passing government minister and suggests an honour for a Jewish businessman.

From the beginning of his career a number of distinct themes have dominated his working life. One of the least savoury as it turns out was his close interest in the welfare of young boys who fall into the care system, and to that end he is a longstanding member of the Boy Scouts Association.

But the main one is his overriding commitment to the Jewish people.  That has been his main priority and he claims it stems from his experience as Britain’s youngest war crime investigator when he was in Germany just after the war.

As far as his own constituency of Leicester West was concerned, Janner was clearly more concerned about the welfare of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent than he was about the native White community or, as he puts it in his book, the “battle against racism and anti-Semitism is at the core of my life’s work”.

From the moment he was elected in 1970, Janner set about making himself indispensible to the fast-growing Indian community. At the time Britain was in the middle of a refugee crisis when Ugandan dictator Idi Amin threw all the Indian immigrants out of his country.

Under Britain’s Commonwealth and Nationality laws, a disastrous overhang from the days of Empire, these Indians were technically British subjects and entitled to come and stay in Britain. The laws had been drawn up as an administrative convenience and it had never been envisaged that Indians would ever leave their own country.  But in the sixties they began arriving in Britain in vast numbers. Many converged on Leicester to the alarm of the town’s native White population.

Leicester soon became the scene of racial discord and Whites took to the streets to vent their anger at being swamped by a foreign influx they had never been consulted about.  Labour Party voters deserted for the assertive new nationalist party, the National Front.

For Janner this was an opportunity to show where his loyalties — such as they were — really lay.  In his memoir he recalls inviting the Indian community to a meeting and telling them he stood “shoulder to shoulder” with them against the native White opposition.

“I am a Jew and half my family were destroyed by racists. I am an expert in discrimination.”  Said the privately-educated, Oxford and Harvard graduate who had inherited his father’s parliamentary seat.

In a breathtaking passage aimed directly at the White people he was paid to represent, he describes a conversation with a non-Asian school head teacher.  He claims that the unnamed head teacher said “They have raised the intelligence in my school.”  The sheer contempt for the native White population in that remark is unmistakable.

Gleefully, he remembered how he dismissed the objections of the native Whites. He writes “I was determined to battle against some of my indigenous constituents dislike of the unlike…”  And enthusiastically he took up the fight against his own White constituents.

In 1971 Leicester council placed an advert in Kampala newspapers saying Leicester was full but this did nothing to stem the immigration flow. Janner recalls:  “The Leicester Mercury and the local police were my allies in keeping the local National Front and the fascists at bay. In local elections in 1977 the National Front only missed gaining a seat in one of my housing estates by a few votes. ‘Enough’ I said to my Labour colleagues. We recognised that the estate was almost entirely white. They were afraid of people they had never met. The National Front seemed their natural ally. We must expose them. “ he recalled.

His access to a Jewish network of contacts and big money proved crucial, and it is here he reveals an episode of extremely dubious legality. “I consulted the (Jewish) Board of Deputies. They had recently produced a wonderful pamphlet with the bold slogan on the front. ‘The National Front’ is a Nazi front’. We put one into every letter box on the estate. The local fascists cringed and never received the same level of votes again.” In fact a police prosecution of far-left activists did take place for circulating literature in contravention of election laws.

One of the NF candidates threatened to sue for libel, with the result that Janner took a Jewish high street retail millionaire called Stanley Kalms up to Leicester for a visit. Janner claims in his book that Kalms promised to underwrite any court action. Lord Kalms was later to become a huge contributor to the Conservative Party — a good example of how common Jewish interests override trifling party considerations.

With Janner’s support, the Indian surge continued and by 1976 around 40,000 Asians from India and Pakistan had flooded into Leicester and comprised about 20% of the population. Janner freely admits he came to depend on the Indian community for his election majorities. National Front council votes were as high as 30% in local elections.

Janner repaid Stanley Kalms’ support by lobbying furiously for him to receive first a knighthood and then a peerage. This finally paid off in 2004 when Kalms entered the House of Lords as Baron Kalms of Edgeware, better known as Lord Kalms.

As is so often the case with Jewish politicians, the diversity Janner was so keen to impose on his constituents did not extend to his own circle or even his private office. From his numerous business partners to the researchers he used throughout his parliamentary career, he seems to have hired or worked with only other Jews and used gentiles solely for admin and other menial roles.

It has been frequently pointed out in TOO that the Jewish community is forgiving of Jews who run afoul of the law. Disgraced Jewish businessmen frequently double-down on their ethnic identity by suddenly developing a deep interest in the cause of Israel and Jewish charities.

Janner has been able to turn this dubious and transparent tactic to great profit. Time and again he has provided his services as a political fig leaf to shady businessmen — for a price, of course.

One was the London casino magnate Cyril Stein who had his gaming licence revoked for disreputable practices in the 1970s when magistrates said he was not a “fit and proper” person. Janner was happy to accept a non-executive seat on the board of Stein’s Ladbrokes betting shop chain which he boasted paid more than his parliamentary salary.

The second involved another millionaire businessman called Gerald Ronson who was jailed for a year for his part in a share-rigging scandal in 1990. Ronson was released from prison to a sumptuous “Welcome Home” party provided by the ever-forgiving Jewish community. It was presided over by the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and there too, ingratiating as ever, was Greville Janner.

Since then Ronson has wormed his way back to respectability of sorts with his chairmanship of the sinister Jewish security organisation, the CST, which is largely an offshoot of the Board of Jewish Deputies.

Janner’s energetic lobbying helped ensure that Ronson’s criminal record did not stop him being made a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in 2012 for his services to Jewish — and other — charities.


Posted by More of Janner's friends on Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:05 | #

Continued from TOO

Another of Janner’s close associates was Stuart Kuttner, a managing editor of the News of the World newspaper when bogus exposes of non-existent racist and neo-nazi plots was something of a staple at the paper. (A former News of the World journalist hack has written about this practice at length).

Other close associates have included the notorious fraudster Robert Maxwell (“Robert Maxwell, aka the Bouncing Czech, demonstrated that you can have a lot of fun in publishing … especially if you are using other people’s money and are not inhibited by ethics or concern about legality”) and Lord Goodman who was a solicitor for former British prime minister Harold Wilson and is said to have prevented many a scandal by threatening newspaper editors.

Janner was also close to other Jewish politicians such as Mrs Thatcher’s former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, now deceased, who has been much in the news of late for his alleged involvement with a paedophile ring.

But it is Janner’s role in the establishment of Britain’s most moneyspinning holocaust charity that is his crowning glory. The Holocaust Education Trust has been rather silent about the debt they owe to Greville Janner, since it became public knowledge that he was a suspected child rapist. As I noted in an earlier article.

  This huge organisation has embarked on one of the largest programmes of social engineering ever seen in Britain. Its main achievement has been in making Holocaust propaganda a central part of the core National Curriculum in England. Now every pupil between 11 and 14 must undergo mandatory Holocaust instruction.  More than half of Britain’s schools now take part in the HET’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme while it has sent about 15,000 pupils to visit Auschwitz itself.

  It directs an ambitious “Outreach” indoctrination programme and claims to have recruited 20,000 “Ambassadors” amongst Britain’s young people to spread the word and diligently ensure that Holocaust enthusiasm does not drop to unacceptable levels.

  The HET has impeccable cross-party political and business Jewish connections, including House of Commons Speaker John Bercow and Lord Browne, formerly the head of British Petroleum.  But getting the Prime Minister to attend its annual appeal dinner and announce not only the latest cash boost [from the government to the tune of £2,400,000 per year] but that he would chair the new Holocaust Commission and visit Auschwitz himself next year, was a real coup.

Nevertheless they could never have cornered such a huge share of the Holocaust market without his connections, access to money or driving ambition. It is the achievement of which he is the most proud.

When not networking, Janner’s main joy in life seemed to be to go on international junkets in which he would never miss an opportunity to oil himself up to local dignitaries.

Jewish causes were always what was closest to his heart, whether it was recovering looted wartime art or arranging for the Jews to leave the Eastern Europe for Israel during the Cold war.

Janner’s love for his people has always helped him overcome his infirmities. Two years ago and four years after his diagnosis of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, he was fit enough to travel to Israel to receive his ultimate accolade from his people — the opening of a kindergarten named after him, in a ceremony attended by the British Ambassador, in Israel.

The naming of the Lord Greville Janner Education Centre in Galilee was a thank you for both his lifelong interest in the welfare of children and commitment to Israel and the Jewish people.

As an indication of how great the public outcry is, eleven leading MPs from seven parties — at least two of them Jewish — have written to The Times asking that the Director of Public Prosecutions reconsider her decision not to prosecute him. They say she risks “damaging public confidence” with her position that the case not go any further.

Life has been good to Greville Janner, due in no small part to his ability for friendship and ethnic fealty.

These are gifts, however, that finally seem to be deserting him.

Share this:

Posted in Featured Articles, Jewish ethnic networking

6 Comments to “The Friends of Greville Janner”

You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed

  April 23, 2015 - 4:33 pm

  When Frank Beck, the Leicester children’s home manager, was convicted and subsequently gaoled for child sexual abuse, he had already revealed in court that Greville Janner was a paedophile. The late Sid Chaney, former National Front Islington branch organiser, wrote directly to Beck in prison to ascertain the facts of Janner’s involvement, to expose the truth and facilitate a prosecution by the authorities. A booklet about Janner was produced to highlight the case, published by either the campaigner, Lady Birdwood, or the revisionist publisher, Anthony Hancock. The above occured some years ago. As a news story it’s media-wide, but the DPP has made the decision not to prosecute. Like Cyril Smith’s police file that disappeared, another high ranking Paedophile of the political Establishment gets away with it!
  April 23, 2015 - 12:19 pm

  “The naming of the Lord Greville Janner Education Centre in Galilee was a thank you for both his lifelong interest in the welfare of children and commitment to Israel and the Jewish people.” I wonder if they’ll keep that name for their school.

  Is it too late to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize? Jews are very talented in public relations or maybe a few newspaper owners could be threatened to change how they report on Lord Janner.
  April 23, 2015 - 12:01 pm

  Excellent essay.

  April 23, 2015 - 10:50 am

  The 105th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England, Justin Welby’s official biography says his father’s family were German Jewish immigrants who moved to England in the late 19th century. Welby met his future wife Caroline at Cambridge. They have two sons and three daughters. Bishop Welby recalls his father’s telling him that he had sailed to New York as a teenager after the 1929 crash, and worked as a bootlegger.

  The Times of Israel’s headline read: “The First Jewish Head of Church of England’.
  April 23, 2015 - 10:32 am

  The jew moral high ground is coming to an end with our betters that run our degenerate society. Damaging public confidence to the friends of GreVILE smell Janner a fish rots from the head down.

  April 23, 2015 - 8:38 am

Just hours ago the poor dementia suffering Janner is reported to be sane enough to transfer his property successfully to his children, thus depriving his child victims effective civil recourse.
It reeks of a fraudulent transfer and a fraudulent disability. It deserves to be reversed. It also highlights the Jewishness of Janner’s soul. He never was British and never could be. His DNA precludes it.


Posted by Debt is the Key on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:55 | #

Japan was already one the world’s richest countries in 1990, and its per capita income has continued to grow, albeit slowly. Its unemployment rate, now 3.6%, has been consistently below European levels. And its “public debt burden” will turn out to be an illusion.

It is the eurozone, not Japan, that should worry us. Tight constraints on fiscal deficits and an absolute prohibition on monetization by the European Central Bank have prevented an effective response to the post-2008 debt overhang, driving the eurozone unemployment rate to 11.2%. The potential social and political consequences of lost decades of slow growth and high unemployment would be far more serious in Europe, with its diverse national identities and imperfectly integrated ethnic and religious minorities, than in culturally and ethnically homogeneous Japan.

While Europe plays with social and political fire, Japan just needs to tweak its accounting entries. A shrug of the shoulders well justified.


Debt really is key to understanding the political economy of our times. May we live in interesting times as they say, especially given what is being considered in Iceland and the likely exit of Greece from the Euro and perhaps the EU

                                                          - Graham


Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 26 Apr 2015 07:21 | #

The moral degeneracy of the wonderfully liberal UK continues on its evil way.

I’m sure liberals will be arguing for paedo’s ‘equality’ and ‘rights’ before the decade is completed. No doubt it will be linked to the sin of all sins ‘racism’ and God forbid ‘discrimination’.

Public hanging would be too good for these slimeballs and their enablers.

And on Janner if he is so far gone cognitively as to be unfit for trial why was he still very active in the Lords (even being appointed to committees) until very recently?

I doubt there is a more morally corrupt nation than the UK within the West right now.


Posted by Ruling The Void on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:01 | #

Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy

by Peter Mair

Chilling account of the end of party democracy, by the leading political scientist

In the long-established democracies of Western Europe, electoral turnouts are in decline, membership is shrinking in the major parties, and those who remain loyal partisans are sapped of enthusiasm. Peter Mair’s new book weighs the impact of these changes, which together show that, after a century of democratic aspiration, electorates are deserting the political arena. Mair examines the alarming parallel development that has seen Europe’s political elites remodel themselves as a homogeneous professional class, withdrawing into state institutions that offer relative stability in a world of fickle voters. Meanwhile, non-democratic agencies and practices proliferate and gain credibility—not least among them the European Union itself, an organization contributing to the depoliticization of the member states and one whose notorious ‘democratic deficit’ reflects the deliberate intentions of its founders.

Ruling the Void offers an authoritative and chilling assessment of the prospects for popular political representation today, not only in the varied democracies of Europe but throughout the developed world.


New Left Review

What, then, is the message of this important book? Going beyond the standard format of comparative politics, Mair looks less at national differences between party systems than at commonalities and shared historical trajectories. The ‘golden age’ of representative democracy is briefly sketched. With the advent of universal suffrage from around the 1900s, the earlier ‘parties of notables’ were supplanted by mass-membership organizations with strong, hierarchical structures, unifying voters on the basis of shared social experiences and collective hopes for what the party would achieve in government. The party’s role was to translate its voters’ interests into public policy, to recruit and promote political leaders capable of exercising executive power and to compete for control of the executive through national elections. The classic mass party, Mair writes, ‘gave voice to the people’, while also ensuring that the institutions of government were accountable. Mair describes the development of mainstream parties from around the mid-1960s towards what the social-democratic political scientist Otto Kirchheimer had described as a ‘catch-all’ model, seeking to scoop up votes far beyond their core constituencies and becoming ‘primarily office-seeking parties, with the desire to occupy government winning priority over any sense of representational integrity’. The next stage, gathering steam from the mid-1980s and 90s, is what Mair and Richard Katz, again following Kirchheimer, have called ‘government by cartel’, characterized by the elimination of effective opposition—the situation that prevails ‘when no meaningful differences divide the party protagonists, however vigorously they may at times compete with one another’.

The last decades of the twentieth century thus witnessed ‘a gradual but also inexorable withdrawal of the parties from the realm of civil society towards the realm of government and the state’. As Mair emphasizes, this ‘withdrawal of the elites’ has been paralleled by citizen disengagement, with steady falls in average turnout, decade by decade, and the ‘passing of popular involvement’ in political life. The process involved a downgrading of ‘the party on the ground’ in favour of ‘the party in parliament’, or in government, as leaders opted—to use another of Mair’s memorable pairs of concepts—for ‘responsibility’ at the expense of ‘responsiveness’. And while parties have drawn farther away from their voters, they have moved closer to each other: ‘What remains is a governing class.’


Review from Telegraph

Europe is slowly strangling the life out of national democracy

Decisions affecting the lives of voters are being taken by bureaucrats and unelected ‘experts’

Every so often one comes across a book, a poem or a work of art that is so original, perfectly crafted, accurate and true that you can’t get it out of your head. You have to read or look at it many times to place it in context and understand what it means.

In the course of two decades as a political reporter my most powerful experience of this kind came when a friend drew my attention to a 20-page article in an obscure academic journal.

Written by the political scientists Richard Katz and Peter Mair, and called “The Emergence of a Cartel Party”, it immediately explained almost everything that had perplexed me as a lobby correspondent: the unhealthy similarity between supposedly rival parties; the corruption and graft that has become endemic in modern politics; the emergence of a political elite filled with scorn and hostility towards ordinary voters. My book, The Triumph of the Political Class, was in certain respects an attempt to popularise that Katz and Mair essay.

To sum up, the European elites have come very close to the abolition of what we have been brought up to regard as politics, and have replaced it with rule by bureaucrats, bankers, and various kinds of unelected expert. So far they have got away with this. This May’s elections for the European Parliament will provide a fascinating test of whether they can continue to do so.

Anti-EU parties tend to be on the Right, and often the far-Right. For reasons that are hard to understand, the Left continues enthusiastically to back the EU, even though it is pursuing policies that drive down living standards and destroy employment, businesses and indeed (in the case of Greece and Spain) entire economies. In Britain, for example, Ed Miliband is an ardent supporter of the European project and refuses even to countenance the idea of a referendum.


Posted by Tory compromises alienate base on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:05 | #

Tories fail traditional conservatism through compromise, lose base support:

Can Conservatives Win Again?

That’s the question pundits are asking in the wake of Barack Obama’s election win. Though there wasn’t a great deal in it - 60m vs 57m, give or take a few hundred thousand here and there, it would appear everyone with an opinion is using this opportunity to write the obituary of American Conservatism. People are pointing to the Democrats winning the popular vote in five out of the last six contests, and the observation that the GOP and its increasingly deranged base are politically incapable of facing up to demographic change. Fold this in with several progressive outcomes to local referenda, can you really start speaking of a permanent and strengthening Democrat majority? Time will tell.

For Conservatives on this side of the water, there is some superficial consolation to be had. An election with a floundering incumbent, a faltering economy, and culminating in an outright victory have not been lost on those desperate for a sign, any sign, that oblivion does not await in 2015. But like the USA, there is something deeper going on.

The Daily Mail’s Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron’s prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands “ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions.” He added:

  “The alarm bells sounded in the Tory HQ, which in January launched a national appeal to try to persuade waverers to return to the fold. The appeal was a dismal failure.”

The constraints of the coalition mean that Cameron can do little to woo traditionalists back to the fold. ConservativeHome editor Tim Montgomerie said: “Cameron’s compromises on traditional Tory beliefs and the failure of those compromises to deliver a parliamentary majority mean he’s upsetting both kinds of grassroots member.”


Posted by a period of unstable coalitions on Sun, 03 May 2015 00:52 | #

THE MILIBAND MASQUERADE? - by Colin Liddell, Saturday, 2 May 2015

Democratic politics always has had an ugly side, both in the types of personalities it attracts and the devious behaviour it encourages. The main reason for this is that it allows the broad masses to vote, lowering the audience IQ to a level that incentivizes the low-grade deceptions of unscrupulous politicians.

Ugly as it is, it certainly didn’t get any more aesthetically pleasing when Ed Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party in 2010. With his robotic style and rubbery face, he evokes Mr. Bean possessed by the last of the Body Snatchers, or a piece of “Wallace and Gromit” claymation gone wrong.

For the present general election campaign, which will end on May 7th, a long, hard effort has gone into making “Ed” seem warm and personable – he was actually fitted out with a (rather ugly) wife shortly after becoming leader and was also designated as the father of her two children, although they clearly resemble their mother much more than their supposed father.

In an attempt to ‘humanize’ this unlikely leadership material he was also carefully coached on body language, facial gestures, voice, and positioning. The process has some similarities to a necrophile heating up the inamorata with which he has just eloped from the local mortuary.

One of the main problems with Ed is not his Jewishness (because British people, like all good people everywhere, have been taught and constantly reminded that anti-Semitism is a no-no), but rather his swarthiness.

This would be less of a problem in the Conservative Party, which famously had a Prime Minister in the Victorian era who was almost a spitting image of the popular Happy Merchant meme but it is definitely a problem for the Labour Party, which has increasingly become a sump hole for the non-White vote. Having Ed as leader makes the party look a bit too ethnic, something that has a subtle but powerful ethnicizing effect on British politics.

This is just one factor in the phenomenal rise of the SNP in Scotland, where it has displaced Labour. There is also a slow fuse burning in the North of England. Here the Labour vote is still holding up, but it must be remembered that this is the party that over the last two decades, oversaw the mass rape of the children of its bedrock Northern White constituents, with its only concern being the fear that somebody might think a nasty “racist” thought.

Despite his enormous flaws and limitations, “Awkward Ed” has a fighting chance because his main opponent, David Cameron, is viewed negatively as (a) the lackey of the rich in a time of austerity, (b) a gay-marriage-promoting betrayer of ordinary conservative values, and (c) a useless bulwark against the power of the EU.

The fallout of all this is that this is the first election in which neither of the two main parties of government has a realistic chance of securing a clear majority. Yes, we are headed for a period of unstable coalition government and possibly several general elections within the next few months.


Posted by Muslim mayor of Tower Hamlets on Sun, 03 May 2015 02:32 | #

Truth, Honesty and Faith in Allah: The Rise and Fall of Lutfur Rahman - Tobias Langdon, May 2, 2015 [/url]

Do you have a deep respect for the integrity of lawyers? Do you have an abiding trust in the veracity of Muslims? Then I’m afraid you’re going to be sadly disappointed by Lutfur Rahman and his many supporters. This highly trained lawyer made history as Britain’s first Muslim mayor, winning two elections in the proudly vibrant London borough of Tower Hamlets. Now he has made history again: a high-court judge called Richard Mawrey has just ruled that Rahman is guilty of corruption and illegal practices. He has been stripped of his mayoralty and barred from standing in any future election.

Triumph of the Villains

It’s a final triumph for Rahman’s racist and Islamophobic enemies, who could not bear to see a brown-skinned Muslim mayor fighting for the oppressed and impoverished Bangladeshi residents of Tower Hamlets. That, at least, is the story Rahman and his supporters will now be spinning. And why not? Accusations of racism and Islamophobia have proved very useful to Muslims who combine gross corruption with farcical incompetence.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 06 May 2015 18:12 | #

Something for GW. . .hope it is of interest.

That the problem of personal identity is not primarily a problem about consciousness—at least in the narrow sense that dominates current debate—is also shown by the fact that consciousness does not constitute personhood; rather, it presupposes and reveals it. The point is well known from the classic objections of Thomas Reid and Joseph Butler to the Lockean theory of personal identity: there is a vicious circularity in trying to analyze personal identity, as Locke does, in terms of memory or of con­sciousness in general, since these phenomena presuppose identity (i.e., that it is the same person who remembers or is conscious). Yet it is a point that cannot be repeated often enough. A person is not merely aware—he is aware of something, and that something is, fundamentally, himself. There has, of course, been an attempt to get around the problem by invoking non-identity-presupposing relations such as “quasi-memory,” but such notions are of doubtful coherence at best.

Any attempt to synthesize personal identity out of a manifold of conscious states will founder on the task of specifying just what the content of those states is supposed to be, and I take this to be a point extendable beyond persons to the identity of any conscious being, such as an animal. More generally, the circularity objection is a special case of the general one against all attempts to give a non-identity-presupposing, and hence noncircular, theory of diachronic identity (identity over time) for any kind of object.

It would be specious to deny that either phenomenology or conscious­ness in general were relevant to the problem of personal identity: any plausible theory must, for example, account for a person’s sense of self as an enduring entity, capacity for higher-order conscious states, and aware­ness of itself as a being endowed with freedom and responsibility. What I am denying, however, is that the problem of person identity is primarily one about phenomenology or consciousness. Rather, it is about psychol­ogy in general, taken in the broad, traditional sense: the problem concerns the specific mental operation of the human being in particular, and of any person at all, whether there be angels, animals that are persons, or other disembodied minds. To broach the problem, we must begin with the concept of form.


Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 May 2015 07:31 | #

Graham, of course it is always of interest.  The function of consciousness is not to reveal identity.  To my mind, Mind has an ascriptive function ... the saying of “I” over the proceedings revealed through consciousness.  The question then arises as to the quality of the consciousness and the authenticity of what bears the ascription.  Everything I write about on this subject is concerned to answer this question.

So where does that leave your critique?


Posted by canuck on Thu, 07 May 2015 21:46 | #

um, Hello? Anybody there? Isn’t here like a UK election going on right now, and you;re blathering about this stuff?

I’m worried about UKIP. They don’t seem to be doing very well.


Posted by Meta-political prescription on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:15 | #

Posted by canuck on May 07, 2015, 09:46 PM | #

um, Hello? Anybody there? Isn’t here like a UK election going on right now, and you;re blathering about this stuff?

I’m worried about UKIP. They don’t seem to be doing very well.

Hi Canuck,

Thanks for your concern, however the “stuff that we are blathering about” is called “metapolitics” and it is really the essential and crucial concern that we should be about at this point in history, given that electoral politics in western democracies are a deck so rigged by the enemies of our people.

Morgoth’s review acknowledges as much - despite his applying “special focus” to the elections in Britain - he takes the fact of this rigged deck as premisary:

Election Special: Britain On The Brink

Well, election time is here in Britain. We get to choose the make up of our Government for the next 5 years, and what a choice, we can have the Liberal Pro Mass Immigration ‘‘Conservatives’’ or the Anti White Pro Mass Immigration Labour Party, headed by a Marxist Jew. Otherwise we can go for the Pro Mass Immigration Liberal Party, who are basically just Cultural Marxists. Then there’s the Greens, they favour Mass Immigration as well, and don’t think spraying concrete across England to house them is a contradiction. Then there’s UKIP…

Thus, what do we do? Merely go ahead and play with the rigged-deck? or rather apply analysis, diagnosis and prescription for a new deck of cards - a new meta politic?

That is not to say that your concern is invalid, that there is no interest here in what is going on; on the contrary, GW,, are preoccupied with mainstream discussions of the elections and that accounts for their quiet here; and on the contrary, we’ve got to be connected with issues that impact the mainstream and in how we might use current platforms to voice our nativist position - as Paul Weston has. In line with that, we plan to have GW and Paul Weston take-up metapolitical reflection of the elections and diagnosis thereupon, in a few days… 

“I’m worried about UKIP”

My own, admittedly cursory, opinion of Farage is that he is analagous to Ron Paul. Throwing one meaty bone to the normal public in order to siphon-off their anger and desire for metapolitical transformation to native nationalist interests.

In the case of Ron Paul, it was “End the Fed and audit the Fed” - which would be political meat, indeed. But on most everything else, as a libertarian based on Austrian School economics, his politics were liberal to an extreme - open borders, etc. Thus, he provided the perfect metapolitical homeostasis of false opposition to the Powers That Be, a false opposition for the public to bemuse themselves as intellectually justified and unoffensive to liberals in general.

I suspect Nigel Farage is much the same - only that getting out of The EU is the meaty bone that he is throwing the normal public. Even that issue is controllable, as are all other issues that he would espouse - quite liberal and controlled by the same old indeed. As it was with Ron Paul, I guess that it is largely Austrian school objectivism that is the metapolitic behind him?


Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 01:54 | #

It is possible that three “meaty issues” will now land on Cameron’s desk.

He has to do something about the Scottish settlement - all three “No” parties promised more powers to the Scottish Parliament at the Indy ref.  Which means some sort of English settlement in a weak tea form.  Constitutional reform is, therefore, inevitable (I don’t think UKIP made nearly enough of this, incidentally, in their election campaign).  The Tories will try to get some party advantage from it, but it will be transitory, no doubt.  Even a “Grand Committee” of English MPs in the Commons will give English nationalism a huge shot in the arm.

There is also the promise of an EU referendum in 2017, following a negotiation.  There isn’t going to be a meaningful negotiation with the other EU members.  So Cameron and all the “In” parties will have a difficulty with campaign substance. They will hope the press wins it for them.  Possibly they will try to link an “Out” vote with the break-up of the UK, since it would provoke another Indyref which this time the SNP would probably have enough mojo to win.

The third issue - and the long-odds bet - is on electoral reform. 4 million voters have made UKIP and the Greens their choice, and received two, maybe 3 MPs.  1 million SNP voters have 56 MPs at Westminster.  The Tories and Labour won’t want another vote on proportionality.  But the LibDems, trying to re-birth, will certainly want it - they were, of course, the power behind the failed AV referendum in the last parliament.  If nothing else, there will be some serious debate over the merits or otherwise of our system.

So, some quite fundamental issues come out of this election, even if they don’t include a meaningful UKIP presence in the HoC.  In the longer run, bringing these issues to the fore will do more to radicalise opinion than one might think.  The battle was lost yesterday, but the war is still on.


Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 02:19 | #

The result in Rotherham:

Sarah Champion, Labour: 19,860 (52.5%)
Jane Collins, UKIP: 11,414 (30.2%)
Sebastian Lowe, Conservative: 4,656
Janice Middleton, LibDem: 1,093
Pat McLaughlin,Trade Union & Socialist; Coalition: 409
Adam Walker, BNP: 225
Dean Walker, English Democrat, 166


Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 02:27 | #

I hope you guys do an electoral analysis piece.

For example, if Cameron squeaks by with his own very weak Conservative majority, and given that UKIP is getting around 12.5% of the vote and looks to be the UK’s 3rd largest party by actual votes (you’re right about the weird SNP situation, though from my British Columbia perspective, I should think that’s not a bad thing, given that SNP seats come solely at Labour’s expense), do you suppose Cameron will be pushed Right on immigration (he’s committed to the EU referendum but also to opposing withdrawal, so that’s pretty moot)? Even if UKIP gains no seats, can they leverage their 3rd place by votes status to force “call me Dave” to the Right on migration matters? Will they, particularly if Farage steps down? 

Actually, please inform me: what IS the actual on the ground immigration situation these days, especially regarding Muslims and other non-Europeans? I keep reading that Cameron has tightened immigration, but is that true? 

Hope to get some responses from on the ground British. I’ve never been to Britain (only one English grandmother, married my Canadian grandfather serving in World War One - rest of family, mostly English and Irish, little French, have been here for much more than a century), but still consider it the Mother Country, and hate what has happened there. We’re under invasion here, too, obviously. I’ve lived long enough to watch the white country I grew up in become completely multiculturalized where not Asianized, especially the large cities. The rural area I grew up in is still pretty white, plus some first nations people on the fringes. But Vancouver, where I made my career for much of my adult life, what a disaster!


Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 02:40 | #

Analysis is hardly necessary.  The result isn’t complicated (after months when every commentator has been flummoxed by the complexities).  The SNP surge gave Cameron power, causing patriotic English voters to flood out of Labour and, to a lesser extent, to return from UKIP.

We are now in a constitutional phase of national politics, and the outcome of that in a couple of years is the key to everything.


Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 02:43 | #

Further- If MR does do an electoral analysis could you explain the differences between the Northern Ireland parties (at least the unionist ones)? Also, unless I’m much mistaken, it seems like all the parties in the UK are pretty leftwing. The only right-of-centre parties would seem to be Tories, UKIP and BNP (and maybe the Protestant Ulster parties?). Are there other small parties that are on the Right? What about Plaid Cymru? Are they like the SNP, or more real nationalists? Where are the English nationalists (UKIP?)?

You certainly have a lot of socialist/trade unionist type parties!


Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 02:58 | #

This is appalling. UKIP has almost exactly the number of total votes as SNP + LibDems, yet it has one lousy seat whilst the others have 64 at the moment. I don’t fully understand this. I would have thought UKIP would have substantially cut into the Tory totals.

I’m not sure Cameron will get to 326. It’s awfully close. And when the hell will we know if Farage won his? This must be very exciting for you British chaps.

Also, what guessedworker says is not quite correct. Even combining Labour + SNP still gives Tories a greater number of seats. “Call me Dave” is actually winning, notwithstanding all the UKIP protest votes.


Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 04:07 | #

There is no really right-wing party - not even UKIP (which is endeavouring to appeal across the spectrum, not merely to the traditional right).  The political class, and the liberal and media Establishment generally, is well to the left of the people, in so much as the grand causes of the right ... policies relating to nationhood and sovereignty, immigration and demography, the preservation of traditional marriage, and sovereign debt ... have been very largely put beyond public debate.  The main parties, including the Scots and Welsh nationalists, are marxised culturally, debt-addicted, and internationalist.  There is no true nationalism anywhere.


Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 04:37 | #

Farage loses Thanet South: 16,026 votes to the Tory’s 18,838.  Nearly a 70% turn-out.  Very high - the Tories really got their vote out.


Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 May 2015 04:51 | #

The political class, and the liberal and media Establishment generally, is far, far more liberal than the people, in so much as the grand causes of policies relating to nationhood and sovereignty, immigration and demography, the preservation of traditional marriage, and sovereign debt have been very largely put beyond public debate.


Posted by canuck on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:13 | #

This is amusing. The very last district to report results is something called “St. Ives”, which seems to be the remotest tip of England. Why are they the last in with their winner?

Still amazed that UKIP could clearly be UK’s 3rd party by votes, but gets only a single seat. Isn’t that the story of racialists everywhere? We’re never concentrated enough geographically actually to win. Our sentiments are too spread out.


Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:39 | #

Daniel, the word “liberal”, as a sign of party and policy position, does not have the meaning in Europe that it does in America.  In Britain, for example, it refers to a centuries-long political tradition of reform (there is still a micro-style Liberal Party) and, through the vehicle of the modern Liberal Democrats, of the socially and environmentally progressive centre-left.  Obviously, leftism has an equally specific meaning, and one that shouldn’t be made a semiotic hostage to your own analysis as a thinking nationalist.  You have to allow common usage in political debate.

On the question of the value of the term “white left”, I am agnostic, as I am with Graham’s “communitarianism”.  It isn’t the term so much as the possibility for personal ideological presuppositions and preferences to be inveigled upon the ontological target.  That target expresses itself via the axes of the politics of its interests, not of the liberalism which does not fit it.  In other words, there is a different and potentially emergent language which we should endeavour to remain open enough to hear, if only imperfectly for now.


Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 May 2015 13:42 | #

GW, the significant point that I wanted to make is that using liberal instead of left in that sentence translates exactly, whether in The US or in Europe, in terms of what Marxism implies for European group interests - that is, a liberalizing action as opposed to native national unionization.

The only difficulty, and it is a difficulty I acknowledge, is (the Jewish convenient) meanings that have been loaded onto “THE left” in official journalese and academia.

Customary understanding is a reason to go along with that terminology, but not a perfectly good one.

However, your calling yourself agnostic on “the White left” is good enough for now. As with MacDonald, I like you and respect you too much to not cut you some slack and hassle you about it constantly.

In fact, he would have an even harder time marking the distinction between red and white left with his having invested so much text with “the left” as a universal antagonist force, as opposed to a union of particular interests, which could as well be unions of native European nationals as I suggest marks the distinction in ordinary language - left, a union of a social group / right - objective facticity beyond group accountability.





Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 08 May 2015 14:59 | #

The meat of the issue, perhaps, is that you see the action in question as a unionisation of selves, while I see it as I believe Heidegger saw it - as a unionisation of the self.  I see it, and not the fracture and estrangement we ordinarily know, as the natural estate of all beings and the foundation of all connectedness and vivifying choice.

That is, of course, absolutely nothing new:

Joy, beautiful godly spark
Daughter of Elysium
We enter, drunk with fire
Into your sanctuary, heavenly (daughter)!
Your magic reunites
What custom strictly divided
All men become brothers
Where your gentle wing rests


Posted by She sells sanctuary: on Fri, 08 May 2015 19:03 | #

She sells sanctuary:


Posted by speech as verbal or pervasive on Sat, 09 May 2015 03:28 | #

For what its worth (usually some intelligent thoughts), Colin Liddell’s take on the UK elections:

The UK elections have come and gone, and the story is now quickly fading into the twilight. So, what happened? What did we actually learn?


A lot of people learned that the UK electoral system is extremely undemocratic. UKIP got well over twice the votes of the Scottish Nationalist Party (3,881,129 to 1,454,436) but only ended up with a measly single Member of Parliament to the SNP’s incredible 56. But the anomalies of the UK electoral system have not exactly been a secret.

Similar things have been happening since at least the 1980s. The benefits the SNP are now reaping from the system are simply karmic payback for their own votes being discounted for decades.

Karma - check.

We also learned that having a photogenic leader helps, even if he is an insincere windbag like David Cameron. Regardless of the drivel coming out of Cameron’s mouth, he just looked a lot better than the challenger, Ed Miliband, who was hampered by the unfortunate fact of his 100% Jewish DNA in addition to a spoddish, dweebish quality that was hard to ignore.

But, here again, none of this was new. Since women were allowed to vote and men became more gay, the looks of the leader count. Next time Labour will presumably try to run with someone who would perform better without an actual paper bag over his head.

People shouldn’t be swayed by something so superficial as Jewishness, only girls (women voters) would vote on such a cosmetic basis - check

This part is a little better, as he discusses some of the strategic opportunities that GW notes coming a result of the strategic difficulties of the political class:


Another important factor in prompting the Conservative vote, according to many analysts, was the fear of a Scottish tail wagging a Labour dog.

When the polls pointed to hung parliament with a large SNP presence, there was much talk in the media of Labour doing a deal with the SNP. In the weeks prior to the election, this actually seemed the most likely outcome. As this sunk in, it apparently galvanized English voters to vote in an ethno-conscious way for the only Party that could realistically prevent it, which happened to be the Conservative Party. If true, this means that this was the first general election decided by ethno-political factors. It is difficult to see how this trend can do anything but grow stronger.


One of the supposed lessons to be learned was that smaller parties suffer from being in coalition with larger parties. According to a lot of pundits, this explained the stunning collapse of the Lib Dems (from 6,836,198 votes in 2010 to 2,415,888 – with most of their seats wiped out). But this is an obvious overgeneralization.

....Nick Clegg represents a Northern urban constituency (Sheffield Hallam), an area where a Tory victory would be extremely unlikely. They also did well in rural Western constituencies where Labour had no hope of being elected. They also skilfully supplemented their vote in some urban constituencies by appealing to ethnic voters whose traditionalism and petty capitalist leanings occasionally made them unhappy with supporting the Labour Party.

It is now increasingly hard to see them ever coming back from this, with the two main parties parking their tanks on its lawn and the rise of more distinctive alternative third parties like UKIP and the Greens.


The most dramatic aspect of an otherwise boring election was the phenomenal breakthrough of the Scottish Nationalist Party.

Scotland too has its value. It is an integral part of the UK, without which the UK would suffer a severe loss of status. Likewise, the UK is effectively part of the US or Western Empire. The Union allows Scotland a small taste of this hegemonic position and its benefits. The rise of the SNP – at least as far as the Scottish voter bloc is concerned – is an attempt to get a bigger taste.

In short, the Scottish voter bloc, whether consciously or unconsciously, senses that the threat of breaking up the UK is worth something. By voting SNP, they maximize that threat and put pressure on the Westminster government to conciliate them. It remains to be seen whether Cameron understands this equation and acts accordingly.


The main macro trend is the increasingly ethnic nature of politics in the UK. Labour is in danger of becoming seen as an ethnic party. Losing Scotland only heightens this trend, as does the collapse of the Lib Dems, another major repository of the ethnic vote.

One of the most important “unimportant” results of the night was the defeat of George Galloway’s Respect Party in the heavily “enriched” Bradford West constituency. Although essentially a Trotskyist entryist party, Respect was the first effort at a party that sought to appeal specifically to the theorectical Neo-Marxist revolutionary vanguard of the Third Word immigrant. The defeat of Respect throws this demographic back into the Labour Party, which it never really left.

George Galloway – back on the street.
Hard racial awareness won’t be palatable to the UK electorate for some time, but there is every sign that softer forms of racial awareness are on the rise. These can even be powered by the anti-racist culture that is already in place, with assertions of positive identity drawing critics into a stance that can be readily critiqued as “racist” against Whites or English. The rise of the SNP will greatly help this trend by providing English people with an effective model of White ethno-assertiveness, even though there is much we could say to criticize the SNP’s particular form of civic nationalism.


In this election, the nationalist torch was effectively carried by UKIP, with all its shortcomings as a true nationalist party. After the disappointment of 3,881,129 wasted UKIP votes, as well as the earlier tragic history of the BNP, many nationalists are of course hoping that the electoral system will be changed to one of proportional representation.

There would be an obvious benefit for small parties, some of which might one day grow into big parties, but, it should be remembered that any such reform might also stop any nationalist party making a decisive breakthrough.

Cameron with only 11,334,920 votes out of a total electorate 46,425,386 (24%) has secured a majority. The SNP with only 1,454,436 votes out of a total electorate of 4,094,784 in Scotland (35%), won almost every single seat in Scotland. Such mathematical anomalies could prove very beneficial to the future ethno-nationalist party that is sure to be arise one day out of the multicultural mess that Britain now is.

Andy Nowicki’s tiff with Richard Spencer on the matter of free speech…

...has got me reconsidering something that GW said on that issue. Through my discipline I have looked upon everything as communication - it is pervasive. Accordingly, that has colored my view of free speech. That not all “speech” can be allowed in a given society.

GW questioned the idea of everything being treated as speech: and thinking about free speech in light of the Andy/Richard tiff, I can see whereas it could be better to redraw that line, with free speech being treated as verbal speech only; and in that case, it could be more liberal, as GW commends.

What is significant theoretically here is that all acts being treated as a form of speech probably provides much of the grease for the YKW to slip in their public agendas..



Posted by Tanya Cohen's decree of hate speech on Mon, 11 May 2015 01:54 | #

It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S.

Tanya Cohen - 1 May, 2015

Recent scandals involving right-wing hatemongers like Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, Bill Maher, and the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity have brought to light one of America’s biggest embarrassments: the fact that America remains the only country in the world without any legal protections against hate speech. In any other country, people like Phil Robertson and Donald Sterling would have been taken before a Human Rights Commission and subsequently fined and/or imprisoned and/or stripped of their right to public comment for making comments that incite hatred and violence against vulnerable minorities. But, in the US, such people are allowed to freely incite hatred and violence against vulnerable minorities with impunity, as the US lacks any legal protections against any forms of hate speech – even the most vile and extreme forms of hate speech remain completely legal in the so-called “land of the free”. Not only is this a violation of the most basic and fundamental human rights principles, but it’s also an explicit violation of legally-binding international human rights conventions.

For many decades, human rights groups around the world – from Amnesty International to Human Rights First to the United Nations Human Rights Council – have told the United States that it needs to pass and enforce strong legal protections against hate speech in accordance with its international human rights obligations. As of 2015, the US is the only country in the world where hate speech remains completely legal. This is, in fact, a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) both mandate that all countries outlaw hate speech, including “propaganda for war” and the dissemination of any “ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”. The ICCPR and ICERD are both legally-binding international human rights conventions, and all nations are required to uphold them in the fullest. By failing to prosecute hate speech, the US is explicitly and flippantly violating international human rights law. No other country would be allowed to get away with this, so why would the US? The United Nations has stated many times that international law has absolute authority. This is quite simply not optional. The US is required to outlaw hate speech. No other country would be able to get away with blatantly ignoring international human rights standards, so why should the US be able to? The US is every bit as required to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is.

I have always been a major champion of the unalienable right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democratic society, and freedom of speech must be upheld to the maximum possible extent. However, like all democratic rights, the right to freedom of speech comes with responsibility, and freedom of speech has to be balanced against other freedoms. In the words of Irwin Cotler, who is perhaps the single most prominent human rights activist in Canada: “Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy. However, hate speech is not simply a matter of offending sensibilities or being politically incorrect. It causes real and tangible harm, can assault the very values underlying free speech, can breach our international commitments, and can assault the principle of equality.” In all other countries, it’s simply common sense that freedom of speech doesn’t protect hate speech. It’s not something that’s even up for debate. Everyone learns in school that hate speech is not free speech, and nobody would ever question this. Just like freedom of speech doesn’t protect death threats, freedom of speech also doesn’t protect hate speech. In civilized countries, this is something that everyone agrees on, regardless of political ideology – even hardcore libertarians agree that hate speech is unacceptable. In my native Australia, the need to protect vulnerable minorities from hate speech is one of the most universally accepted values, and anyone who even dares to question hate speech laws will receive an extremely hostile reaction. There isn’t a single person in Australia who thinks that there should be absolutely no legal protections against hate speech. If anyone ever went to Australia and said that there should be absolutely no legal protections against hate speech, they would be physically attacked and told to leave the country for their own safety. No, I’m not exaggerating in the least. Australia has ZERO tolerance for anyone who attacks the basic human rights of vulnerable minorities. For people in more civilized and enlightened countries where people have basic human rights, it’s just absolutely unfathomable to even consider having absolutely no legal protections against hate speech. It would be like having no laws against child abuse, or having no laws against murder.

American society is a deeply racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, patriarchal, Islamophobic, and anti-human rights society. Racism infects every single area of American society, but it infects the highly corrupt American government most of all. The American government is a profoundly racist government where, despite the presence of Barack Obama, the vast majority of people with the most power are privileged white men. As Australian Muslim activist Waleed Aly has pointed out, one of the biggest reasons why strong legal protections against hate speech are so necessary is because there is a strong hierarchy of power and privilege in Western society, with whites firmly at the top, holding the most power and privilege by far. It’s easy for privileged white men to say that hate speech is perfectly acceptable and doesn’t harm anyone, but privileged white men have never been victims of hate speech and they could never understand the devastating effect that hate speech has on vulnerable and marginalized minorities. Hate speech is itself a form of censorship, as it silences the voices of the most oppressed and disenfranchised minority groups – groups that are already denied a voice in society. The racist government of the United States certainly does not allow minorities to have a voice, as, like all Western governments, the US government is run by privileged white men who, quite frankly, couldn’t care less about the basic human rights of vulnerable minorities.

Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that the US government is a profoundly racist government is the fact that it has yet to pass any legal protections against hate speech. To quote the prominent Australian Muslim human rights activist Mariam Veiszadeh: “As with any democratic right, freedom of speech should be tempered with responsibility and it is counter productive if those who continously spew hateful and misleading vitriol are the very individuals who continue to thrive from the protection that freedom of speech offers. We should be very afraid when our top law maker seems more passionate about protecting the rights of bigots than the rights of the most marginalised members of our society.” Like Waleed Aly, Mariam Veiszadeh understands that one of the main reasons why legal protections against hate speech are so essential is because Western societies and Western governments are so deeply racist. Americans should indeed be very frightened of their government, which apparently considers “the right to be a bigot” to be more important than the basic human rights of the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society. What kind of government considers racism to be a human right, but not freedom from racism? Certainly not a government that actually values true human rights and freedoms, and most definitely not a government that cares about protecting vulnerable minorities. Whether it’s torturing people, carrying out executions, drone-bombing innocent civilians, supporting Israeli apartheid in Palestine, attacking journalists and whistleblowers, or persecuting African-Americans and Muslims within its own borders, the US government is a deeply racist and deeply immoral government in every sense of the world – just ask the African-Americans that the United States government routinely targets with police brutality and disproportionately incarcerates, often for much lesser charges than whites. There is an endless amount of evidence showing just how deeply-entrenched racism is in the United States government. The fact that the American government refuses to outlaw hate speech is simply another perfect example of just how deeply racist, corrupt, heartless, and anti-human rights the American government is. In fact, hate speech is often put out by the US government – particularly hate speech against Muslims, which no doubt plays a large role in inciting acts of physical violence against vulnerable Muslim-Americans, such as the recent Chapel Hill shooting.

As children, when we say something rude, hateful, or disrespectful, an adult “sets us straight” and punishes us. When we would say something hurtful as a child, an adult would put on the moral path and tell us things like “if you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all.” Why, when we become adults, do we suddenly get to conveniently “change the rules”? Does it suddenly become acceptable to maliciously attack others just because we’re adults? I certainly don’t think so, and neither does any country except for the United States. The US is the only country that values the so-called “right” to be hateful and malicious more than it values basic human rights, human dignity, respect, politeness, tolerance, sensitivity, decency, safety, and civility. The fact that America still has absolutely no legal protections against racial hatred or any other form of bigotry in the year 2015 is nothing short of absolutely shameful. While America has always been far behind the rest of the developed world in terms of basic human rights and freedoms, the need to protect vulnerable minorities from hate speech is one of the most basic and fundamental human rights necessities. Even third-world nations have legal protections against hate speech. The US is the sole anomaly in the world, and this is even more unacceptable when one considers how diverse and multicultural the US is. Not to mention, when it comes to protecting legitimate freedom of speech, the US has consistently failed. The US denied African-Americans in Ferguson their right to peacefully protest against police racism, and numerous people in the US (Steven Salaita, for example) have been fired from their jobs for speaking out against Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians. Another excellent example of America’s total disregard for true freedom of speech: the so-called “anti-terrorism” legislation in the US is among the most draconian in the world, and America’s “anti-terrorism” legislation is specifically intended to target innocent Muslims – thus preventing Muslim-Americans from speaking out against racism. This is a perfect example of just how deeply racist the US is. The US will protect racist bigots’ so-called “right” to spew hatred and vitriol at vulnerable minorities, but it won’t protect those vulnerable minorities’ right to protest against the racism that they encounter every single day of their lives. This absolutely embodies just how racist and just how backwards American society and the American government truly are.

Before moving to the US to work with human rights organizations here, I grew up in Australia, where I also worked as a human rights activist (in Australia, I worked for Amnesty International Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, the Human Rights Working Group of the Greens NSW, and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties). Like all civilized countries, Australia has numerous laws against hate speech, and these laws are universally supported by every single facet of Australian society (although journalists, ethnic and religious leaders, and human rights activists are the biggest supporters of Australia’s hate speech laws). Australia has even proposed human rights legislation called the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which declares people automatically guilty of offending or insulting other people unless they can prove their innocence in a court of law. This may sound extreme to Americans, but most Australian progressives and human rights activists actually complained that the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill didn’t go nearly far enough. Proposed during the more progressive Julia Gillard administration, the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill had very widespread support, and it came very close to passing. It is believed that, if progressives win the next Australian elections, then the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill – along with other proposed human rights legislation – will be revived. But, while civilized countries like Australia continue to pass stronger and stronger legal protections against hate speech, the United States still has absolutely no legal protections against hate speech whatsoever, which means that people like Donald Sterling, Phil Robertston, Bill Maher, and so forth are allowed to spew hatred at the most vulnerable and marginalized groups without ever having to face any kind of legal punishment. To people in a more civilized, human rights-oriented society like Australia, it’s just absolutely unfathomable how anyone could think that such toxic, backwards hatred has any place in society. Every single time that America fails to press charges against hatemongers, it does a massive deal of damage to its international image and reputation. It sends the message to the rest of the world that America supports racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, hatred, and bigotry. Is that really what America wants to be known for? As the only country in the world where hatred and bigotry are considered acceptable? What kind of country actually considers the so-called “right” to racially vilify vulnerable minorities to be more important than the basic human rights of said minorities? Certainly not a civilized country – that’s for sure.

I speak for all Australians and all civilized people when I say that hate speech is most assuredly not free speech.



Posted by Diversity comes home on Fri, 22 May 2015 12:55 | #

Establishment mentality experiences the rich texture of black culture:

Daron Dylon Wint tortures and murders family and house keeper

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe
Previous entry: Prof.MacDonald: Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Play that Funky Music White Boy commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Tara Westover commented in entry 'American Experience: Ruby Ridge' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:31. (View)

If you're watching this... commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:32. (View)

99.6% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:50. (View)

99% European/ 38% Great Britain commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:22. (View)

Camille & Kennerly commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:40. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:42. (View)

The White Class is holistic commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:26. (View)

Ieva Baltmiskyte commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:39. (View)

Are The Finns European? commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:44. (View)

Green Sleeves commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40. (View)

Jerry Cantrell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:59. (View)

Nutshell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:41. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:32. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:16. (View)

Blue on Black commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:12. (View)

2016 commercials commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 06:27. (View)

Like a bad neighbor, State Farm is there commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:40. (View)

2018 Olympic Hockey Tournament commented in entry 'Winter Olympics not diverse enough for US media' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:38. (View)

Taken For Granted commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:42. (View)

Commercials: "resistance is futile" commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:10. (View)

The Mountain Between Us commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:27. (View)

Kristy Boden commented in entry 'Two more London attacks' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:54. (View)

JF interviews Todd Lewis commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:26. (View)

The Rooster commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:06. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23. (View)

Nikolas Cruz commented in entry '"What We Don't Know - Motive." Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 02:09. (View)

Maccabees commented in entry 'The alternative right's big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:57. (View)

Max Musson article mapped commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:14. (View)

8,606 fake refugees so far in 2018 commented in entry 'More Than A Thousand Illegal Immigrants Reach Europe In First Week Of 2018' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:52. (View)

Orson commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:58. (View)

Toba commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:02. (View)

Allman, Wetton, Coryell, Holdsworth commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Invisible men commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:28. (View)