Posted by Red Baron on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:22 | #

We seem to have the opposite type of goverment in the USA. A gov’t were leftist hate groups rule: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1778

Russia: land of the free and home of the brave?

BTW… this blog is doing great work.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:40 | #

Tatchell is an Australian pest whose right of abode in Britain should have been revoked years ago. I like the Russian approach to foreign agitators like him. After all, the Russian people suffered more than any other Europeans from the depredations of aliens - in their case, Jews.

Posted by john on Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14 | #

Tatchel was shouting “someone protect me”, but it’s the Russians who need protecting. The labels neo nazi and ultra nationalist are being pinned but I see them as god fearing family men.

Posted by Matra on Mon, 28 May 2007 00:24 | #

The Beeb just showed Tatchell getting punched in the face then crying off like a big girl’s blouse. After all the years I paid my TV licence fee it’s good to finally see some value for my money.

Posted by Englander on Mon, 28 May 2007 00:45 | #

It sure was satisfying to see Tatchell and ‘Right Said Fred’ both taking a smack to the face, and Tatchell actually getting arrested soon after.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 28 May 2007 01:47 | #

The Russians will doubtless be on the receiving end of the same sort of Jew-led homosexual activism that met with such conspicuous success in the USA.

http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/05/radical-homosexual-movement-is-run-by.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 12:40 | #

Poor Volker.  Good shot, though.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 28 May 2007 13:02 | #

Peter Tatchell’s main claim to fame is losing the Bermondsey by-election of 1983 for Labour, an astonishing achievement, since as anyone who knows that area can attest that is one of the poorest, slum-ridden, wretched, deprived Labour-voting constituencies in Britain.
Labour has since never re-gained Bermondsey.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 28 May 2007 13:17 | #

I can respect Tatchell for at least being consistent. He was campaigning against Zimbabwe/Mugabe not long ago for the same reasons. He obviously never got the memo from rainbow HQ about Africans not being homophobic.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 28 May 2007 13:25 | #

Given Beck’s disgustingly traitorous promotion of ‘Holocaust’ superstition and homosexual mainstreaming I would have preferred him to be on the receiving end of a bullet rather than an egg.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 13:54 | #

Oh no, Al.  Mainstream martyrs silence dissent.  A rotten egg tears away the false piety.

Posted by martin_uk on Mon, 28 May 2007 14:53 | #

I agree with the poster who says that Mr Tatchell deserves respect, regardless of what one thinks of his attitudes and beliefs. He is always prepared to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. He is a man with integrity.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:36 | #

But not so much integrity he isn’t prepared to put his own mock-sexual interests above the interests of his own people, or even to cognise that they have interests, let alone that they are antipathetic to his own.

Posted by gongstar on Mon, 28 May 2007 15:52 | #

If you think Orthodox Christianity produces “normal, healthy people”, think again. As someone once pointed out about Solzhenitsyn: his quarrel with communism wasn’t that it oppressed people, it was that it didn’t use religion to justify the oppression. (It did, in fact.) I agree that Orthodoxy is far better for Russia than Tatchell’s death-cult, but let it stay a long way from me.

Tatchell is an Australian pest whose right of abode in Britain should have been revoked years ago.

Ladies first:

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was set up in defiance of right-wing bulldogs and subsequently race laws were tightened… His authoritarian attacks on our civil liberties have weakened the foundational principles and myths of Britain.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article2539405.ece

“Race laws good! Authoritarian attacks on our civil liberties bad!” Good old Yasmin: where would we be without her?

Posted by Kulturkampf on Mon, 28 May 2007 16:34 | #

I agree that you have to give the Tatch his due.  It’s a sick irony, but he’s been far more manful in his efforts to change society than the vast numbers of normal, heterosexual men who abhore the PC belief system he stands for - myself included. 

We need people who can be just as fanatical as Tatchell, yet in the defence of normality.  I suppose those Russians fellows have their own interpretation of what form that anti-Jacobin zeal should take!

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Mon, 28 May 2007 18:42 | #

If I may interject here for a moment. I just told a JEW BASTARD “american” congressman off at a memorial day parade. I asked him how many more White Christian American teenagers he was willing to maime-is this this the correct spelling?-on behalf of Israel.

Ok back to the show

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 18:51 | #

You told him to his face, person to person?

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Mon, 28 May 2007 23:09 | #

Guessedworker

Yes…yes..yes

First I booed the kike-bastard congressman from across the street after he made a speech-“we can have honest disagreements about this war..but we can all agree that the young men here today are all heros”...an eighty year old grandmother with draft age teenage grandsons agreed with me that the congressman is a sleeze bag

Five minutes later it was photo-op time with the kike-bastard chickenhawk congressman. Congressman kike-bastard was having a photo taken with a marine..in a strong voice a I asked the kike -bastard congressman how many more American teengagers does he intetnd to kill and maime on behalf of Israel…congressman kike -bastard arms around the marine gave me a look of hatred…then I said to the marine,,you know….you don’t have to obey Bush ,  the congressman and die for Israel…. the marine gave me that how dare you look

This kike-bastard congressman is notorious for voting to import hindu scab workers(H1-B visa program)

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 May 2007 00:24 | #

Well, it’s extremely important for the health of American democracy that your elected representatives are in touch with the thoughts and feelings of their constituents, and I am sure this very fine Congressman was only too grateful for your input.

God bless America.

Posted by Bodkin on Tue, 29 May 2007 09:19 | #

IMHO - and experience, gays are the most intelligent, rational and reasonable section of the multiculti rainbow alliance -  and therefore probably the most easily detachable.

Very often, they don’t like:

a, radical Islam - Allah wants them all to be stoned to death, or something

b, Afro-Caribbeans - all that singing about killing Batty Boys, and then actually killing them

c, very often, and surprisingly, they are not all that keen on lesbians either.

They can’t help the way they are (the same could be said of blacks, but what is more socially disruptive, a well documented tendency to indulge in violent crime or gays having gay sex with other gays?) and are mostly harmless types who just don’t want people giving them a hard time because they have the audacity to exist.

I don’t get my, liberal attitude from years of multiculti brainwashing - I’m middle aged now and they didn’t have that crap when I was at school.  I’ve always been indifferent to them and have always been baffled as to why they provoke such a violent reaction in so many people.

However, I didn’t approve of the recent ruling regarding gay adoption, they could adopt anyway, it seemed more like a bit of childish spitefullness toward the g*d botherers, and I don’t approve of all this wasting of police time persecuting Christians for their opinions.

Tatchell is an irritating git, but as others have pointed out, he is courageous and consistent.

Wasn’t Pim Fortuyn a Gaymo? 
Many of them are potential allies.

At the same time I often find our Eastern European cousins unhippness very entertaining.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 May 2007 10:15 | #

Bodkin,

It isn’t the homosexual in the ladies hairdressers who is attacking the hegemony of the normal, and I don’t doubt that you are quite right about them wanting only to be left alone and to be safe.  It’s their political activists.

These people probably don’t represent “ordinary” homosexuals.  They don’t represent anyone but their own Marxian constituency.  They want to change what is inside your head and mine, so that the power they imagine we employ to repress others will be distributed equally to all.

For these poisonous creatures it isn’t just the pursuit of “Gay Rights” that matter.  You are underestimating the aggressively Gramscian nature of their game.  They seek to damage the status of marriage, which is a bedrock foundation of a society they hate.  “Gay Rights” become an attack, therefore, on Man and Woman, on the psychological stability of society and on civilisation itself.  It’s a classic case of the projection of self-hatred, and I don’t mind in the least if Russians repay them in a currency they should, therefore, understand.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 29 May 2007 11:58 | #

For those of you old enough to remember ‘The Battle of Bermondsey’ (Happened during Michael Foot’s leadership, probably the lowest point in the history of the Labour Party -ever), I have an interesting little anecdote to relate.
Tatchell, was what was then known as a ‘Trotskyite entersist’ - whose guiding philosophy was to infiltrate ‘social democratic ’ parties from within by dominating the the boring work of local constituency parties - and by stealth foist themselves and their ideas on an unsuspecting electorate,believe it or not that prize bozo Ken Livingstone really set the trend.
  In order to control Bermondsey Labour Party, Tatchell had one obstaclethe sitting MP Bob Melhuish, an elderly decorated war hero, who was extremely popular with the local Cockneys - he was called ‘The dockers’ MP’. Melhuish was unwilling to go, so Tatchell and his lefty mates bundled him out in a most undignified fashion, Melhuish who was beachmaster at D-Day, publicly broke down in tears on television at the disgraceful way he was treated, resigned his seat and forced a by-election, Tatchell stood as the official Labour candidate, whilst John O’Grady a right-wing Catholic docker of Irish extraction stood as ‘Real Bermondsey Labour’, as a pro-Melhuish anti-Tatchell force.
To drum up support, an odd bit of ‘street-theatre’ ensued.O’Grady toured the streets of Bermondsy wearing a flat-cap, driving a horse and cart, Albert Steptoe style, in order to symbolize ‘old Bermondsey’.On his jaunts he liked to sing aloud a little song, to the tune of Lonny Donegan’s* ‘My Old Man’s a Dustman’. The song went, as I recall:

Tatchell’s a poofter,
And he lives in a council flat,
He wears his trousers back-to-front,
And he don’t know this from that’.

A bizarre, childish little display of street theatre.

*The late Lonny Donegan, popular British singer and musician of the 1950s-1990s, so-called ‘King of Skiffle’.

All of the above must be unintelligible to our American and European friends!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 May 2007 12:24 | #

But not to me, Kenelm.  I remember it well.  Simon Hughes came through the middle, so to speak (because, it turns out, he is another one of them!) and has held the seat for the LibDems ever since.

Livingstone’s infamous rainbow coalition preceded that by about three years, I think, following the disposal in the same way of GLC leader and leader of the Labour group, Andrew Mackintosh.

The real model for all this was taken from Antonio Gramsci’s Long March, and I wouldn’t mind betting that the line of transmission ran through Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams’ Birmingham School, which had no purpose other than to inject culture warriors into the voluntary and public sectors.

It was a genuine revolution, and the mainstream politicians never noticed.  Instead, they allowed themselves to be totally out-maneouvred and coopted as “Captured Intellects” ... the latest and best of which is David Cameron.

Posted by Calvin on Tue, 29 May 2007 12:51 | #

The gay minority live lives of hedonistic consumer indulgence and obsessive sexual interest. In this respect they are not much different to today’s heterosexual population. We have a problem in this society the root cause of which is entranced consumerism, with sex becoming the number one commodity.

I don’t have a problem with the idea of a non-political, non-in your face gay minority, but we are not going to get that in a society in which transitory personal gratification has become the major political issue for most voters.

Tatchel is a different matter altogether. I am delighted to see a strident minority Trotskyite, bully-boy who advocates age of consent legislation that could ultimately lead to the legalisation of sex between fifty year old men and twelve year old children, get his face punched in on national TV.

Speaking of TV, why is an Australian homosexual, engaged in acts of provocation in Russia making headline news on the BBC, when the Knoxville atrocity, which correlates chillingly with the recent Mary Ann Leneghan atrocity in the UK, and is thus of great relevance to the UK public, gets nary a mention?
Because the Russians have not yet been broken for the saddle of international corporate consumer capitalism and are, therefore, “Nazis”, i.e. people who frustrate the ends of the corporate oligarchs, and the victims of the Knoxville atrocity belong to the new improved, now in dazzling white, class of untermensch.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 May 2007 13:40 | #

Yes, the Establish tries very hard to turn Putin’s resistance to the liberal West into a moral issue, and if he was not supported by the Russian people they might have a case.  But he is and they don’t.

Being a child of the 1950s and horribly disconnected to “correct” modernity, I was struck (but not as forcibly as Tatchell) by the presumption in all the news coverage that The International Poof has some kind of natural right to agitate in Russia for harm to the Russian way of life.  Equality is the ultimate liberal value, I suppose.  We must all be equally harmed.

Calvin, Vox Celtica has disappeared from view.  Why don’t you blog here?

Posted by Septimus on Tue, 29 May 2007 14:42 | #

I’d like to draw your attention to Richard Fairbrass’s comments about the beating he received in Moscow:

“When it was over I actually felt more sorry for the guy that whacked me than I did for me… How threatened can he be, how insecure is he to be threatened by a bisexual pop singer who’s most famous for singing ‘I’m too sexy’?”

It’s high time this silly line of argument was “tackled head on” as the MSM clichemeisters would say. The man who attacked Fairbrass, like those who roughed up Tatchell, does not feel remotely “threatened” by individual queers nor is he “insecure” about his sexual orientation.

That man did what he did for reasons that are pretty obvious to anyone visiting this forum. I applaud him and his countrymen. Tatchell and his little crew arrogantly assumed that they could go to Russia and mouth the usual tired slogans with complete impunity. Only the Ruskies don’t want to “get used to” him and his kind. It’s as simple as that. That’s why they got a good, hard, non-penetrative fisting.

Fairbrass knows this damned well but he assumes this air of studied ingenuousness suggesting that any objection to homosexuality is “just prejudice”. We’d hear something similar from Darcus Howe if he were to be beaten up by somebody who had taken exception to one of his anti-white articles. He’d be saying he was attacked “because of the colour of his skin”. If it were YAB it would be because she’s a “Mussslim”. When these situations arise we should always challenge this simplistic, puerlile retort. I know it’s irksome and boring. But let’s face it, our enemies have done pretty well by relentlessly putting across their point of view, ad nauseam.

One other amusing Fairbrass pronouncement:

“We’ve never travelled with security in Moscow, Latvia, any of the old eastern bloc countries, but I have to say I wouldn’t… travel now without having our own security guys with us, no,” he said.

I fancy any “security” they take will get exactly the same treatment. They’ll just make the anti-queers even more furious.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 29 May 2007 14:51 | #

Glad to see youre back Fred.

Posted by Bodkin on Wed, 30 May 2007 09:43 | #

OK, points taken.

I’ve read bits and pieces about Gramsci on the internet and I vaguely recall him being mentioned in various books I’ve read.

I think I’ve probably got a reasonable idea of who he was and also his part in the nightmare we have had to endure.  However, I haven’t read anything that goes into any great detail or has any depth.  Can you recommend any books about Gramsci and his part in the Culture War which are written from a perspective sympathetic to white, male, heterosexuals?

I am quite happy at the Kevin MacDonald, Noam Chomsky, Paul Gottfried level, but obviously the more concise and easier to read, the better.

Posted by Bodkin on Wed, 30 May 2007 09:55 | #

One other thing…

Guessedworker, your views on this matter sound rather like Henry Makow’s.  Any thoughts on that?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 May 2007 10:40 | #

Bodkin,

Gramsci was an Italian Marxist of Albanian, not Jewish, origins.  He is important because he was, above all, a revolutionary strategiser who introduced some important ideas about position, cultural power and revolutionary method.

Like you I find Marxist dialectic too offensive to my sensibilities to stomach for long.  Gramsci is refreshing, however, because (1) he is accessible and, more importantly, (2) he intellectualised activism as the impulsion of historical processes.  He was unattracted to the classical Marxist economic analysis, and got around the difficulty that the “masses” were unattracted to it too - and could not be made to rise up against the oppressor class - by theorising, basically, that Marxist revolution is an activity solely for a trained and committed intellectual elite, and the masses could be dragged behind later rather than used as a battering ram.

The applicability of his ideas to post-war Western society was discovered, I think, in the early 1950s when his Prison Notebooks were translated into English.  The height of his fame in Britain was realised in the 1990s when “Gramscism” succeeded the ideas of the Algerian-Jewish wife-murderer Louis Althusser - himself heavily influenced by AG - as the dominant influence in Culture Theory and literary critique.

This is rather outside of my field, but I believe that AG’s influence has faded considerably - which is perhaps only an indication that the revolution is considered to have been won, and the emphasis has now switched to entrenchment.

Nonetheless, AG remains highly relevant to the “hard politics” that emerged on the left in those last decades of the 20th Century, and which are still playing out in some fields.

I cannot recommend worthy Marxist tomes about the little man.  Too awful.  You will find some admiration of him in Alain de Benoist’s writings, and the European New Right toys with idea of turning the weapons he developed against the hegemony of leftist thought.

You can read his translated writings here, and the organisation which has done most to spread his ideas is here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50 | #

Henry Makow!  Well, it’s not enough to turn me into a bender.  Probably it’s just that Henry and I were born less than two years apart, he the senior.

Posted by ' The Chocolate Colored Coon ' on Wed, 30 May 2007 11:47 | #

Remember the time Peter Tatchell tried to make a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe?
Well, at least Tatchell’s got balls (actually, that’s probably the wrong word to use : ) ).

Posted by Bodkin on Wed, 30 May 2007 11:50 | #

Thanks for those.  I’ll read them later - I really should get on with some work.

There’s a thread on CIF at the moment with Peter Tatchell himself jumping in occasionally.  Some interesting posts from DevilsAvocado and a Krapotkin who claims to live in Russia.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2007/05/chained_reactions.html

The thought occurred to me that the new elite cultural elite have decided that cultural relativism is now wrong, as we in the West have now established what is universally good and right - gay rights etc.  Cultural relativism has served its purpose in undermining what was previously considered good and right.  Now it has been discarded and we can criticize the nasty backward Russians backed by the power of our universal moral righteousness.

Any thoughts on that?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 May 2007 13:22 | #

Bodkin,

I think that’s pretty astute.  Self-evidently, the “correct” never thought that there was no heirachy of values, except as a critical stratagem to further their own.  After all, if there are no such values, why can’t people be left to live out their particular illusions of reality?  Why must they be coerced to agree with the illusions of feminists, homosexuals and Jews, given that all illusions are illusory?  A strange kind of equality.

All these liars have to offer, really, is the noisy, strategic difficulty with Nature that extends all the way back to John Locke: “There is nothing solid, nothing of Nature in Man or, at least, no provable facts”.  It’s as if Darwin never existed and the genome was non-apprehendible if not actually non-real, or if it was ever real it had no influence on the life of Man, being cut off in some mysterious way and, crucially, before it had time to programme any Marxistically inconvenient phenotypic consequences.  And if it did, we can’t describe them in terms of reality.

There are moments when one dispairs of the fantastic, linguistic and actual stupidity of the left.  These, after all, are my kind ... my brothers.  What depths of cool, treacherous suggestibility must lie in the dark of our thoughts, arranged by Nature that we can be suckered the more royally?

That said, at least I have never met a Guardianista that I can’t undo. It would be nice to think that the reason I am currently banned from CiF has something to do with that.  But I suspect it is just a product of their fantastic suggestibility and the confidence of numbers.

Pity.  I would have liked to punch Tatchell in the brains.

Posted by Bodkin on Thu, 31 May 2007 10:04 | #

“That said, at least I have never met a Guardianista that I can’t undo.”

With all due respect, I am quite amazed at this statement. 

You may be able to get to, what Steve Palesi calls the ‘day dreaming dupes’, which is quite possibly the majority, but you won’t get to the hardcore.

I am sure I’ve read reviews of Paul Gottfried’s trilogy written by you.  You must know that at the hard core level you are dealing with a secular religion that does not respond to reason and evidence.

I am sure there are many in the hardcore who know that the bullshit they spout doesn’t match reality.  But, even there you are dealing with people who I suspect believe that the choice is either their bullshit religion or ‘The Holocaust’.

This doesn’t mean arguing with Guardianistas, hard core or otherwise is futile.

If I were an internet activist promoting ‘the cause’ (rather than someone who just occasionally spouts his opinion off on forums)    I would relish the opportunity of arguing with Guardianistas for 2 reasons:

1, its gets your message across to innocent bystanders/day dreaming dupes;

and

2, the irrationality, mobbing tactics and sheer nastiness of the hard core Guardianistas will appall the day dreaming dupes/innocent bystanders and will sow the seeds of doubt or may even push some off them struggling with cognitive dissonance over the edge.

It certainly worked for me.

The hardcore on an internet forum such as the Guardian’s, are such paranoid nutters that anyone posting anything that could remotely be associated with the BNP are immediately spotted and followed around with annoying, snidey and probing posts, no doubt in an attempt to get them to reveal their ‘true’ identity.  The funny thing is, I vaguely remember a survey showing that the vast majority of the British people agree with nearly everything the BNP states in their manifesto.  The BNP are a fair reflection of what the man in the street thinks.  So, anyone stating man in the street opinions will be jumped on by the nutters as a possible BNP infiltrator.  They are very good at alienating people all on their own.

Again, it certainly worked for me.

Anyway, I’m surprised you are banned.  I manage to post on The Guardian site for 6 years and never received a ban.  Other regulars seemed to get banned every couple of weeks.  Outside of the crazy world of hard core Guardianistas, I must be quite innoffensive!